Are There Any Good Chemicals?

WATCH OUT FOR THIS GENDER-BENDING PLASTIC CHEMICAL THAT ISN’T BPA

The replacement chemicals sitting in for DEHP-free products may be just as dangerous as DEHP itself

by JULIE FIDLER | INFOWARS.COM | JULY 29, 2015

Consumer plastics manufacturers began removing the chemical DEHP from their products about a decade ago, replacing the “probable human carcinogen” with DINP and DIDP, which were believed to be safer. New research shows, however, that the replacement chemicals sitting in for DEHP-free products may be just as dangerous as DEHP itself.

DEHP, or di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, is used in many products made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, including imitation leather, rainwear, footwear, upholstery, flooring, tablecloths, shower curtains, food packaging materials, and children’s toys. The chemical is also used in many medical devices such as tubing for blood transfusions, nasogastric feeding tubes, respiratory tubing, and enteral nutrition feeding bags.

According to the FDA, DEHP has been shown to negatively affect the development of the testicles and the production of normal sperm in young animals, in addition to other health problems. As Mercola explains, DEHP is part of a group of “gender-bending” chemicals that cause males of all species to adopt more female traits.

This poison has also been linked to liver, kidney, and lung problems in animals. While many Americans are unaware that this hazard even exists in their homes, the European Union (EU) takes DEHP so seriously it has banned it from children’s toys.

Why the Alternative Chemicals Aren’t Any Better

Manufacturers that have removed DEHP from their products have replaced the plasticizer with DINP and DIDP, both of which are also phthalates. Last year, a California state advisory council advised the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to add DINP to a list of more than 900 potentially dangerous chemicals that consumers should know exist in many of the products they use every day. [4]

A recent study published in the journal Hypertensionfound a link between high blood pressure and DIDP and DINP, and the same researchers wrote in theJournal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism that they’d found an association between the chemicals and insulin resistance, which can lead to diabetes.

“These data raise substantial concerns about similar health effects due to chemicals used to replace DEHP under the presumption that they don’t have the same, or different, adverse health effects,” says study author Leonardo Trasande, a professor at New York University. “Clearly there’s a need for further research.”

In 2012, BPA, another endocrine-disrupting phthalate plasticizer, was banned by the FDA from baby bottles and sippy cups, but it remains in hundreds of other products including water bottles, dental sealants, and cans. The removal of BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups was seen as a huge advancement in public health, but like DEHP, BPA’s replacement chemicals have a nearly identical chemical structure to the original.

Study author and New York University professor Leonardo Trasande told Time that removing “untested chemicals” from the supply is challenging partly because the federal regulatory structure considers chemicals “innocent until proven guilty.” “What we need here is a reform that tests chemicals proactively before they’re used on the open market,” he said.

Until that day (hopefully) comes, all consumers can do to protect themselves is to avoid heating plastics in the microwave and toss scratched plastic containers to protect themselves from phthalate contamination. And of course, avoiding plastics altogether is great all-around.

For the common BPA, there are ways of naturally reversing the effects.

Political Correctness

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: USING THE WORD “AMERICAN” IS OFFENSIVE

'Obese', 'normal', 'mothering', 'fathering', 'senior citizens', 'homosexual', 'illegal alien' also discouraged

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | JULY 30, 2015

Using the words “American,” “obese,” “normal,” “mothering,” “fathering,” “homosexual,” “illegal alien,” and “senior citizens,” is offensive and should be discouraged, according to a “Bias-Free Language Guide” posted on the University of New Hampshire website.

The guide, first uncovered by Campus Reform, “is meant to invite inclusive excellence in [the] campus community.”

The word “American” is “problematic” according to the guide because it “assumes the U.S. is the only country inside [the continents of North and South America].”

Calling people “illegal aliens” is also politically incorrect, with the preferred term for undocumented immigrants being “person seeking asylum,” or “refugee,” while the word “foreigner” is discouraged and replaced with “international people.”

More banned words and phrases include;

– “Caucasian (replaced with “European-American individuals”);

– “Mothering” and “fathering” (replaced with “parenting” and “nurturing” so as to “avoid gendering a non-gendered activity”);

– “Homosexual” (replaced with “gay,” “lesbian,” “same gender loving”);

– “Obese” or “overweight” (replaced with “people of size”);

– Saying a person is “poor” (replaced with “person who lacks advantages that others have”);

– Saying the word “healthy” because it’s offensive to disabled people, who can’t be called disabled, they must be called a “person who is wheelchair mobile”).

“Terms also considered problematic include: “elders,” “senior citizen,” “overweight” (which the guide says is “arbitrary”), “speech impediment,” “dumb,” “sexual preference,” “manpower,” “freshmen,” “mailman,” and “chairman,” in addition to many others,” writes Peter Hasson.

The guide also rails against “ciscentrism,” which “includes the lack of gender-neutral restrooms, locker rooms, and residences” at the university.

To his credit, the president of the University of New Hampshire Mark Huddleston responded to the story by asserting that the guide was not official campus policy.

“I am troubled by many things in the language guide, especially the suggestion that the use of the term ‘American’ is misplaced or offensive,” he said. “The only UNH policy on speech is that it is free and unfettered on our campuses. It is ironic that what was probably a well-meaning effort to be ‘sensitive’ proves offensive to many people, myself included.”

Meanwhile, Republican State Senator Jeb Bradley has vowed to take the guide into consideration next time lawmakers decide how much money to give to the university.

“Implying the word ‘American’ is not appropriate to use on campus is un-American to say the least,” he said. “Will UNH next propose to change our Live Free or Die motto to Live Free but Upset No-One?”

The University of New Hampshire is by no means the only educational institution that is attempting to encourage censorious codes of political correctness on campus that completely contradict the notion of universities being bastions of free speech.

Earlier this month we reported on how the University of Wisconsin (Stevens Point) was teaching faculty members that all manner of harmless behaviors and phrases were examples of “racial microaggressions.”

The examples included; Asking someone where they are from or where they were born, telling someone they speak good English, telling someone that you have several black friends, saying that you’re not a racist, and complimenting an Asian person by telling them they are very articulate.

I Think Our Military Strategy Has Been Broken For A While

IF SPENDING IS OUR MILITARY STRATEGY, OUR STRATEGY IS BANKRUPT

The U.S. spends more on defense than the next ten big spenders combined

by MARK MATESKI | MISES.ORG | JULY 28, 2015

Even today, few deny the long arm of US military might.
After all, the US military exhausted the Soviet Union, crushed Saddam Hussein, and drove Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda into hiding.

To what should we attribute these triumphs? Some would say US planning and foresight. Others would mention the hard work and dedication of US soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Still others would point to the application of superior technology. All would be correct to some degree, but each of these explanations disregards the fact that for more than a lifetime, the United States has wildly outspent its military competitors.

For many years, the United States spent more on defense than the next ten big spenders combined. It turns out that’s no longer true, according to Jane’s and PPGF. But whether the current count is seven or nine, we must acknowledge that US dominance was purchased at a high cost.

The High Cost of Big Debts

The first cost is the accumulation of debt. While many will admit to the numbers, few will publicly concede the long-term threat they pose to national and international security. Among the few, Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has for several years consistently declared that “The single biggest threat to national security is the national debt.” While US defense spending is currently declining, these charts illustrate that the US share of global defense spending has remained strong (1) regardless of the irregular ups and downs of external events and (2) largely independent of the debt burden.

The second cost is the accumulation of commitments and expectations. Despite the drawdown of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, senior US policy makers remain staunchly determined to maintain a high level of global engagement. If you doubt it, read the recently published 2015 U.S. National Military Strategy. Among other things, it underscores the US commitment to countering agents of instability, whether “violent extremist organizations (VEOs)” or nation states, the standout examples being Russia and China. Not surprisingly, the strategy has prompted headlines such as “China Angered by New U.S. Military Strategy Report,” “Pentagon Concludes America Not Safe Unless It Conquers the World,” and “Pentagon’s New Military Strategy Calls for Preserving US Dominion of the World.”

