The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

 
What's Hot…
» 2013 » February
 
 

February 2013

By: Ceylan Ozbudak

In August 2012, when President Mohamed Morsi became the first Egyptian leader to visit Iran since the 1980s, he was careful not to schedule meetings with the Iranian leadership, much less to endorse any renewal of diplomatic relations between Egypt and Iran.

Since then, a return to the level of cooperation pe r status quo ante has been progressing at warp speed: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Cairo on 5 February with the intention of renewing the diplomatic relationship which existed before the 1979 revolution. While attending a conference of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation hosted here, he also promised to lift visa requirements for Egyptian tourists and businessmen.

These overtures are already bearing fruit: At the time of writing, a delegation of Egyptian officials has just flown to Tehran to implement a 2010 (Mubarak-era) agreement for weekly flights between Egypt and Iran. So what could come out of a strategic cooperation between Egypt and Iran? While the US, in its wisdom, just sent the Morsi regime another 200 Abrams tanks and 20 more American F-16s, the Egyptian people (living on the equivalent of $2 per day) are more dependent on imported wheat than many other countries in the world.

Yes: it is the best of times, it is the worst of times, and no doubt the sum of all these strategic overtures is to scare the hell out of Israel. Regrettably they seem to be doing nothing to deliver bread, freedom, or justice to the people of Egypt or Iran.

The Ahmadinejad regime, likewise, is known for a history of unconscionable repression and threats not only to the state of Israel but also to its own people. This mentality has borne the same bitter harvest for a generation, which has known only poverty and unrest in both countries, and in Iran, geopolitical isolation.

In order to understand what is attracting Cairo to Tehran, it is essential to realise that the Egyptian alliance with America was never about respect. Rather, it has always been a marriage of convenience between America’s need to buy an ally in the region, and the Mubarak regime’s need for military arms to secure its own longevity.

When the Mubarak era ended, as all regimes based on force inevitably do, it was inevitable that the tide of anti-Israeli feeling which had been dammed up for a generation behind the wall of American largesse would break out in the virulent hatred which masquerades under the name of Islam.

The problem is: Demagogues are very good at achieving political power by appealing to nationalistic feelings, scapegoating outsiders and creating boogy men. Fostering economic opportunity, honouring individual liberty, respecting dissenting voices… this is a different skill set altogether. And so now the whole world has a problem: It’s obvious that the West cannot buy enough Egyptian good will and cannot punish Iran with sanctions enough to keep them from reaching out to each other.

The attraction between Iran and Egypt is “partly” that both regimes used to share a mutual debt to Marx much more than to our Prophet Muhammad. As a matter of historical fact, the Khomeini revolution was supported by communist French parties. Likewise, the Socialist International has solid support among Iranian university students.

Iran itself is backed by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The Iraqi Shi’a leader Sistani does not support the Wilayat al faqih system in Iran, and it is a fact clear to everyone that Mawdudi, the father of that ideology, was inspired by Marx. This vanguard Stalinist idea is an approach common in communist countries, and seeks to turn the control of the central government over society into a sort of bourgeoisie.

In sum, the revolution of 1979, and the so called “Islamic” Republic of Iran which came of it, is actually a Marxist government which is irreconcilable with Shi’a Islam or any form of government discernible in the Quran. Therefore, the “Islamic” name of the Iranian revolution is in conflict with the true nature of the revolution.

Any association between a repressive Marxist regime such as that which rules Iran and the embryonic democracy which is trying to implant itself on the banks of the Nile can only prove deleterious to the pregnancy.

The next thing to be considered is the structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. There is a pervasive totalitarian pressure on Iranian society and the authority of the military over civilians is visible, as it is the case in all other Marxist structures. This could have an undesirable effect on Egypt, which has been trying to shake off the lingering effect of vast military control over society.

Some political analysts think that the military should go back to controlling civilian society, while others think that this option should not even be considered. I cannot safely say that I feel the military has stopped exerting influence over society, given the fact that they still own more than 20% of the economic entities in the country.

By the same token, if Egypt would engage in a strategic partnership with Turkey, rather than Iran, it would approach the model for which liberals have been longing, under conditions in which Egyptians would enjoy a more liberated lifestyle and secure their religious liberties, and in which Egyptian industry, economy, and society are likely to prosper.

The White House on Tuesday defended targeted assassinations of Americans thought to consort overseas with terrorists as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise,” as the Obama administration faced fresh questions about its sharply expanded drone war.

“We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats—to stop plots, prevent future attacks and, again, save American lives,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise.”

Carney’s comments came after NBC News published a Justice Department memo that lays out a broad rationale for targeting individual Americans anywhere outside the U.S. for assassination—without oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if the U.S. citizen in question is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack.

The 16-page document, obtained by NBC News, emerged days before John Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser and the foremost architect of America’s hugely controversial unmanned aerial vehicle war, goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a Thursday hearing on his confirmation as CIA director.

Obama campaigned in 2008 as a fierce critic of George W. Bush’s national security policies, notably interrogation practices widely seen as torture. He also left little doubt that he would order unilateral strikes inside another country if he deemed them necessary. In office, he has apparently learned to stop worrying and love executive power—the literal power of life and death over fellow U.S. citizens overseas when he suspects they are consorting with extremists groups that may be targeting America. So, under what circumstances does he have the right to act?

The memo says “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” must decide that the target is a “senior operational leader” of al-Qaida or “associated forces”; “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States”; and that an attempt to capture that individual is “infeasible.”

“Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of self-defense,” the document asserts.

“Imminent threat”? That seems reasonable and is a traditional standard for military action. Except, as NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff notes, the memo adds that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

Instead, that previously mentioned “high-level official” can determine that the potential target was “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of an attack and that “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”

Isikoff notes the memo does not define “activities” or “recently,” leaving that up to the administration to determine on a case-by-case basis.

