This Forum is Closed
October 25, 2021, 09:31:33 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home:
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Mass Mind Control / Social Engineering / Corporate "News" Media / Re: 'Government Doesn't Suck' march planned :D on: October 26, 2010, 08:30:44 am
Figures they are redefining the 'problem'. It was never the Joe/Jane-fed-worker bee that was a problem - it's the congress, the supreme court, the entire executive branch, and the military... then on to the contractors and NGO's. THEY suck.
2  General / General Discussion / Re: Authorities Admit "Malware" (aka PTECH) caused Plane Crash on: August 23, 2010, 05:58:14 pm
Did malware cause Spanair’s McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82 (MD-82) EC-HFP to crash?
Posted by: brucedrum | August 22, 2010

Spanair’s (Barcelona) flight JKK 5022 on August 20, 2008 operating from Madrid to Gran Canaria, crashed on takeoff. The airliner veered off to the right and into the ground while climbing immediately after lifting off from runway 36L at 1445 local time. The McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82 MD-82 with the registration of EC-HFP (msn 53148) was carrying 162 passengers and 10 crew. In the accident 154 people were killed, two were seriously injured and 12 were slightly injured.

The on-going investigation has discovered the central computer system used to monitor technical problems in the aircraft was infected with malware.

According to the linked article, an internal report issued by Spanair revealed the infected computer failed to detect three technical problems with the aircraft, which if detected, may have prevented the plane from taking off, according to reports in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais.
3  General / General Discussion / Authorities Admit "Malware" (aka PTECH) caused Plane Crash on: August 23, 2010, 05:56:14 pm
Malware implicated in fatal Spanair plane crash
Computer monitoring system was infected with Trojan horse, authorities say
By Leslie Meredith
updated 8/20/2010 4:48:01 PM ET
By Leslie Meredith

Authorities investigating the 2008 crash of Spanair flight 5022 have discovered a central computer system used to monitor technical problems in the aircraft was infected with malware.

An internal report issued by the airline revealed the infected computer failed to detect three technical problems with the aircraft, which if detected, may have prevented the plane from taking off, according to reports in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais.

Flight 5022 crashed just after takeoff from Madrid-Barajas International Airport two years ago today, killing 154 and leaving only 18 survivors.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board reported in a preliminary investigation that the plane had taken off with its flaps and slats retracted — and that no audible alarm had been heard to warn of this because the systems delivering power to the take-off warning system failed. Two earlier events had not been reported by the automated system.

The malware on the Spanair computer has been identified as a type of Trojan horse. It could have entered the airline's system in a number of ways, according to Jamz Yaneeza, head threat researcher at Trend Micro.

Some of the most likely ways are through third party devices such as USB sticks, Yaneeza said, which were responsible for the International Space Station virus infection in 2008, or through a remote VPN connection that may not have the same protection as a computer within the enterprise network. Opening just one malicious file on a single computer is all it takes to infect an entire system.

"Any computer that is connected to a network is vulnerable to a malware infection," O. Sami Saydjari, president of Cyber Defense Agency, told TechNewsDaily.

"Standards have not been set to protect critical infrastructure."

An incident like this could happen again, and most likely will, according to Saydjari.

A judge has ordered Spanair to provide all of the computer's logs from the days before and after the crash.  The final report from crash investigators is not due to be presented until December.

4  General / General Discussion / Re: What Is Your Line In The Sand? on: August 23, 2010, 05:42:09 pm
Mine is forced Inoculations !

Mine too Donnay - I will never allow anyone to stick me with some poisonous cocktail in the guise of 'protecting' me.  If the FDA/WHO/CDC/Govt. wants to protect us, then get the G-Damned HFCS, aspartame, GM Food, and fluoride out of the food/water they 'approve' for us. Then we can talk. Until that time, GTFO.
5  General / General Discussion / Remember The Gainesville 8: Exposing potential FALSE FLAGS can have consequences on: August 23, 2010, 11:16:36 am
As the paranoia of the NWO ratchets up: as they escalate the final stages of their 'grand plan', we can expect that any venues where the false flag plans are exposed will be targeted for shutdown. In the case of the Gainesville 8, they discovered they were going to be used as patsies, and they exposed it. When they went to court after the fact, they WON. 

Gainesville 8 Innocent
People's Verdict, People's Victory!

On August 31st, 14 months after they were charged with the conspiracy to violently disrupt the 1972 Republican Convention, the Gainesville 8 were unanimously declared innocent of all charges. The jury's verdict has confirmed what VVAW/WSO has maintained from the beginning: namely that the only real conspiracy was the attempt by the Nixon administration to frame the Gainesville 8 and VVAW/WSO on bogus charges in hopes of discrediting or destroying the organization.

What was the government's case that this trial was based on -- a trial that cost the U.S. taxpayer millions of dollars? It certainly wasn't based on anything remotely resembling evidence! Rather, its "substance" consisted of the testimony of paid informants and mentally unbalanced agents provocateurs. It consisted of "bomb" formulas that experts testified might work as well as a kitchen match. While one FBI operative vainly tried to sell the defendants machine guns, others illegally tapped conversations between the defendants and their attorneys in the very court building itself.