Yes, these criticisms arrive from predictable quarters, but in this case the perception is reality, and the reality is that US policy makers continue to pursue a strategy laden with unavoidably expensive commitments — commitments guaranteed to antagonize Russia and China. (All of which stimulates a risky reinforcing feedback loop.) As Patrick Tucker at Defense One quipped, “The United States is preparing for never-ending war abroad.” Despite this, don’t expect to find any references in the published strategy to “debt,” an oversight that ignores Mullen’s warning and validates David Stockman’s statement that “We’re blind to the debt bubble.”

Our Military “Strategy” Amounts to Little More than Big Spending Plans

The third cost — one we rarely discuss — is the dangerous yet unspoken conceit held by a generation of senior US officers and policy makers: the belief that they are innately superior strategists. Just ask the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden! But what if in reality spending was the primary driver and arbiter of these outcomes?

It is suggestive that in cases where the sheer weight of US firepower proved unable to secure a decisive victory (Korea and Vietnam are canonical examples), the United States’s cash-poor but tactically savvy opponents still managed to frustrate and confound front-line US forces. As H. John Poole, a retired Marine colonel, combat veteran, and prolific author, has remarked:

For America’s wartime units, firepower has been and still is the name of the game. This game has some less-than-ideal ramifications. Since WWI, far too many units have not matched up well — tactically — with their Eastern counterparts. As unlikely as this may seem to today’s active-duty community, it is nevertheless well documented. (Global Warrior, 2011, p. xxii)

On this count, “cyberwar” is a prime illustration of another domain in which spending doesn’t guarantee proportional dominance. The recent OPM hack is a painful example, and if practitioners like Richard Stiennon (There Will Be Cyberwar) are correct, more is coming.

As a rule, US policy makers minimize these counterexamples. Commentators like John Poole who point out weaknesses and alternatives tend to be written off by Washington apparatchiks as well-meaning but misguided zealots. And to be fair, from the mainstream perspective Washington’s argument in support of the status quo is actually quite strong — as long as the money continues to flow. For those who discern the uncomfortable truth that the US debt addiction is unsustainable, the picture looks very different. Alternatives to spending-as-strategy exist, but they require policy makers and strategists to rethink their dearly held assumptions of economic and strategic superiority. It requires a unique mind and stout internal mettle to do this, and so far this decade, we have seen little evidence in Washington of this type of insight and character. Let’s hope that the anticipation of crises yet-to-be pushes hitherto overlooked reformers to the front of the national security debate.

I’ll close by restating the problem via analogy: US global superiority in military affairs is actually the superiority of a rich kid who thinks he’s really smart but in reality is merely just rich. When the seemingly endless flow of money slows (as it inevitably will), the mask of cleverness will fall. Everyone who resented the kid will be waiting at the edge of the playground for this day of reckoning, and because no one else will have been so dependent on spending-as-strategy, the erstwhile rich kid will find it tough going.

It's Starting to get Interesting

NOW IS THE TIME – FEAR RISES AS FINANCIAL MARKETS ALL OVER THE PLANET START TO CRASH

Can you feel the panic in the air?

by MICHAEL SNYDER | ECONOMIC COLLAPSE | JULY 28, 2015

CNN Money’s Fear & Greed Index measures the amount of fear in the financial world on a scale from 0 to 100. The closer it is to zero, the higher the level of fear. Last Monday, the index was sitting at a reading of 36. As I write this article, it has fallen to 7. The financial turmoil which began last week is threatening to turn into an avalanche. On Sunday night, we witnessed the second largest one day stock market collapse in China ever, and this pushed stocks all over the planet into the red. Meanwhile, the twin blades of an emerging market currency crisis and a commodity price crash are chewing up economies that are dependent on the export of natural resources all over the globe. For a long time, I have been warning about what would happen in the second half of 2015, and now it is here. The following is a summary of the financial carnage that we have seen over the past 24 hours…

-On Sunday night, the Shanghai Composite Index plunged 8.5 percent. It was the largest one day stock market crash in China since 2007, and it was the second largest in history. The Chinese government is promising to directly intervene in order to prevent Chinese stocks from going down even more.

-Over 1,500 stocks in China fell by their 10 percent daily maximum. This list includes giants such as China Unicom, Bank of Communications and PetroChina.

-Ever since peaking in June, the Shanghai Composite Index has dropped by a total of 28 percent.

-Even Chinese stocks that are listed on U.S. stock exchanges are being absolutely hammered. The following comes from USA Today…

The 144 China-based stocks with primary listings on major U.S. exchanges have erased nearly $40 billion in paper wealthsince the Shanghai Composite index peaked on June 12. It’s an enormous destruction of wealth that in effects wipes out the market value of a company the size of cruise ship operator Carnival.

-The Chinese stock market crash pushed European stocks significantly lower on Monday…

The pan-European FTSEurofirst 300 provisionally closed 2.1 percent lower, while the Germany’sDAX and France’s CACclosed respectively 2.4 percent and 2.5 percent lower.

The U.K.’s benchmark FTSE outperformed its euro zone peers, but still closed unofficially down 1.0 percent.

-Overall, European stocks have been falling steadily since the beginning of last week. To get an idea of how much damage has been done already, just check outthis chart.

-As I mentioned above, an emerging market currency crisis is causing havoc for economies all over the planet. The following comes from an article that was published by the Telegraph…


The currencies of Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey have all crashed to multi-year lows as investors flee emerging markets and commodity prices crumble.

The drastic moves came as fears of imminent monetary tightening by the US Federal Reserve combined with shockingly weak figures from China, which stoked fears that the country may be sliding into a deeper downturn and sent tremors through East Asia, Latin America and Africa.

-The government of Puerto Rico has announced that it does not have enough cash to make a scheduled debt payment of 169 million dollars on August 1st. The Obama administration says that there are no plans in the works to bail out Puerto Rico.

-On Monday, the Dow was down another 127 points. It was the fifth day in a row that the Dow and the S&P 500 have both declined.

-Overall, the Dow is now down more than 650 points since July 20th.

-480 stocks on the New York Stock Exchange have hit new 52-week lows. Many analysts consider this to be a very, very ominous sign.

-I have repeatedly written about the danger of the commodity collapse that we are currently witnessing, and the Bloomberg Commodity Index fell another 1.22 percent on Monday to a fresh low of 92.1493.

-On Monday, the price of U.S. oil hit a 52-week low of $46.92.

-So far, the price of U.S. oil has fallen about 20 percent this month.

-Back in June 2014, the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude was above 107 dollars. Since then, the price of U.S. oil has fallen an astounding 56 percent.

-Thanks in large part to the collapse in energy prices, junk bonds are cratering. This is something that happened just before the financial crisis of 2008, and now it is happening again. The following comes fromWolf Street…

Among the bonds: Cliffs Natural Resources down 27.6%, SandBridge down 30%, Murray Energy down 21.2%, and Linn Energy down 22.3%, according to Bloomberg.

For example, Linn Energy 6.25% notes due in 2019 were trading at 78 cents on the dollar at the beginning of July and at 58 on Friday, according to LCD. There was bloodshed beyond energy, such as AK Steel’s 7.625% notes due in 2021. They were trading at 62 cents on the dollar, down 22% from the beginning of July.

“The performance is a disappointment to investors who purchased about $40 billion of junk-rated bonds from energy companies this year, thinking that the worst of the slump was over,” Bloomberg noted.

This is exactly what we would expect to see during the early stages of a financial crisis.

Of course global financial markets may bounce back somewhat tomorrow. If you will remember, some of the largest one day gains in stock market history happened right in the middle of the stock market collapse of 2008. So don’t get fooled by what happens on any one particular day.