A reporter asked Carney about the case of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the teenage son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida supporter killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen. The boy, 16, was killed in another drone strike about two weeks after his father. Was the son a “senior operational leader” of a terrorist group, a reporter asked. That seemed to stump Carney. “I’m not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred.”

But Obama wages this 21st-century war in a manner “consistent with the Constitution and our laws,” while aides review the difficult legal and ethical questions “with great care and deliberation,” Carney said.

The memo notes that the president can order a strike against al-Qaida far beyond the battlefield of Afghanistan, and it makes clear that he will not be constrained by national sovereignty. Either a country will give the green light to drone strikes on its territory, or America will strike if that country is “unable or willing” to do so.

This is no surprise. Obama famously said in the 2008 campaign that he would order an attack inside Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, whether or not Islamabad signed off. He made good on that promise, ordering the raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 1, 2011, which killed the terrorist leader.

The memo is sure to trigger another round of questions from Congress about the drone war, which has been shrouded in secrecy. And it comes at a time when that campaign is powerfully unpopular overseas, according to a June 2012 Pew Research poll. While 62 percent of Americans approve of the approach, 44 percent of respondents in staunch ally Britain do. And the numbers plummet in countries with large Muslim populations: 6 percent in Egypt, for instance, and 9 percent in NATO ally Turkey.

That’s in part the reflection of anger over civilian casualties from such attacks. Obama has grappled with that problem ever since the very first drone strike on his watch, a Jan. 23, 2009, attack that reportedly claimed the life of “an innocent tribal elder” in Pakistan. A May 2012 New York Times report said the administration minimizes civilian casualties by counting “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.”

The memo drew a withering response from the American Civil Liberties Union.

“This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority—the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”

Read original here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-memo-justifies-drone-war-killing-americans-164123578–politics.html

Do you get headaches after a glass or two of wine? Some blame sulfites, some blame fluoride, some blame non-organic and they might have a point. So you would think scrambling for the nectar of French vines would be a safe haven. Even the French were surprised to find out just the opposite – their overuse of pesticides and fungicides finally caught up with them and could tarnish their national treasure. Keep reading to see how to avoid this problem — and the hangover.
Scientists led by Dr. Pascal Chatonnet of Excell laboratories in Bordeaux, France tested 300 wines for traces of growing chemicals and found that only 10% were completely chemical free. They tested vintage varieties from 2009 and 2010 grown in three regions, two being the all-but sacred fine wine regions of Bordeaux and the Rhone, and found a lot of fungicides, especially those applied late growing season.

While individual compounds were thought to be below safe levels – the worry is the cumulative and synergistic effects, the molecular interaction, and what happens during fermentation breakdown.

According to Farming News:

The wine industry in France uses a proportionately high volume of chemical products on vines, accounting for 20 percent of all agricultural chemicals for products grown on 3 percent of the agricultural area.

More tragic, International Business Times reports:

Dozens of French grape farmers have been struck by illnesses that have been traced back to the pesticides they used. One farmer named Yannick Chenet died in 2011, seven years after he accidentally inhaled toxic fumes from his spraying machine. Other farmers have suffered Parkinson’s disease and various types of cancer. Studies have shown that farmers and laborers on vineyards in France tend to die from brain cancer at higher rates than the general population, and also are more likely to develop dementia.

A previous study from European Pesticide Action Network (PAN) found even more contamination from multiple EU countries with up to 24 chemicals in the wines (up to 10 in one bottle), classified as ”carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic or endocrine disrupting”.

This must be an unfortunate black eye for the world’s Wine Country for another reason as wine connoisseurs can tell you – everything affects the taste of wine – everything. Even a hint of a flower fragrance in the air that season adds nuance. If getting a piece of cork in the bottle can ruin it, imagine what heavy pesticide dousing can do to the flavor when it’s in the crushed grapes themselves. Health and quality are more important than taste, but imagine what can happen to the wine industry if this isn’t ameliorated.

Excell laboratories organized a conference to talk about “new perspectives” in growing. In January, the EU called for changes in pesticide use to protect declining bee colonies. France’s government plans to halve the amount of pesticides by 2018 but expect mega opposition from the ag industry.

There is no list of brands to look for and no definite date for the positive changes – so we can’t really be sure of French wines made in the last few years or so. Look for the words “Vin Biologique” or “Organic Wine” on foreign labels. Check out this infographic on buying organic wine. In the meantime, it might be better to pursue organic American brands. Michigan, in fact, is becoming a booming wine valley thanks to the Lake effect, and more people are starting and visiting wineries there. There is more demand for local cuisine. Still have to watch that fluoride if city water is used in the processing.

The best possible way to ensure your food and drink is take part in its creation. Microbrewing is a flourishing hobby and can have added health benefits by using natural fermentation. It’s surprisingly easy and fun to give as gifts. Homemade wine and microbrew kits were included in this list of gifts for the preparedness gift-giver. Many people and restaurants are opting for healthy fermented Kombucha as a non-alcoholic alternative. That might be the best bet as more studies are pointing to alcohol as a carcinogen. That flies in the face of all those “wine and beer are healthy” studies. Alcohol will always cause liver toxicity – so will pesticides.

Here’s a trick to prevent that hangover — and very likely help in the event your wine is laced with neurotoxic pesticides. Take activated charcoal – one capsule for each drink consumed and try to counter each glass of wine with a glass of pure water. The black powder will absorb the toxicity and lighten the burden on the liver which should make you feel better in the morning. No charcoal? Burnt toast is often referred to as the “poorman’s” activated charcoal – maybe that’s why it’s a longtime drinking remedy.