With so much fear in the air, literally anything could happen in the weeks and months ahead of us. One month ago, I issued a red alert for the last six months of this year. I warned that a major financial crisis was imminent and that people needed to start protecting themselves immediately.

As I write this article on Monday evening, financial markets are already opening up over in Asia. Japanese stocks are already down 251 points even though the market has only been open for about an hour over there.

We have entered a time when what is happening to global stock markets will once again be headline news. We are right on the precipice of another great financial crisis, only this one is going to ultimately end up being much worse than the last one.

Now is the time.

Please get prepared while you still can.

The Truth About the 'Civil War'

Historical Truth

By Walter E. Williams
July 21, 2015

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let’s look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, canconstitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

What about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: “I view the matter (of slaves’ emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas from Mexico.

Why didn’t Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

What a Wonderful Idea!

WESLEY CLARK CALLS FOR INTERNING “DISLOYAL” AMERICANS

Advocates life sentence for people who have not committed a crime

by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | JULY 19, 2015

Retired US Army General and the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for NATO Wesley Clark advocates rounding up “radicalized” and “disloyal” Americans and putting them in internment camps for the “duration” of the war on terror.

“In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war,” Clark told MSNBC.

The difference is that World War II was a war declared under Article I, Section 8, Clause II of the Constitution whereas the war on terror is undeclared and thus illegal.

Clark is in essence advocating a life sentence for people who have not committed a crime but merely engaged in speech — often reprehensible, yet constitutionally protected — the government considers radical and in opposition to its foreign policy.

The Bush administration declared the war on terror would last a generation or more. Senior officials with the Obama administration meanwhile have said — when formulating “disposition matrix” to determine how terrorism suspects will be disposed of — they had reached a “broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade” or more.

The Edward Snowden “leaks reveal that the war on terror at home continues to grind on, capturing in its dragnet millions of Americans and foreigners, many of them innocent of any crime. The war on terror has become institutionalized, and the domestic costs of this war continue to mount: privacy is being eroded; communications are being monitored; and dissent is being cracked down on. The primary targets of the domestic war on terror continue to be Muslims and Arabs, though it is now clear that the sweep of the domestic war has ensnared millions of other Americans. And there is no end in sight to this domestic juggernaut,” writes Alex Kane.

Clark’s remarks reveal the mindset of the upper echelon of government. Those who disagree with the government are now to be rounded up and shut up indefinitely in political internment camps.

Mass internment of official enemies on par with Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union is now “on the table” and openly discussed as suspicious attacks and FBI orchestrated and grandstanded terror plots continue to grab headlines and build a reactionary consensus as the designed result of an incessant, decades-long propaganda campaign.

And they say we're a "Free Country"

Newborn Seized Because Mom Questioned Necessity of Hep B Vaccine

December 21, 2012 | By The Sleuth Journal |

This is what you get for questioning the “authority” and for having the audacity to have your own voice in medical decisions for your children: a social worker takes custody of an hours old newborn, while still in the hospital, and prevents her mother from seeing her other than to nurse her every 3 hours. All because she asked too many questions.
Yeah. It happened. At Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania. Jodi Ferris had planned a homebirth, but when things progressed too quickly for even the midwife to arrive, her husband called an ambulance, and their daughter was born on the way to the hospital.Story link.

When they arrived at the hospital, there was a lot of activity. Jodi asked a lot of questions about the care and condition of her daughter. Part of that was because she received conflicting answers.

And then? Angela Lopez-Heagy arrived. The government social worker. She announced that she was there to conduct an investigation, the allegations of which she refused to divulge.

Jodi told the social worker that she wasn’t comfortable answering questions unless she knew what the allegations were. (Go girl.) Jodi’s husband was with their other children back at home, arranging care for them so he could join her at the hospital.

The social worker threatened Jodi that if she didn’t answer the questions, she would call the police and take custody of the newborn, Annie. Then, she grilled Jodi about why she didn’t consent to the Hepatitis B vaccination for Annie. This is about a vaccination consent?!! There were other questions, too… They were more generalized.

Periodically, the social worker left the room during this interrogation. And when she did? A hospital staff member blocked the door to prevent Jodi from leaving her room. She was, for all purposes, held prisoner in her hospital room.

And then? The social worker came back with a “safety plan.” Jodi asked to see it. It wasn’t written on paper yet. It was a carte blanche verbal consent to “whatever the hospital wants.” And if she didn’t? Angela Lopez-Heagy would take custody of Annie.

Jodi asked to wait for her husband. The social worker said no. A police officer instructed Jodi to hand Annie to a nurse. Jodi begged the social worker to allow her to sign the “safety plan.” She would do whatever it took to keep custody, but the social worker said, “That window has closed.” They took the baby. The officer escorted Jodi out of the hospital and off the hospital’s property.

No. I’m not kidding!

Jodi spent the night in the parking lot across the street, with her husband, in their car. They were allowed, every 3 hours, to return in order to breastfeed Annie (but they weren’t allowed to linger).

The next morning, a judge returned custody to Jodi and her husband. And two weeks later, he dismissed the case against them that the social worker had filed.

Now? The Ferris’ are suing the social worker and the medical staff who seized Annie. They filed in March. In July, the defendants motioned to have the suit dismissed. Last week, the judge denied the motion, and the suit will proceed. Good luck to them. As far as I’m concerned, they’re fighting for my rights, too.

Thank You Mr. Pompeo

House passes bill blocking states from requiring GMO labels on food

By Lydia Wheeler and Cristina Marcos

The House on Thursday passed hotly contested legislation that would keep states from issuing mandatory labeling laws for foods that contain genetically modified organisms, often called GMOs.

The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, which passed 275-150, would instead create a federal standard for the voluntary labeling of foods with GMO ingredients.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), who authored the bill, called mandatory labeling laws — which have already passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine — unnecessarily costly given that GMOs have been deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“Precisely zero pieces of credible evidence have been presented that foods produced with biotechnology pose any risk to our health and safety,” Pompeo said. “We should not raise prices on consumers based on the wishes of a handful of activists.”

Opponents have pushed back against the legislation, saying it will keep consumers from knowing what’s in their food and stop FDA from crafting a national GMO-labeling solution.

Consumer groups, backed by Democrats including Reps. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), are instead calling the bill the Denying Americans the Right to Know Act.

“American families deserve to know what they are eating and feeding to their children,” DeLauro told reporters Wednesday. “The FDA already requires clear labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives and food processes. GMOs should be no different.”

Proponents of the legislation, however, claim a patchwork of labeling laws at the state level would drive up food costs.

Citing a study from a Cornell University professor, the Grocery Manufacturers Association said state-level GMO labeling mandates would increase grocery prices for a family of four by as much as $500 per year and cost food and beverage manufacturers millions of dollars to change food labels and supply chain systems.

But Democrats maintain that labeling would ensure transparency.

“What’s the problem with letting consumers know what they are buying?” asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

Democrats in the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, meanwhile, threw their support behind the legislation just before the bill went to the floor for a vote Thursday.

“A patchwork of confusing state specific laws related to GMO labeling risks further confusion in the marketplace and rising food costs,” the Blue Dog Coalition said in a statement. “However, we also understand that consumers have the right to know if food is GMO-free and this bill provides a uniform standard for those products through a USDA administered program.”

The House rejected two Democratic amendments to enhance GMO-labeling requirements. One offered by DeLauro, which failed 163-262, would have banned the use of the term “natural” on food that contains a genetically engineered plant. Another proposal from DeFazio that would have forced any U.S. company that labels a product as containing GMOs in a foreign country to label the equivalent product the same way in the U.S. went down by a vote of 123-303.

A third amendment offered by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) that would have given Native American tribes the authority to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of GMO crops on tribal lands failed 196-227.

Wonder What They'll Find

Kansas and Missouri call for investigation of Planned Parenthood amid questions about aborted fetuses

At least eight states, congressional leaders and numerous Republican presidential hopefuls have now called for investigations into whether Planned Parenthood clinics have violated laws that prohibit the sale of aborted fetal tissue and organs. The action came after the release of two undercover videos. | Mike Hutmacher The Wichita Eagle

BY JUDY L. THOMAS

Gov. Sam Brownback on Tuesday called for an investigation into whether any Kansas facility is selling remains of aborted fetuses.

Some Missouri officials also called for investigations.

In a news release, Brownback called on the Kansas Board of Healing Arts to determine whether facilities that perform abortions were “engaged in the inhumane practice of selling tissue and organs from unborn children who are aborted.”

The action came after the release of two undercover videos that depicted conversations with Planned Parenthood employees. The videos — one made public last week and another on Tuesday — have raised questions about whether Planned Parenthood’s practices have violated state law regarding the extraction and disposal of fetal organs and tissue.

“Kansas remains committed to a culture that respects the dignity of life at all stages,” Brownback said. “Recent videos show Planned Parenthood employees treating the unborn as commodities as they discuss the sale of tissue and organs. This does not reflect the culture of life most Kansans want.”

He said the Kansas Board of Healing Arts should address the issue in its inspections of Kansas clinics.

Brownback joined a growing list of state officials and politicians calling for investigations since the videos were made public by the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group.

The first video, released last week, depicts a Planned Parenthood executive discussing fetal tissue donation over a salad and a glass of wine with someone posing as a representative from a biotech company. The second shows another Planned Parenthood employee discussing prices for specimens.

The Center for Medical Progress says the videos prove that Planned Parenthood is illegally selling the body parts of aborted fetuses. But Planned Parenthood Federation of America says the videos are fraudulent and heavily edited, and it denies that the organization sells fetal tissues and organs. But its president, Cecile Richards, apologized for what she called a lack of compassion by the doctor who was speaking in the video released last week.

At least eight states, congressional leaders and numerous Republican presidential hopefuls have now called for investigations into whether Planned Parenthood clinics have violated laws that prohibit the sale of aborted fetal tissue and organs.

On Tuesday, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster announced that his office also had opened an investigation.

“The videos raised questions about Planned Parenthood’s practices regarding the extraction and disposal of fetal organs and whether the clinics offer patients adequate, accurate information about these procedures,” Koster said.

“Regardless of whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, the questions raised by these videos require careful review,” he said.

Laura McQuade, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said Tuesday that neither affiliate in Overland Park nor St. Louis has a tissue donation program. She added, however, that “we understand the value and importance, and we support the affiliates that do provide tissue.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article28056052.html#storylink=cpy

No Need to Label Anything

Food Disaster: Republicans Stomp on GMO Labeling

If passed, a new bill will only escalate the assault on our health, and the health of Planet Earth.

By Katherine Paul / AlterNet
July 14, 2015

With no debate and only a voice vote, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture today (July 14, 2015) passed out of committee H.R. 1599, a bill to preempt states’ rights to label GMOs. Within hours, it was announced that the bill will go straight to the House floor, as early as next week, with no vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

If we don’t stop it in the House next week, the fight to stop this this “Mother of All Monsanto Protection Acts” will take place next in the U.S. Senate, before summer’s end.

In his opening statement this morning, Committee Chairman Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) (who shortly after today’s vote said he will co-sponsor H.R. 1599) couldn’t have sounded more like a Monsanto employee if he’d tried. Conaway nailed the biotech industry’s favorite talking points and mistruths, beginning with this one:

In testimony before this Committee, multiple representatives of the food and agricultural sectors commented on the cost burden that would be placed on our food system if we were to allow the 50 States, more than 3000 counties and nearly 20,000 towns and cities in the United States to establish their own laws regulating interstate commerce.

Time and again, independent experts have stated that the cost of labeling GMO foods and ingredients, to manufacturers, retailers and consumers, would be negligible here in the U.S., just as it has been in the more than 60 countries that already require labeling. GMO labels are costless, as pointed out in thisWashington Post article. Companies regularly update their food packaging as they come up with new designs or marketing strategies.

And then there was the ultimate lie about GMOs, that they have been “proven safe:”

We all recognize that the overwhelming consensus within the science community is that these biotech products are safe. We likewise understand that each and every biotech product in the marketplace today has been reviewed thorough a voluntary food safety consultation process at the Food and Drug Administration.

Wrong. Ever since GMOs were introduced into the food system in the 1990s, without adequate, independent, pre-market safety testing, there have been scientists and studies and mounds of anecdotal evidence suggesting they are unsafe. The American Medical Association believes GMO foods should be subjected to pre-market safety testing. And there is surely no consensus, as hundreds of scientists worldwide have confirmed, on the safety of GMOs that have already been approved. That is a flat-out lie.

Conaway spoke instead about the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s “voluntary food safety consultation process” as if that were a valid means of proving safety.

Glaringly absent from Conaway’s statement was any mention of the toxic chemicals used to grow GMO crops, and allowed to remain as residue on GMO foods. Not one word was spoken about the World Health Organization’s recent determination that glyphosate, the chemical used on more than 80 percent of GMO crops, is a probably human carcinogen.

None of these statements, coming from a lawmaker with ties to Big Ag, were particularly surprising. But what should concern any consumer ,voter, citizen or just plain common-sense thinking human being, is that Conaway’s statement clearly focused on how to promote the profits of corporations, rather than on how to protect people from foods that have not been proven safe, and the arsenal of toxic chemicals used to grow them. It was all about “marketing,” and how we need a government program for food producers who want to voluntarily label their products as GMO-free, or containing GMOs.

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has long been in the business of assisting producers to develop programs and tools to take advantage of market opportunities. The Biotechnology, Horticulture and Research Subcommittee recently examined the programs of the Agricultural Marketing Service. The Subcommittee concluded that the agency has the resources and expertise to develop and administer a robust marketing program for those wishing to notify consumers of the presence or absence of genetically engineered ingredients in their food products. What the agency doesn’t have is the law to make it work uniformly across the country like we did 25 years ago when we passed the Organic Foods Production Act.

Not one word on the devastation to the environment. Not one word on how chemical-intensive, fossil-fuel-intensive industrial agriculture is one of the largest contributors, if not the largest contributor, to global warming—and how if we don’t fix this system, we can’t be serious about averting a climate disaster.

As Pope Francis said recently, on the topic of genetic engineering and its use of toxic pesticides:

It creates a vicious circle in which the intervention of the human being to solve a problem often worsens the situation further. For example, many birds and insects die out as a result of toxic pesticides created by technology, they are useful to agriculture itself, and their disappearance will be compensated with another technological intervention that probably will bring new harmful effects… looking at the world we see that this level of human intervention, often in the service of finance and consumerism, actually causes the earth we live in to become less rich and beautiful, more and more limited and gray, while at the same time the development of technology and consumerism continues to advance without limits.

H.R. 1599 is an assault on consumer rights, an assault on democracy and states’ rights. And if passed, it will only escalate the assault on our health, and the health of Planet Earth.

I bet Monsanto says it has no link to cancer

Monsanto says panel to review WHO finding on cancer link to herbicide

By Carey GillamJuly 14, 2015 4:34 PM

(Reuters) - Monsanto Co, whose Roundup product is one of the world's most widely used herbicides, said on Tuesday it has arranged for an outside scientific review of a World Health Organization finding that the weed killer's key ingredient probably causes cancer.

The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said in March that it had concluded that the ingredient, called glyphosate, was probably carcinogenic after reviewing a range of scientific literature. [ID:nL2N0WM2I4]

Monsanto reacted to the finding by demanding a retraction, labeling the findings by a team of international cancer scientists as "junk science." [ID:nL2N0WP0UM]

On Tuesday, Monsanto said it had hired Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy to convene a panel of internationally recognized scientific experts to review IARC's work. The experts include medical doctors, cancer experts, and individuals with doctoral degrees who are specialists in public health, the Creve Coeur, Missouri-based company said.