The anti-gun bills continue to roll in. The latest bill, introduced in the New York State Assembly by Democrat Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, seeks to force all gun owners to purchase at least $1 million in liability insurance to cover any damages caused by firearms. It would be a mandatory requirement for anyone who owns a gun, as those who refuse to comply within 30 days would have their firearms confiscated.

“Any person in this state who shall own a firearm shall, prior to such ownership, obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person,” the bill, AO3908, states.

“Failure to maintain such insurance shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm,” the bill adds.

Further, even if a New Yorker’s gun is stolen, they are still responsible for any damage incurred until a loss or theft is reported to the police. The bill has been reportedly been passed along to the Assembly’s Insurance Committee, according to the Washington Times.

The Examiner estimates that simple liability insurance for $1 million would cost gun owners about $1,600-2,000 annually.
Lawmakers in California, Maryland and Massachusetts have introduced similar bills aimed at forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

The bill comes after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the toughest gun laws in the nation, enacting a ban on semi-automatic rifles and limiting magazine capacity to seven. It appears that New York lawmakers still aren’t satisfied.

Read original here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/19/proposed-bill-would-require-gun-owners-in-ny-to-buy-at-least-1-million-in-liability-insurance-or-forfeit-privilege-to-own-a-firearm/

GE organisms actually become part of the bacteria in our digestive tracts and reproduce continuously inside us. But the USDA now wants to to remove all controls from GE corn and cotton!

There are no human clinical trials of genetically engineered foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that genetic material inserted into GE soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. Even after we stop eating GE foods, we may still have the GE proteins produced continuously inside us.

As the Institute for Responsible Technology has noted, the genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant’s DNA. Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their behavior. Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged, and may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease.

The idea of having genetically engineered genes permanently living inside our guts has staggering implications:

  • If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create antibiotic-resistant diseases.
  • Bt toxins (Bacillus thuringiensis) inserted into GM food crops to kill pests are reaching the bloodstreams of 93% of women and 80% of unborn babies because of the consumption of meat, milk, and eggs from livestock fed GE corn. This could turn bacteria in our intestines into pesticide factories.
  • Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.

And we’ve seen cross-species transfer of DNA happen before. A significant percentage of human DNA is actually viral DNA that became part of us over 40 million years ago. There is concern that virally transmitted DNA may cause mutations and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders. GE organisms may exacerbate this phenomenon.

Genetically engineered food genes transferring to our own genes could lead to problems like leaky gut syndrome:

  • Our small intestine, which is responsible for about 70% of our immune system, behaves like a selective sieve: it lets only nutrients and well-digested fats, proteins, and starches enter the bloodstream and keeps out large molecules, microbes, and toxins.
  • Leaky gut syndrome happens when the intestinal lining becomes inflamed, and the microvilli on the lining become damaged; this prevents the microvilli from absorbing nutrients and producing necessary enzymes and secretions for healthy digestion and absorption.
  • In between cells are desmosomes, which keep the cells together, forming a strong structure preventing large molecules from passing through. When an area becomes inflamed, the structure is weakened, allowing larger molecules to escape. The makes the immune system produce antibodies and cytokines to fight off molecules because they are perceived as antigens.

Allergies have already skyrocketed in the US, and with the introduction of GE soy in the UK, soy related allergies rose to 50%. Yet federal agencies turn a blind eye to the dangers of genetic engineering.

In 1989 there was a tragic outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS), an incredibly painful disease. The outbreak was traced to consumption of l-tryptophan supplements produced by a Japanese company using genetically engineered bacteria. The bacteria are used to increase yields, but they increase impurities during the fermentation process—possibly leading to a level of contaminants that caused the EMS.

To this day, the government has refused to address the issue of purity standards for GE-manufactured products. Instead, federal agencies and biotech companies claimed that contaminants linked to the EMS tragedy were caused by changes in the company’s manufacturing process—despite the fact that the company was precisely following the purity standards enforced by government rules.

The EMS was rare and had a fast enough onset that the case histories of the patients could be linked to this supplement, and it was also acute enough that doctors took notice. There is a very clear causal link between EMS and these genetically engineered organisms.

The effects of other genetically modified products may not be as obvious so quickly, but can be even more devastating; as we have reported previously, GMOs are causing terrible genetic changes in mammal offspring. Scientists are seeing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility in hamsters, rats, and livestock fed GMO soy and corn, and some hamster pups even begin growing hair inside their mouths.

The late George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology in 1967 and Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University, was one of the first scientists to speak out about the potential dangers of genetic engineering:

Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth….Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors….For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.[1]

The USDA has released two Environmental Assessment reports, one for Monsanto’s corn genetically engineered to be drought-tolerant, and the other for Syngenta Biotechnology’s cotton genetically engineered to be pest-resistant. USDA believes the cotton is “unlikely to pose a plant pest risk”; for the corn, the agency is considering either keeping the corn under regulation, or assigning it nonregulated status (banning it altogether is off the table). The comment period for both EAs is open until July 11.

Please take action today! Tell the USDA that the corn and cotton must not be deregulated—that without strict controls, GE crops will encroach on non-GE crops, contaminating them, including organic crops—which will, of course, render them non-organic.

The GE corn is especially dangerous because it is for human consumption. As noted above, GE genes from foods can affect the bacteria from our digestive system, and can lead to allergies, disease and even sterility.

GMOs are causing terrible genetic changes in mammal offspring. Scientists are seeing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility in hamsters, rats, and livestock fed GMO soy and corn, and some hamster pups even begin growing hair inside their mouths.

Read original here: http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-our-digestive-systems/

I’m always amused by the purchasing process of electronics or appliances at big  box stores. On one hand, as their sales associate calmly explains to you,  whatever product you’re buying is such high quality that you’ll be extremely  satisfied with your purchase. But on the other hand, it’s also such a complete  piece of junk that you’d be smart to add on a two-year extended warranty  so that when the gizmo breaks five seconds after you open the box, you can get a  replacement for free.

The CDC and the vaccine industry are fronting a  similar bit of contradictory logic. “Our vaccines work so well that they offer  almost total immunity from the flu,” they claim. And yet somehow they also work  so poorly that they “wear off” after a year and require you to be re-vaccinated  annually.

This is The Great Big Lie of the vaccine industry: The  lie that says you have be re-vaccinated each and every year, often with the  exact same strains you were vaccinated with the previous year. The coming winter  flu vaccines for 2011, for example, are being manufactured with the same strains  as the 2010 flu vaccines.

But if vaccines work so amazingly well as the  CDC and the vaccine industry (fraudulently) suggests, then why do you need  the same shot year after year?

Well, according to the CDC, “Vaccines  wear off.”

Vaccines wear off, they say

Yep, that’s their cover story. The vaccines  “wear off.”

But hold on a minute. There’s something fishy about this.  Because human antibodies normally last a lifetime, remember? That’s why  you don’t get the chicken pox over and over again; because the first time you  got the chicken pox as a kid, your body created chicken pox antibodies  and those antibodies last a lifetime.

Thus, your immune system offers you lifetime immunity from chicken pox.
The vaccine  industry false tries to claim its vaccines work exactly the same way: They cause  the body to produce antibodies against a certain viral strain. But there’s  something you’re not being told about vaccines: They don’t really produce the  same quality and strength of antibodies that your own body would produce from a  natural infection and recovery. That’s why the vaccines “wear  off” and leave you with zero protection from the very strains they inoculate  you against.

In other words, vaccines don’t work as advertised.  And that’s why the vaccine industry has to keep pushing the same vaccine strains  year after year. Because, think about it: If vaccines  actually worked as intended, they would give you lifetime immunity  against whatever strains you were injected with, right? And yet the CDC now  openly admits vaccines don’t offer that at all:

“This year’s flu  shot will be a duplicate of last year’s because the same flu strains are still  circulating,” reports the Associated Press in an article about the CDC.  “Government health officials are urging nearly everyone to get this fall’s flu  shot. They say a vaccine’s protection can fade significantly after several  months.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527/ap_on_he_me/us_med_flu_shots%3B_y…)

Vaccine  protection fades after a few months? Well then, vaccines must not  actually cause the body to react with producing its own antibodies, because  those antibodies, we’re told, offer lifetime immunity.
Another way  you can confirm this yourself is by remembering your history. Remember when the  Europeans came to America centuries ago and killed off masses of American  Indians by accidentally giving them smallpox? Well, if the Indians died  of smallpox, why didn’t the Europeans die of smallpox? (There were no vaccines  in the 1600′s and 1700′s.) The answer is because the Europeans had already  been exposed and built up lifetime immunity to the disease.

Thus, the  reason the European invaders of North America did not die from smallpox wasn’t  because they were vaccinated; it was because they had already been exposed to the disease and had built up active immunity against it  (by producing their own antibodies which last a lifetime). Thus, the Europeans  could be exposed to smallpox over and over again with no symptoms of  infection. They were effectively “immune” to smallpox, in exactly the same  way a human being living today becomes immune to a winter flu strain by first  being exposed to the full strength strain (in the wild) and then building up  their own antibodies in an automatic adaptive response.

But don’t expect  the vaccine industry to educate anyone on how infectious disease and antibodies  really work. They’re too busy selling annual flu shots to bother with scientific  facts.

The flu vaccine manufacturing machine is on high output

“Five vaccine  manufacturers announced plans to make between 166 million and 173 million doses  for the coming season,” says the same article mentioned above. That’s the  highest vaccine manufacturing output for the USA in the history of  vaccines.

With all these 170 million (or so) vaccines sitting around by  the time the winter rolls around, the CDC  is obviously going to have to kick its propaganda and fear mongering into high  gear to convince people to buy all these vaccines. This is going to be doubly  difficult considering the inconvenient fact that all the people who got  vaccinated last year already received vaccines against these same viral  strains!
So, in other words, the CDC must now convince 170 million  people that last year’s vaccine was such a complete failure that they need the  exact same vaccines this year — and somehow this year’s vaccine will  work better even though it’s exactly the same as last year’s vaccine. How will  they accomplish this?

It’s simple: They won’t talk much about the fact  that this year’s flu vaccine is identical to last year’s flu vaccine. They’ll  just repeat their blatant lies about vaccines offering near-100 percent  protection against the flu — an insinuation so blatantly false that the FTC  should actually charge the vaccine manufacturers with false  advertising.

And the great unknowing masses will, of course, line up to  be injected yet again with the same cocktail of viral strains and vaccine  preservatives that didn’t work for them last year! Because the hilarious truth  about flu vaccines is that most of the people who get sick from the flu each  year are the same people who were vaccinated against the flu!

Yep,  it’s the devastating secret of the vaccine industry: Most of the flu victims  each year are precisely the same people who took the flu  shots. And now you know why that is so — because the flu vaccine shots  simply don’t work. Even if you do believe they work at first, even the CDC  openly admits — on the record — that “flu vaccines stop working after several  months.”

They fade out like a set of old batteries, in other words. And  that right there is proof that flu vaccines don’t produce a true antibody  response.

The great vaccine marketing con: Annual vaccine shots

The CDC is now  engaged in the marketing of annual vaccination of the entire population.  That’s the game, you see: Convince people they need an annual flu shot just to  stay healthy. It’s a complete marketing con, of course, but it’s necessary to  keep the flu vaccine profit machine humming along each winter.