Monsanto President Brett Begemann said his company is confident in the safety of its herbicide products, and the review is being done primarily to reassure consumers and others.

"It has created a lot of confusion," Begemann said of the IARC cancer link finding. "This panel is going to review the data thoroughly, and they are going to make their findings available to everyone for review."

Monsanto said the process and the findings will be independent and will be transparent. But the company said it would be involved in providing information and data for the review.

Farmers have been using glyphosate in increasing quantities since Monsanto in the mid-1990s introduced crops genetically engineered to withstand being sprayed with Roundup.

Genetically modified corn, soybeans and other crops branded as "Roundup Ready" are popular because of the ease with which farmers have been able to kill weeds. But weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, prompting farmers to use more herbicide.

Agricultural use of glyphosate in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, was more than 283 million pounds (128 million kg), up from 110 million pounds (50 million kg), in 2002, according to U.S. Geological Survey estimates.

The United States and other international regulatory bodies have said glyphosate is safe when used as directed. But the WHO cancer research unit's report found that several studies have raised concerns about glyphosate and its health impacts.

Socialism Destroyed Puerto Rico

How Socialism Destroyed Puerto Rico, and How Capitalism Can Save It

By Peter Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital

July 16, 2015

While Greece is now dominating the debt default stage, the real tragedy is playing out much closer to home, with the downward spiral of Puerto Rico. As in Greece, the Puerto Rican economy has been destroyed by its participation in an unrealistic monetary system that it does not control and the failure of domestic politicians to confront their own insolvency. But the damage done to the Puerto Rican economy by the United States has been far more debilitating than whatever damage the European Union has inflicted on Greece. In fact, the lessons we should be learning in Puerto Rico, most notably how socialistic labor and tax policies can devastate an economy, should serve as a wake up call to those advocating prescribing the same for the mainland.

The U.S. has bombed the territory of Puerto Rico with five supposedly well-meaning, but economically devastating policies. It has:

1. Exempted the Island’s government debt from all U.S. taxes in the Jones-Shaforth Act.

2. Eliminated U.S. tax breaks for private sector investment with the expiration of section 936 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

3. Required the nation to abide by a restrictive trade arrangement.

4. Made the Island subject to the U.S. minimum wage.

5. Enabled Puerto Rico to offer generous welfare benefits relative to income.

While passage of such politically popular laws seems benign on the surface (and have allowed politicians to claim that their efforts have helped the poorest Puerto Ricans), in reality they have deepened the poverty of the very people the laws were supposedly designed to help. The lessons here are so obvious that only the most ardent supporters of government economic control can fail to comprehend them.

Tax-Free Debt

By exempting U.S. citizens from taxes on interest paid on Puerto Rican sovereign debt, Washington sought to help the Puerto Rican economy by making it easier and cheaper for the Island’s government to borrow from the mainland. As a result, Puerto Rican government bonds became a staple holding of many U.S. municipal bond funds. As with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds a decade ago, many investors believed that these Puerto Rican bonds had an implied U.S. government guarantee. This meant that the Puerto Rican government could borrow for far less than it could have without such a belief. However, this subsidy did not grow the Puerto Rican economy, but simply the size of the government, which had the perverse effect of stifling private sector growth.

In contrast to the tax-free income earned by Americans who buy Puerto Rican government bonds, those with the bad sense to lend to Puerto Rican businesses were taxed on the interest payments that they received. Businesses could have used the funds for actual capital investment (that could have increased the Island’s productivity), but instead the money flowed to the Government which used it to buy votes with generous public sector benefits that did nothing to grow the Island’s economy or put it in a better position to repay. That problem was left for future taxpayers who no politician seeking votes in the present cared about.

This dynamic is almost identical to what happened in Greece, where low borrowing costs, made possible by the strong euro currency and the implied backstop of the European Central Bank and the more solvent northern European nations, permitted the Greek government to borrow at far lower rates than its strained finances would have otherwise allowed.

Taxing Private Investment

Perversely, as the U.S. government made it easier for the Puerto Rican government to borrow, it made it harder for the private sector to do so. In 2006 the government ended a tax break that exempted corporate profits earned on private sector investment in Puerto Rico from U.S. taxes. As a result, U.S. businesses that had been making investments and hiring workers on the Island pulled up stakes and moved to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. The result was an erosion of the Island’s local tax base, just as more borrowing (made possible by triple tax-free government debt) obligated the remaining Puerto Rican taxpayers to greater future liabilities.

The Jones Act

The Jones Act, a 1920 law designed to protect the U.S. merchant marine from foreign competition, has had a devastating effect on Puerto Rico, and should be used as a cautionary tale to illustrate the dangers of trade barriers. Under the terms of this horrible law, foreign-flagged ships are prevented from carrying cargo between two U.S. ports. According to the law, Puerto Rico counts as a U.S. port. So a container ship bringing goods from China to the U.S. mainland is prevented from stopping in Puerto Rico on the way. Instead, the cargo must be dropped off at a mainland port, then reloaded onto an expensive U.S.-flagged ship, and transported back to Puerto Rico. As a result, shipping costs to and from Puerto Rico are the highest in the Caribbean. This reduces trade between Puerto Rico and the rest of the world. Since a large percentage of the finished goods used by Puerto Ricans are imported, the result is much higher consumer prices and fewer private sector jobs. Even though median incomes in Puerto Rico are just over half that of the poorest U.S. state, thanks to the Jones Act, the cost of living is actually higher than the average state.

The Federal Minimum Wage

In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act subjected Puerto Rico to a federal minimum wage, but it was not until 1983 that a 1974 act, which required that the Island match the mainland’s minimum wage, was fully phased in. The current Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is 77% of Puerto Rico’s current median wage of $9.42. In contrast, the Federal minimum is only 43% of the U.S. median wage of almost $17 per hour (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May 2014). The U.S. minimum wage would have to be more than $13 per hour to match that Puerto Rico proportion. The disparity is greater when comparing minimum wage income to per capita income.

The imposition of an insupportably high minimum wage has meant that entry level jobs simply don’t exist in Puerto Rico. Unemployment is over 12% (BLS), and the labor force participation rate is about 43% (as opposed to 63% on the mainland) (The World Bank). A “success” by the Obama administration in raising the Federal minimum to $10 per hour would mean that the minimum wage in Puerto Rico would be higher than the current medium wage. Such a move would result in layoffs on the Island and another step down into the economic pit. I predict that it could bring on a crisis similar to the one created in the last decade in American Samoa when that Island’s economy was devastated by an unsustainable increase in the minimum wage.

It will be interesting to see if our progressive politicians will have enough forethought and mercy to exempt Puerto Rico from minimum wage increases. But to do so would force them to acknowledge the destructive nature of the law, an admission that they would take great pains to avoid.

Welfare

In 2013 median income in Puerto Rico was just over half that of the poorest state in the union (Mississippi) but welfare benefits are very similar. This means that the incentive to forgo public assistance in favor of a job is greatly reduced in Puerto Rico, as a larger percentage of those on public assistance would do better financially by turning down a low paying job. Because of these perverse incentives not to work, fewer than half of working age males are employed and 45% of the Island’s population lived below the federal poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs issued Sep. 2014). According to a 2012 report by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, 40% of Island income consists of transfer payments, and 35% of the Island’s residents receive food stamps (Fox News Latino, 3/11/14).

In other words, Puerto Rico’s problems are strikingly similar to those of Greece. Its government spends chronically more than it raises in taxes, its economy is trapped in a regulatory morass, and its economic destiny is largely in the hands of others.