In doing  this, the CDC is now running a criminal marketing racket to falsely push  vaccines as the solution even though flu vaccines simply don’t work. For  every 100 people vaccinated against the winter flu, by the way, 99 of them will  experience no difference whatsoever in their flu outcomes. Even using the  industry’s own best evidence, flu vaccines are no more than one percent  effective at actually preventing the flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html)  — and that’s only during the first few months before they “fade  out.”

One of the CDC’s own vaccine scientists — a man who received  millions of dollars in grant money from the CDC — was recently indicted by a  federal grand jury for money laundering and fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_Thorsen_fraud.html). Check  out the NaturalNews diagram called Poul Thorsen’s Alleged Web of Fraud to  see the complete web of deceit under which the key players of the vaccine fraud  industry operate: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Web-of-Alleged-Fraud.pdf

The  truth is that the CDC abandoned real science long ago and is now engaged  almost entirely in infectious disease fear mongering and the wholesale  prostitution of itself to the vaccine industry. The CDC has become to the  vaccine industry what infomercial guru Tony Little is to exercise equipment.  This is an agency that now functions as little more than the marketing branch of  the vaccine giants.

As part of that total prostitution of itself to the  vaccine makers, last year the CDC even announced that virtually everyone  should get annual flu vaccine shots, including pregnant women!

You can immunize yourself against the winter flu

But here’s the other  dirty little secret the CDC absolutely does not want you to know: If you skip  the vaccine, boost your vitamin D intake, and encounter the flu naturally, you  will build your own lifetime antibodies against the infection.

Got  that? So the best way to immunize yourself against a particular strain of the  winter flu is to dose up on vitamin D, boost your nutritional intake, get  healthy and then just go out into the world and stop worrying about exposing  yourself to the flu. You’ll pick it up somewhere, and if your immune system is  functioning well with high levels of vitamin D (that’s the vitamin that  “activates” your immune response to flu infections), your body will build its  own antibodies, and you won’t even know it! You will have what’s called a  “symptomless infection” and won’t even know your body successfully fought off  the viral invader.

Better yet, because you were exposed to the real viral  strain in the wild (and not some weakened strain in a flu vaccine shot), your  body will maintain lifetime immunity to that viral strain. And isn’t that  the goal of immunization in the first place?

Immunizing yourself, you  see, works far better than relying on the vaccine industry to immunize you  through some artificial means (an injection). Their immunization, it turns out,  simply doesn’t work reliably. And that’s why the sad sellouts and prostitutes of  the vaccine industry have to keep pushing their same lame flu shots year after  year, with no improvements and virtually zero effectiveness.

And the same  ignorant consumers line up year after year to get the same failed flu shots year  after year… then they wonder why they still get sick year after  year.

Do the math, folks. This is not rocket science. If flu shots worked  as well as your own immune response to a natural infection, then you would only  need one shot in your entire life for any given viral flu strain. But that, of  course, would be bad for vaccine profits. They need suckers to believe in annual  flu shots so they can keep raking in the big bucks year after year.

Read original here: http://www.naturalnews.com/032558_flu_shots_wear_off.html

The Independent reports that small farmers are being challenged by food companies are becoming insanely concentrated:

Increasingly, a handful of multinationals are tightening their grip on the commodity markets, with potentially dramatic effects for consumers and food producers alike.

***

Three companies now account for more than 40 per cent of global coffee sales, eight companies control the supply of cocoa and chocolate, seven control 85 per cent of tea production, five account for 75 per cent of the world banana trade, and the largest six sugar traders account for about two-thirds of world trade, according to the new publication from the Fairtrade Foundation.

***

This is the year “to put the politics of food on the public agenda and find better solutions to the insanity of our broken food system”.

More people may be shopping ethically – sales of Fairtrade cocoa grew by more than 20 per cent last year to £153m – but, according to the report, the world’s food system is “dangerously out of control”.

How is that effecting the safety of our food supply? Reuters notes:

Multinational food, drink and alcohol companies are using strategies similar to those employed by the tobacco industry to undermine public health policies, health experts said on Tuesday.

In an international analysis of involvement by so-called “unhealthy commodity” companies in health policy-making, researchers from Australia, Britain, Brazil and elsewhere said … that through the aggressive marketing of ultra-processed food and drink, multinational companies were now major drivers of the world’s growing epidemic of chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

Writing in The Lancet medical journal, the researchers cited industry documents they said revealed how companies seek to shape health legislation and avoid regulation.

This is done by “building financial and institutional relations” with health professionals, non-governmental organizations and health agencies, distorting research findings, and lobbying politicians to oppose health reforms, they said.

They cited analysis of published research which found systematic bias from industry funding: articles sponsored exclusively by food and drinks companies were between four and eight times more likely to have conclusions that favored the companies than those not sponsored by them.

How are giant food manufacturers trying to influence legislation?

As Waking Times reports, they’re trying to gag all reporting:

States are adopting laws meant to keep consumers in the dark about where their food comes from.

Do you have a right to know where that steak on your plate came from?

Should it be legal to photograph chicken farms and dairy cows?

Big Agriculture says you don’t and it shouldn’t. Armies of Big Ag lobbyists are pushing for new state-level laws across the country to keep us all in the dark. Less restrictive versions have been law in some states since the 1980s, but the meat industry has ratcheted up a radical new campaign.

This wave of “ag-gag” bills would criminalize whistleblowers, investigators, and journalists who expose animal welfare abuses at factory farms and slaughterhouses. Ten states considered “ag-gag” bills last year, and Iowa, Missouri, and Utah approved them. Even more are soon to follow.

Had these laws been in force, the Humane Society might have been prosecuted for documenting repeated animal welfare and food safety violations at Hallmark/Westland, formerly the second-largest supplier of beef to the National School Lunch Program. Cows too sick to walk were being slaughtered and that meat was shipped to our schools, endangering our kids. The investigation led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history.

***

Big Ag wants to silence whistleblowers rather than clean up its act. Ag-gag bills are now pending in Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Indiana, Nebraska, and New Hampshire. Similar legislation may crop up in North Carolina and Minnesota.

The bills aren’t identical, but they share common language — sometimes even word-for-word. Some criminalize anyone who even “records an image or sound” from a factory farm. Others mandate that witnesses report abuses within a few hours, which would make it impossible for whistleblowers to secure advice and protection, or for them to document a pattern of abuses.

Indiana’s version of this cookie-cutter legislation ominously begins with the statement that farmers have the right to “engage in agricultural operations free from the threat of terrorism and interference from unauthorized third persons.” [The Feds are treating people who expose abuse in factory farms as potential terrorists … and the states want the same power.]

Yet these bills aren’t about violence or terrorism. They’re about truth-telling that’s bad for branding. For these corporations, a “terrorist” is anyone who threatens their profits by exposing inhumane practices that jeopardize consumer health.

***

Ag-gag bills aren’t about silencing journalists and whistleblowers. They’re about curbing consumer access to information at a time when more and more Americans want to know where our food comes from and how it’s produced.

The problem for corporations is that when people have information, they act on it. During a recent ag-gag hearing in Indiana, one of the nation’s largest egg producers told lawmakers about a recent investigation. After an undercover video was posted online, 50 customers quickly called and stopped buying their eggs. An informed public is the biggest threat to business as usual.

An informed public is also the biggest threat to these ag-gag bills. In Wyoming, one of the bills has already failed. According to sponsors, it was abandoned in part because of negative publicity. By shining a light on these attempts, we can make sure that the rest fail as well, while protecting the right of consumers to know what they’re buying.

So what – exactly – are the giant food corporations trying to hide?

They are fraudulently substituting cheaper – less healthy – food for high-quality food.   And see this.

Indeed, the dairy industry wants to add sweeteners – such as aspartame – to milk without any labeling.

Food fraud is rampant .. including huge proportions of fish and meat.

The bottom line is that collusion between government and big business is dishing up cheap, unhealthy food … just like collusion between D.C. and giant corporations caused the financial crisis, the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, the Gulf oil spill and other major disasters (and see this; and take a peek at number 9).

For example, the FDA:

  • Declared fish from Fukushima a-okay after radiation spewed into the ocean

The Department of Agriculture:

An official U.S. government report finds that Americans ‘are sicker and die younger’ than people in other wealthy nations.  There are a number of factors making us sick … but unhealthy, cheap food is part of it.

One solution: buy from local farmers and ranchers … or grow your own as much as possible.

Read original here: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/giant-food-corporations-work-hand-in-glove-with-corrupt-government-agencies-to-dish-up-cheap-unhealthy-food.html

When he visits Israel next month, US President Barack Obama will tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that a “window of opportunity” for a military strike on Iran will open in June, according to an Israeli TV report Monday evening.

Obama will come bearing the message that if diplomatic efforts and sanctions don’t bear fruit, Israel should “sit tight” and let Washington take the stage, even if that means remaining on the sidelines during a US military operation, Channel 10 reported. Netanyahu will be asked to refrain from any military action and keep a low profile, avoiding even the mention of a strike, the report said, citing unnamed officials.

In London Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said an Iran with nuclear weapons was “simply unacceptable” and warned the time limit for a diplomatic solution was running out.

“As we have repeatedly made clear, the window for a diplomatic solution simply cannot remain open forever,” said Kerry, on his first international tour as America’s top diplomat. “But it is open today. It is open now and there is still time, but there is only time if Iran makes the decision to come to the table and to negotiate in good faith.

“We are prepared to negotiate in good faith, in mutual respect, in an effort to avoid whatever terrible consequences could follow failure, and so the choice really is in the hands of the Iranians. And we hope they will make the right choice,” Kerry added.

A fresh round of high-level diplomatic talks were set to begin Tuesday in Kazakhstan — the first since last June’s meeting in Moscow failed to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium to a level close to that used for nuclear warheads.

Two weeks ago, Netanyahu said he was looking forward to Obama’s visit and insisted that he enjoyed a positive relationship with the American president, despite reports to the contrary.

“We worked together closely, closer than how it may look. We worked together on security, diplomacy and intelligence,” he said, warning that Iran’s nuclear weapons program “continues unabated” and that “they’ll soon have enough material to produce a nuclear bomb.”

Netanyahu said earlier this month that he and Obama had agreed on three key areas of consultation during the presidential visit — thwarting Iran’s nuclear drive, grappling with the instability in Syria and the risks of WMD there falling into rogue hands, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read original here: http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-to-tell-netanyahu-us-gearing-up-for-strike/?

Since the early 1980′s the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans have urged trusting Americans to eat a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet for their health and weight control. Since then, there has been an alarming increase in chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes. In addition, obesity rates have shot up to 30%, and more than 70% of Americans are overweight.

Can the dietary guidelines be to blame?

Many experts believe that the USDA and other government agencies have stubbornly disregarded the science and continued a 30-year long nutrition experiment on Americans that has had disastrous results.

Nutrition experts from The Healthy Nation Coalition, which includes the Weston A. Price Foundation, the Salt Institute, and the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, have voiced concerns about the current USDA Dietary Guidelines issued in 2010.  They criticize the guidelines for perpetuating the wrong-headed advice to eat a low-fat diet, high in processed grains and cereals, which has contributed to the current obesity and health crisis.

What’s wrong with the government’s nutrition advice?