The solutions to Puerto Rico’s problems are simple, but politically toxic for mainland politicians to acknowledge. Puerto Rico must be allowed to declare bankruptcy, the Federal incentive for the Puerto Rican government to borrow money must be eliminated, Puerto Rico must be exempted from both the Jones Act and the Federal Minimum wage, and Federal welfare requirements must be reduced. Puerto Rico already has the huge advantages of being exempt from both the Federal Income Tax and Obamacare, so with a fresh start, free from oppressive debt and federal regulations, capitalism could quickly restore the prosperity socialism destroyed. With the current incentives provided by Acts 20 and 22 (which basically exempt Puerto Rico-sourced income for new arrivals from local as well as federal income tax – see my report on America’s Tax Free Zone) and with some additional local free market labor reforms, in a generation it’s possible that Puerto Ricans could enjoy higher per capita incomes than citizens of any U.S. state.

If Washington really wanted to accelerate the process, it should exempt mainland residents from all income taxes, including the AMT, on Puerto Rico-sourced investment income, including dividends, capital gains, and interest related to capital investment.

Joel Skousen's Government Cover-ups: Chemtrails

CHEMTRAILS: FINALLY, SOME ANSWERS

Canadian investigative reporter William Thomas has uncovered, through tenacious and prodigious research, some answers to the mysterious chemtrail issue.  “Chemtrails” are chemical laden vapor trails dispersed at high altitudes by US military tanker aircraft and by some private aircraft under top-secret contracts with the US government. A draft version of Thomas’ report can be read online at http://www.nexusmagazine.com/chemtrails.html.  I don’t agree with everything Thomas writes or speculates about, but I will summarize his conclusions and share my analysis of what I think is well founded.

The chemtrail phenomenon has been observed for many years in different parts of the US as well as in other allied nations.  These chemtrails are primarily characterized by thick trails of white vapor, which persist for long periods of time, gradually dispersing to cover wide areas of the sky.  Let’s review some of the major differences between these chemical vapor trails and the normal, harmless condensation trails (“contrails”) often emitted by aircraft.  There are several critical distinguishing characteristics between these two types of emissions:

1)  Chemtrails often occur at altitudes and in environmental conditions where normal contrails cannot and do not occur.  According to NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, quoted in the article, “At temperatures lower than approx  -40 deg F  contrails almost always form, regardless of relative humidity. The higher the ambient temperature, the less likely that contrails will form. At temperatures above -40 degrees F, contrails are not expected. The persistence of contrails depends upon temperature, relative humidity, and the vigor of mixing between the exhaust plume and the ambient air. At low temperatures, with high humidity, and with stable temperature stratification (which inhibits vertical mixing of the air), contrails persist for many hours."  Chemtrails also occur at altitudes where contrails occur and thus the two are mixed. 

2)  Chemtrails persist for many hours and spread out continuously until wide areas of the sky are covered.  Contrails spread out only slightly and evaporate within 10 seconds to several hours, depending on the upper air humidity and temperature.  Contrails can persist under exceptional circumstances, so this is not a definitive criteria.

3) Contrails are always pure white and don’t exhibit much halo effect.  Chemtrails have an oily glint to them, with pronounced rainbow-like color effects (reddish or pinkish tint) as the sun shines through.  Some of the best photographic evidence of chemtrails is found at http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm.

4) Contrails are composed of water vapor combined with a small amount of residue from burned jet fuel.   Analysis of chemtrail residues, in contrast, claims to have uncovered a variety of chemicals and other substances, including barium, aluminum oxide, microscopic fibers and oil-based products, none of which are intrinsic to normal jet fuel.

5)  Contrails exit directly behind the engines of the aircraft, which produce the moisture.  Thus, aircraft will exhibit only 1, 2, 3, or 4 distinct condensation trails, each trailing an engine.  Chemtrails, in contrast, are expelled from multiple ports along the entire wing surface, not directly in line with the engines.   Once again, see the pictures on www.carnicom.com.  These photos are perhaps the most definitive of all chemtrail evidence. Some debunkers use cropped photos of high-G manuevers which gives off aerodynamic condensation from the wing--as a supposed explanation to wing emitted chemtrails.  But this is bogus.  Aerodynamic condensation doesn’t occur in straight and level flight and never leaves a long contrail.  It also shows up within inches of the wing trailing edge, unlike chemtrail spraying.  

6)  Contrails cannot be shut on and off at will, nor abruptly, as witnesses have seen in numerous sightings of chemical spraying by aircraft.  I personally have seen this type of on/off spraying in Utah by two military tankers flying in loose formation.  When numerous witnesses called KSL--TV in Salt Lake City to investigate, KSL dutifully parroted the government’s official response:  that the aircraft was a government contractor flying a Lear jet and doing experiments on ice crystal formation.  Baloney!  As one of those witnesses, and an experienced pilot, I can tell you those two huge military tanker aircraft were not tiny Lear jets.  The government is lying--but at least, in this case, they didn’t try to outright deny what hundreds of people were watching, as they usually do.  They simply tried to take advantage of public ignorance of aircraft recognition, feeding them a phony but marginally plausible excuse. 

7)  Aircraft dispersing chemtrails always fly back and forth over a set area, creating circular or zig-zag patterns of vapor in the sky.  Often many chemtrail aircraft can be seen in one area, flying in crisscross patterns laying down vapor trails before flying off over the horizon.  Large airliners operating under Air Traffic Control fly on set airways and do not make such patterns in the sky.  Government representatives have tried to pass off reports of crisscross chemtrail patterns as merely the convergence of airliner contrails at normal air traffic intersections, but this is false.  For one thing, almost all airways in the US run in straight lines.  Neither do airliners fly in close formation with other aircraft.  In addition, chemtrail sightings almost never come close to normal airway intersections, lest they interfere with normal traffic or be observed by other airline passengers.  

8) All legitimate aircraft at high altitudes emitting contrails will be acknowledged by the FAA.  Conversely, the existence of aircraft spraying chemicals is always denied by the FAA, under orders from the government.  You can be on a cell phone, in real time, reporting the presence of an aircraft overhead to the FAA and they will tell you that no such aircraft exists on their radar screens.  They are flat-out lying.  It’s amazing to me how many military pilots and government ATC controllers can so easily justify these lies.  Surely some are aware of the damaging health effects reported on the internet.  Occasionally, an honest controller will admit there is a “military exercise” blocked out for that area. 

Many have long suspected that the government has been using these airborne chemical sprayings to test dispersal methods for mild forms of biological or chemical warfare.  Indeed, chemtrail sightings have long been associated with community-wide illnesses reported in the areas of the sprayings.  Thomas himself was involved in a case inEspanola, Ontario, in the spring of 1998.  Residents there had been complaining of “severe headaches, chronic joint pain, dizziness, sudden extreme fatigue, acute asthma attacks and feverless ‘flu-like’ symptoms over a 50-square-mile area [which] coincided with what they termed ‘months of spraying’ by photo-identified US Air Force tanker planes.”  An expert witness in the case, former Ontarion Provincial Police Officer Ted Simola, described the “lingering Xs and numerous white trails, some of which ‘just ended’ as if they had been shut off but remained in the sky,” observations consistent with other chemtrail sightings.  

On November 18, 1998, the people of Espanola petitioned Parliament, suspecting possible government involvement in these airborne chemical emissions.  They called upon Parliament to “repeal any law that would permit the dispersal of military chaff or of any cloud-seeding substance whatsoever by domestic or foreign military aircraft without the informed consent of the citizens of Canada thus affected.”  In response to their petition, the Ministry of Defense eventually replied: “It’s not us.”  The government assertion was mostly true: it was not Canadian aircraft, but US Air Force tankers which were conducting the sprayings.  Yet the Canadian government was complicit in allowing the US to experiment over Canada.