Dietary guidelines are a creation of politics and not science. Critics claim that the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee ignored scientific research that validates low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss and improved health. Low-carb diets generally recommend 60 to 120 grams of unprocessed carbohydrates per day, although some provide more, and some as little as 20 grams.

Besides encouraging people to eat processed carbohydrates such as cereal, rice, pasta and bread, the guidelines have made Americans fearful of eating real natural whole foods such as whole milk, cheese, red meat, eggs, salt, butter and full-fat yogurt. As a result, Americans have stocked their pantries with processed fake soy meats, vegetable oils, margarine and skimmed dairy products, all of which are depleted or completely devoid of key nutrients, such as vitamins D, A, K and choline.

The Campaign Against Saturated Fats

Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, faults the guidelines for continuing to demonize saturated fats based on unsound science.  The most recent guidelines reduce the recommended intake of saturated fats from 10% of calories to less than 7%.

The proposed 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines perpetuate the mistakes of previous guidelines in demonizing saturated fats and animal foods rich in saturated fatty acids such as egg yolks, butter, whole milk, cheese, fatty meats like bacon and animal fats for cooking. The current obesity epidemic emerged as vegetable oils and refined carbohydrates replaced these healthy, nutrient-dense traditional fats. Animal fats supply many essential nutrients that are difficult to obtain from other sources,” explained Ms. Morell in a press conference sponsored by the Healthy Nation Coalition.

Ms. Morell noted that for the past 60 or 70 years, saturated fats have been blamed for clogging arteries, and for causing heart disease, diabetes and even multiple sclerosis. None of these accusations is based on sound science she says.

Health Benefits of Saturated Fats

On the other hand, Ms. Morell points out the critical roles that saturated fats play in the body, including:

  • Make up 50% of cell membranes
  • Help the body put calcium in the bones
  • Lower Lp(a), a marker for heart disease
  • Protect the liver from alcohol and other poisons
  • Are required for lung and kidney function
  • Enhance the immune system
  • Work together with essential fatty acids
  • Support the body’s detoxification mechanisms

The government’s rationale for promoting a low-fat diet is the belief that fat makes us fat. Ms. Morell cites, however, the famous Framingham Heart Study which demonstrated that those eating more saturated fat, more cholesterol and more calories actually had lower blood serum cholesterol levels, weighed less and were more physically active.

In addition, a 1965 British heart study showed that heart attack survivors eating a saturated fat diet lived longer than those eating a diet of polyunsaturated or mono-unsaturated vegetable oils.

Finally, she cites a study of European countries which found that countries in which the population ate a diet high in saturated fats had lower rates of heart disease and those eating a low saturated fat diet had higher rates of heart disease.

The government and nutrition experts often lump saturated fats in with trans fats. Even worse, the fear of saturated fats has led many to replace the butter in their diets with trans fat laden margarines. Since 1926, Ms. Morell points out, use of butter in the U.S. has plummeted and at the same time rates of cancer and cardiovascular disease have skyrocketed.

Other “grave concerns” with the guidelines include

  1. Restriction of dietary cholesterol to 300 mg per day (less than 2 eggs);
  2. Restriction of sodium to 1,500 mg per day (2/3 of a teaspoon of salt);
  3. Promotion of low-fat milk and lean meats;
  4. Use of meat substitutes in federally funded school lunches; and
  5. Absence of any restrictions on refined carbohydrates and sweeteners in school meals.

Ms. Morell warned that the harm resulting from these misguided recommendations fall disproportionately on the nation’s children who will be fed these nutrient poor, fat inducing diets every day at school.  And that is a tragedy.

Read original here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/are-governments-dietary-guidelines-making-us-obese

Most people are unaware that there is a  controversy about vaccination. They are unaware that there is another  point of view about the benefits of Vaccination. They are unaware of the risks  associated with this medical procedure. Where risk of injury or death is  acknowledged, it is believed to be rare and inconsequential compared to  the perceived benefits to individuals and society.

With growing evidence that vaccinations  may actually be causing chronic health problems and the attendant  realization that the right to informed consent is being denied, a  growing number of parents and concerned individuals are demanding that  questions about safety and appropriateness be addressed.

What are the perceived  issues?

On the one hand, there is a vaccination  policy whose goal is 100%  compliance and whose proponents believe that  vaccination is modern  medicine’s greatest achievement. Today every child born is expected to  be “inoculated” with some 30  vaccines by the age of 18 months and by the  age of five years old, have  up to 38 shots.

On the other hand, there are concerned  parents  and professionals who believe there are some flaws with both the  theory  and the application of our vaccine policy, who claim that  vaccines are  dangerous, and who may not want to comply with the above  stated goal.

In the middle of this schism, a growing  number of people are  getting wind that a debate about vaccines is  brewing. Many of these people would prefer NOT  to know there  are issues about vaccination, because the questions and  issues that are  being raised threaten the belief system that our  conventional health  care system is predicated upon.

While it may seem like The  Vaccine  Controversy is news, the issues surrounding this debate have  actually  been contested for decades. Whereas the proponents of mass  vaccination might have you think there  is a conspiracy of quacks and  unfit parents trying to thwart medical  progress, the truth of the matter  is that the mounting evidence of  malfeasance is undeniable as the  conspiracy of silence about this  conflict is brought to light.

At issue, of course, is whether   vaccines are safe. As the incidence  of autoimmune diseases  in our children rise to epidemic levels,  concerned people see a  credible correlation to vaccine history and want  the independently  researched scientific data that verifies both safety  and efficacy of  these medical products and procedures. Vaccine proponents, while they admit  there are some  risks, keep assuring us that vaccines are safe and  vaccination saves  lives. Those who question, they say,  forget or  are unaware of how devastating diseases were before the  advent of  vaccines.