Thomas did finally get an American ATC controller to talk to him, under conditions of anonymity.  The controller works on the US eastern seaboard.  Thomas called his contact “Deep Sky.”  Deep Sky confirmed that the chemicals being spread in the exercises were acting as electrolytes, enhancing conductivity of radar and radio waves. Additionally, the spread of the material was actually degrading, not enhancing, ATC radars – so there had to be some other purpose behind the sprayings.  It is significant that many of the exercises were conducted out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Ohio, which, according to Thomas, “has long been deeply engaged in HAARP’s electromagnetic warfare program.”  HAARP is a US government radio wave project in Alaska which could be related to weather modification.  HAARP’s  huge powerful transmitters and arrays of antennas are, according to the official website, designed to heat up the atmosphere above it.  Phasing the antennas can skew the heating effect directionally, and may even interact with reflective layers of metal particles in Chemtrails.  What is interesting is that HAARP’s location is at the 65th parallel, just south of the arctic circle.  This position corresponds to the atmospheric boundary where relatively moist southern air moving northward collides with cold arctic air coming south.  When these dissimilar air mass meet they rise and form new storm systems.  Heating the atmosphere directly under this boundary layer would tend to accelerate storm development.  Finally, through a series of questions, Deep Sky confirmed that the US tankers were indeed involved in climate modification experiments. 

At this point in the article, Thomas launches into a theory that the reflective clouds are being used to reduce the effects of global warming (Edward Teller’s theory).  He discusses the Welsback patent, issued in 1994 to Hughes Aircraft, [long involved in government black operations] which involves the use of a reflective blanket of aluminum-laced cloud cover to cool the earth.  However, I think Thomas was fed disinformation here.  The government often uses phony patents to lead investigators down the wrong trail--especially when dealing with HAARP.   Global warming is a fraud.  There is no way the US government would engage in this massive a cover-up and risk illness to the US population over a theory with little basis in fact and even less evidence of actual damage.  Besides, government sponsored aerosol spraying has been going on before global warming became an issue. 

However, the weather modification process is, in my opinion, the best explanation so far as to the widespread use of spraying.  The reflective aluminum particles or fibers in the created cloud barriers cause cool spots over normally warm areas, which influence the rise or fall of air masses.  These reflective layers may also react with HAARP transmissions in some way.   Radio transmissions need reflective layers to channel the energy in specific directions.  The creation of sun or radiation shielding may explain why spraying occurs at high altitude, during the daytime, and in cloudless areas--where the reflective shield would be visible and effective for a long time.

None of these characteristics fit a biological or chemical warfare test scenario.  If the government was testing delivery methods of biological or chemical agents, it would be more likely to mix the chemicals in clouds at much lower altitudes where it would more easily precipitate downward on the population.  The chemtrail sprayings always take place at high altitudes where the materials can linger or drift long distances: hardly an accurate delivery method.  The sprayings are also done only in clear areas of the sky--which, again, points to weather modification.

What I’m convinced of now, is that the widespread flu-like and Alzheimer’s symptoms have been mere side effects of the sprayed chemicals, and not the direct purpose of the sprayings.   The extensive use of aluminum oxide, found as the primary component of these reflective clouds, does have serious medical side effects and may well explain the upsurge in Alzheimer’s disease in the US--which is reaching epidemic proportions.  I think it is also clear that the government has been experimenting with different types and mixes of chemicals, which explains why the observations and effects differ over time.  Several years ago, there were many sightings of sticky droplets falling from the sky, trailing spider-web-like strands behind.  Upon contact they made people very ill.  Later chemical analysis has shown a lot of aluminum oxide and micro fibers, also composed of barium and aluminum.  People living under these spray patterns have developed Alzheimer’s-like symptoms.

As expected, the US continues to deny any spraying as well as any experimentation in weather modification.  The media is totally complicit in this cover-up as well.  The allegations have been widespread over the internet for years.  Thousands of inquiries have gone out to the media over the years and not once has the major media ever done a story on this issue.   The health consequences are huge.  Even the politically correct environmental movement has had no luck in pressing the media for coverage.   There is no way to explain the media’s refusal to investigate or give coverage to this story except that they are fully aware of it and are under bogus  “national security” orders to spike the story.

A US Air Force Colonel, according to Thomas, told a senator: “The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification and has no plans to do so in the future.”   But as Thomas retorts, “In fact, attempts to steer hurricanes by spraying heat-robbing chemicals in their paths began in the 1950s. The recipe for creating ‘cirrus shields’ was outlined in an unusually arrogant US Air Force study. Subtitled, ‘Owning the Weather by 2025,’ the 1996 report explained how weather force specialists were dispersing chemicals behind high-flying tanker aircraft in a process the air force calls ‘aerial obscuration.’”   Sounds just like what people are describing as chemtrails.  Even members of Congress know about Chemtrails.  The term is in the list of prohibited Space activities of Rep. Kucinich's HR 2977 “Space Preservation Act.”    Because of the variety of different chemicals used in Chemtrails over the past 10 years and the changing patterns of spraying, I’m convinced the government is still experimenting and hasn’t actually found a predictable way yet to harness the weather.   Sadly, this only means the secret experiments will continue and people will suffer. 

EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT SPREADS TO THE STATES

The Neal Knox Report (http://www.shotgunnews.com/knox/knox.dog) mentions that “The Centers for Disease Control, which calls ‘gun violence’ a public health epidemic, has sent a ‘model law’ to state legislatures which would give state agencies unprecedented powers in the event of a public health emergency -- including the power to seize ‘private property.’  The first draft of the Model Emergency Health Powers Act -- the version introduced in some of the 14 states where it has been filed -- specifically includes the power to ‘control, restrict and
regulate ... firearms ....’  Other sections of the bill authorize seizure and destruction of ‘private property’ and exempt the state from liability.”   Whenever the government engages in illegal activities they always seek for official immunity. 

No ISIS link in Marine Killings

FBI: No sign of ISIS link in Marine killings

By Ben Kamisar

Authorities are declining to link the shootings in Chattanooga, Tenn., that killed four Marines on Thursday to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) despite a suggestion from the House Homeland Security Committee chairman that the gunman was inspired by the terror group.

“At this time, we have no indication that he was inspired by or directed by anyone other than himself,” Ed Reinhold, the FBI agent in charge, said of the shooter, identified as 24-year-old Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, during a news conference Friday.

Reinhold added that law enforcement will continue explore any potential link to terror groups.

The statement comes hours after Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that the attack at two military facilities seemed to be inspired by ISIS.

“My judgment and my experience is that it was an ISIS-inspired attack,” McCaul said Friday at Florida’s MacDill Air Force Base. “The targets are identical to the targets called by ISIS to attack."

Law enforcement officials also confirmed at the Chattanooga press conference that Abdulazeez had two long guns on him and one pistol. Officials were not sure whether all of those guns were purchased legally, noting that “some may not have been."

They added that the gunman, who died on the scene, was not wearing any protective vest.

Chattanooga Police Chief Fred Fletcher detailed heroism by his officers during the shooting and noted that officers rescued another who had been shot in the ankle during a firefight.

The shooting has prompted calls from gun rights supporters to consider allowing soldiers to be allowed to carry personal firearms on military facilities.

The Army has announced that it will assess the security protocols at its recruiting centers, but cautioned that it is too early to decide whether to allow recruiters to be armed.

Just the Beginning

ISLAMIC TERROR ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL KILLS 4 MARINES – AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING

The city of Chattanooga, Tennessee is in a state of shock

by MICHAEL SNYDER | END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM | JULY 17, 2015

The city of Chattanooga, Tennessee is in a state of shock.