Given that vaccines were conceived and  are  produced within the paradigm of Modern Medicine’s scientific method,   our faith in the policy of mass vaccination is nothing less than   steadfast and confident. With killer epidemics of infectious disease a   thing of the past, WHY NOT credit mass vaccination? Indeed, this assertion is taken at face  value even in  the Informed Consent Movement, even though statistics  show that better  nutrition and improved hygiene are as much contributing  factors to the  eradication of killer epidemics as mass vaccination is  purported to be.

The fact is, the stellar role that  mass vaccination is believed  to play in public health DOES NOT preclude a  possible secondary role in  ALSO being a cause of chronic, debilitating  and, in many ways, painful  immunologic and neurological disorders. Proponents of mandatory vaccination say  absolutely not. Parents of chronically ill children, a   growing number of medical professionals, and other reasonable people  are  beginning to wonder. Hence, the  Vaccine Controversy . . .

Many people would prefer not to go down   this road. It was easier when you  only had to deal  with the fear of getting an infectious disease. Vaccination put that fear out of your   mind. With Informed Consent, and knowing that the risks of vaccination   are actually higher and more diverse than you previously thought, it   seems we now have two fears to contend with. What to do?

To begin with, what is needed is proper   perspective. There are several  serious issues in  this debate that MUST BE RESOLVED, vaccine safety  being one, however

The FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE in  The Vaccine Controversy is not about  vaccine safety!

The fundamental issue in The Vaccine  Controversy has to do with the  government’s power to deny individual  rights. Simply stated, because vaccines are  mandated by law  individuals are not free to make choices about  vaccination for  themselves or their family members.

Because  vaccines are mandated, The Vaccine Controversy is about  the Right to  Informed Consent.

Vaccination is a medical  procedure that carries an inherent risk of  injury or death. Vaccination is the only   medical procedure &  medical product that is forced upon us by law.

Because there are  risks  of injury or death with vaccines, parents deserve to be given  truthful  and unbiased information about both the diseases and the  vaccines.

Informed  Consent means having  the right to choose or decline a medical  procedure that carries a risk  for serious injury, disability or death.

Because vaccines are  mandated, The Vaccine Controversy is about the Right to Choose.

Individuals have the  right to choose the type of preventive health care  they want to use,  including choosing whether to use one, ten or no  vaccines. See the Patient’s Bill of  Rights for more  information.

What is the  justification for mandated mass vaccination?

A common belief that the  majority of people have shared since the  advent of vaccines is that  vaccination improves public health and that mass vaccination  protects everyone’s  health.  The presumed logic is  that high  vaccination rates are necessary in order to prevent the return of  terrible diseases.  In order to  protect the  public, the public must be vaccinated.

It is not clear whether vaccination  became mandatory because the  public cannot be trusted to always fulfill  their obligations to  society, so laws were created to enforce  compliance, or whether because  vaccination is a medical procedure that carries risk of injury or  death, it must  be mandated. If the rationale that mass vaccination   protects everyone’s health was true, rational people would likely be   willing to take the risk of injury or death from vaccination, and people   everywhere would suppose that forcing this medical procedure upon   entire populations is noble, even though not ethical. In fact, this is  what we have believed  and why we have been so willing to sanction this  violation of civil  rights.

However, the variables have  changed,  and so, too, the outcome. We now have a new, more insidious   epidemic occurring, the consequences of which are not yet fully   understood or realized. The rising epidemic of autoimmune  diseases  and neurological dysfunction in our children begs, now more  than ever,  the question “is vaccination somehow to blame; is  vaccination a  contributing factor?” Yet, even as the credible empirical and   scientific data coming in suggests that it could be, our regulatory   agencies and the pharmaceutical companies that profit from vaccination   continue to assure us that injecting a plethora of diseases and toxic   chemicals into the bodies of our young children does not adversely   affect their immune systems and “not to worry.” In fact, they implore us  to ignore what  we see, what we read and hear about, and they remind us  of our  obligation to society. Because, you see,

The rationale for mandated mass vaccination  is based on the notion  that the risk of  injury or death from vaccine  is relative to the risk  of injury or death  without vaccine.

In  other words, the  perceived benefit of saving millions of lives from   the scourge of  epidemics by mass vaccination outweighs the purportedly   rare incidence  of death by vaccine. Thus, “the end justifies  the   means.”

This, as we learn from studying  history, is a dangerous  precedent  for government intrusion and leads to  unbridled, unchecked  and unlawful  power. Yet the majority of people think that  mandating  this risky  medical procedure is appropriate. Why?  Because “vaccination  is about  the  public health”, meaning that individual choice is no  longer  relevant.

If it were true that vaccination  protects  the public health and  improves immunity, one might be willing  to play  the vaccine game of  roulette in order to gain such a benefit. However, the science  simply does not  support this hypothesis any  longer. The truth is that  the justification for  compulsory injection  of toxic chemicals and  foreign proteins is based  on a flawed but  pervasive belief that  vaccination safely stimulates an  immune response  — yet the most  advanced science in immunity proves  that the human  immune system cannot  be tricked, suppressed, or  controlled into  accepting or tolerating any  foreign DNA or proteins –  whether by  infection, injection or  transplantation – without immunologic   consequences. Vaccine  technology is based on a two  hundred year  old theory and advanced  science simply does not support  this  hypothesis any longer.

With an epidemic of autoimmune diseases   literally crippling our next  generation of adults, there is no question   that vaccination is about  public health. Perhaps it is time to expand  our myopic  view that high  vaccination rates and low incidence of  infectious  disease alone  constitutes public health. The fact is, our  beliefs about  vaccination  are founded on precepts that are no longer  valid — the  variables have  changed, and so too the outcome.

Read the original here: http://www.know-vaccines.org/?page_id=456




  • Your support in the Liberty Beacon will be appreciated