On Thursday, a heavily armed Islamic terrorist sprayed a Navy and Marine reserve center in Chattanooga with gunfire without any warning. Four U.S. Marines were killed, and three other individuals were seriously wounded. The shooter has been identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, and it is being reported that he used a “high-powered rifle” to conduct the assault. He did not survive the attack, and it is not clear if he even intended to. Authorities are investigating whether or not he had any connection to ISIS (which he almost certainly did), but nobody is disputing the fact that he was Muslim. Hopefully this horrific incident will serve as a huge wake up call for millions of Americans. Islamic terrorists are already here – and this is just the beginning of their reign of terror on U.S. soil.

In a previous article, I asked the following question: “Why Aren’t Americans Taking The ISIS Threat ‘To Drown All Of You In Blood’ Seriously?”


It is still a question that I am asking today. ISIS has made it very clear that they plan to kill as many of us as they possibly can. But most Americans seem very apathetic about this. Perhaps it is because they have been hearing about what a “threat” that “al-Qaeda” was for so many years and yet nothing ever seemed to actually happen.

And of course there are many liberals that have been trained that it is politically incorrect to even use the phrase “Islamic terror”. Following the lead of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other radical leftists, the only “terrorists” that they want to talk about are the “right-wing extremists” that they take great joy in persecuting.

Today’s shooting will hopefully shake many Americans out of their politically-induced comas. The threat of Islamic terror inside the United States is greater than it has ever been before.

All that “al-Qaeda” ever seemed to do was hide out in caves and release a poorly crafted propaganda message every once in a while. ISIS, on the other hand, is an entirely different animal. Every single day they are publicly committing some of the most vile atrocities imaginable, and they are successfully fighting a three front war against the Syrian government, the Iraqi government and the Kurds. Meanwhile, Islamic groups all over the planet are swearing allegiance to them, and their ranks are being swelled by an endless influx of eager new recruits.

Just today, a group affiliated with ISIS in Egypt hit an Egyptian Navy frigate with a guided missile. The reach and capabilities of this ruthless terror organization are both continually expanding, and what we just witnessed in Chattanooga today is just the tip of the iceberg.

So was Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez actually a member of ISIS?

Well, a Twitter account that appeared to be affiliated with ISIS seemed to take credit for the attack. The following is an excerpt from a report on Infowars.com…

*****

A Twitter account claiming to be associated with ISIS terrorists appeared to take responsibility for the Chattanooga shooting Thursday, which took the lives of four Marines outside of a Tennessee Navy and Marine Reserve Center.

O Americans Dogs soon YOU Will see wonders #Chattanooga #USA #ISISpic.twitter.com/8tPawr6U1y

— ابو محمد الخراساني (@K_H_O7777777777) July 16, 2015

The Twitter account, created just yesterday, appears to have sent out a tweet before Muhammad Youssef Abulazeez was identified as the shooter stating that “American dogs” would see “wonders” with hashtags including Chattanooga, USA and ISIS.

Taste the blood of Americans>>>>>> are very good #Chattanooga #USA #ISIS#IslamicStatepic.twitter.com/w9YkFaavXd — ابو محمد الخراساني (@K_H_O7777777777) July 16, 2015

The account also sent out several other tweets mentioning the “blood” of Americans while warning of their impending “fate.”

To ALL KOFAR AND Americans Dogs >>>THIS IS YOUR FATE >>>CUT HERE soon YOU Will see wonders #Chattanooga #USA pic.twitter.com/ssPJcGb23I

— ابو محمد الخراساني (@K_H_O7777777777) July 16, 2015

*****

According to a report on Heavy.com, the first tweet above was sent out about the exact same time that the attack began…


The tweet’s timestamp shows it was sent at 10:34 a.m. Eastern, which is about the same time the shooting began and before it had been reported on social or traditional media.

As ISIS grows, there are going to be more attacks like this.

ISIS is rapidly growing bigger and stronger, and at this point it has truly become a global organization. For example, the following comes from a Bloomberg reportabout the growth of ISIS in southeast Asia…


The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has ramped up its activities in Southeast Asia so effectively that there is now an entire military unit of terrorists recruited from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, according to Singapore’s prime minister.

“Southeast Asia is a key recruitment center for ISIS,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at the Shangri-La Dialogue here in Singapore Friday. He noted that this included more than 500 Indonesians and dozens of Malaysians. “ISIS has so many Indonesian and Malaysia fighters that they form a unit by themselves — the Katibah Nusantara — Malay Archipelago Combat Unit,” he added.

And of course ISIS has been seeking to establish a very strong presence inside the United States as well for quite some time. This is something that even the FBI acknowledges…


In a dramatic assessment of the domestic threat posed by the Islamic State, FBI Director James Comey said Thursday there are “hundreds, maybe thousands” of people across the country who are receiving recruitment overtures from the terrorist group or directives to attack the U.S.

Comey said the Islamic State, also known as ISIL, is leveraging social media in unprecedented ways through Twitter and other platforms, directing messages to the smartphones of “disturbed people” who could be pushed to launch assaults on U.S. targets.

“It’s like the devil sitting on their shoulders, saying ‘kill, kill, kill,”’ Comey said in a meeting with reporters.

Perhaps you are reading this and you are still skeptical.

If so, I hope that you will wake up.

ISIS is not al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda was a complete and utter joke compared to these guys. They are the real deal, and if they had the opportunity, they would kill you and your entire family without even thinking twice about it.

In fact, if the leaders of ISIS could press a button and wipe our entire country off the map, they would do it without any hesitation.

If ISIS is able to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction and is able to get those weapons inside the United States, they will use them.

So what happened today in Chattanooga is just the beginning.

The kinds of Islamic terror attacks that we are going to see on U.S. soil in the years ahead are going to be far, far more horrifying than this.

Monsanto Firing Back

CONGRESS COULD SOON BAN GMO LABELING UNDER NEW BILL

We can't let the 'right to know' slip away

by ANTHONY GUCCIARDI | INFOWARS | JULY 16, 2015

Want some more proof that Monsanto and other biotech giants are deathly afraid of GMO labeling initiatives passing within the United States? A new bill introduced by Monsanto’s star representative, Mike Pompeo, could soon ban all mandatory GMO labeling in the US.

The worst part? It was just approved by the House Agriculture Committee, which means it’s one step closer to becoming a full-fledged law. The bill is formally known as H.R. 1599, or the ‘Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.’

More precisely, it has been dubbed to be the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ on steroids.

And there’s a big reason for that. We’re talking about a bill that was drafted up by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), and pushed on us by all the usual suspects. All the ones who are afraid of you actually knowing what’s in your food. Because even if you don’t care about the genetic alteration of your food, you most certainly should be concerned as to whether or not it has been doused in Monsanto’s cancer-linked herbicides.

Banning GMO Labeling: A Desperate Attack

I wanted to bring this bill to your attention because it’s essential that we spread the word on the issue and stop this legislation. The time to act is now, before the GMO industry lobbyists shove a legal wrench into the fast-moving gears of the anti-Monsanto movement. It’s the perfect ‘brute force’ defense against a population whose mind has been made up in the GMO debate.

It has been made clear time and time again that over 90% of the US public is in full support of GMO labeling, and that scares a lot of processed food corporations.

I also believe it’s important to highlight this bill in order to show the true desperation of Monsanto defenders when it comes to their deceptive tactics. Instead of actually allowing consumers to know what they’re eating and make their own decisions, individuals like Mike Pompeo choose to strip away this ability through sneaky legislation.

As the Star Tribune details, highlighting this fact in full:

“The bill represents a major victory for the food and chemical industries, which fought and failed in court to stop mandatory GMO labeling. Individually and through trade associations, big Minnesota food companies such as Land O’Lakes, Cargill, Hormel and General Mills supported the bill that the agriculture committee approved.”

The GMO-loaded processed food industry is scared, and they know they’re losing the battle for the food supply. This new bill is yet another example of the tricks they will use to take away our ability to know what we’re putting in our mouths. I for one will take a stand against this resurrected ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ that could soon become a law (if we don’t do something about it by spreading the word).