The government know that if the true nature of the trial ever saw the light of day, it would be in real trouble. As a result, Judge Arnow tried to implement one of the most all-encompassing gag rules ever seen in federal courts in hopes of covering the whole thing up. While this was a flagrant violation of our 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech, at no time during the trial was a great concern ever shown for the Bill of Rights anyway -- the government generally ignored it!

Then why did the trial occur if there was no case?

The answer is that it was just another case of overt political repression. Watergate testimony has repeatedly shown that CREP viewed the anti-war issue as the swing issue in the 1972 presidential election. It also showed that as early as the spring of 1971, Nixon was acutely aware of VVAW/WSO's leadership role in the anti-war movement. Against a background of a rapidly escalating repression of all political activity in the U.S., this knowledge makes the reasoning behind the trial a lot clearer.

The government needed, first of all, to defuse the anti-war issue in the 1972 presidential campaign. What better way to do this was there than by portraying a leading anti-war group as a bunch of vicious killers? With the public outcry caused by the Watergate scandal, a secondary purpose for the trial can be found: an attempt to partially divert attention away form the Watergate affair by fabricating a phony "threat to national security." James McCord specifically named VVAW/WSO as the chief villain in this "threat to national security" and as a justification for their actions.

In such an atmosphere of repression, it is fitting that the defense ended its case after calling only one witness and then resting on the "evidence" of what "the government calls its case!" The significance of this act is a powerful statement on the sorry state the American judicial system finds itself in, for it has become the very instrument of that repression. It is also a realization of the fact that, ultimately, the only safeguard of justice we really have is the American people themselves. It is the American people alone that have consistantly refused to buy the government's string of conspiracy trials and seen that a just verdict of innocent was returned -- such was the case with the trials of the Camden 28, the Seattle 7, Harrisburg, and now the Gainesville 8.

As a number of the jurors pointed out after the trial: "What was there to deliberate? They never showed us any evidence. We could have come back with a verdict in 10 minutes." Another Gainesville 8 juror went so far as to say: "I wish I had understood all these things about the government 20 years earlier."

If there is going to be any justice in this country it clearly is going to come from the American people rather than the U.S. government. While we should recognize the victory the people have won in the acquittal of the Gainesville 8, we cannot allow ourselves to believe that our struggle is over. Truthfully, it is only beginning. Even as the Gainesville 8 are freed thousands of our other brothers and sisters are not so fortunate.

Those suffering under the medieval conditions of prisons throughout the U.S. -- Atica, New York; San Quentin, Cal.' Starke, Fla.' Jolliet, Ill.' Michigan City, Ind.; Leavenworth, Kan.' McAlester, Okla. to mention a few -- do not have to be reminded that they haven't received anything even remotely resembling justice form the U.S. government. While the Gainesville 8 are free, Gary Lawton is still fighting for his freedom as are the Attica Brothers, the Wounded Knee defendants, Ruchell Magee, the San Quentin 6 and a whole lot of other brothers and sisters. Freedom has its price and that price is constant struggle. WHILE THERE IS A SOUL IN PRISON, WE ARE NOT FREE!
6  General / General Discussion / Obama "letter" increases FBI power to get your data "faster and easier" on: July 29, 2010, 10:04:54 am
White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 29, 2010

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier
for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records
of an individual's Internet activity without a court order
if agents deem the information relevant to a
terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.

To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.

The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.

Privacy concerns

The use of the national security letters to obtain personal data on Americans has prompted concern. The Justice Department issued 192,500 national security letters from 2003 to 2006, according to a 2008 inspector general report, which did not indicate how many were demands for Internet records. A 2007 IG report found numerous possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the request. In two cases, the report found, agents used NSLs to request content information "not permitted by the [surveillance] statute."

One issue with both the proposal and the current law is that the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" is not defined anywhere in statute. "Our biggest concern is that an expanded NSL power might be used to obtain Internet search queries and Web histories detailing every Web site visited and every file downloaded," said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T for assisting the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program.

He said he does not object to the government obtaining access to electronic records, provided it has a judge's approval.

Senior administration officials said the proposal was prompted by a desire to overcome concerns and resistance from Internet and other companies that the existing statute did not allow them to provide such data without a court-approved order. "The statute as written causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. "This clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993."

The administration has asked Congress to amend the statute, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, in the fiscal year that begins in October.

Administration officials noted that the act specifies in one clause that Internet and other companies have a duty to provide electronic communication transactional records to the FBI in response to a national security letter.

But the next clause specifies only four categories of basic subscriber data that the FBI may seek: name, address, length of service and toll billing records. There is no reference to electronic communication transactional records.

Same as phone records?
The officials said the transactional information at issue, which does not include Internet search queries, is the functional equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can obtain without court authorization. Learning the e-mail addresses to which an Internet user sends messages, they said, is no different than obtaining a list of numbers called by a telephone user.

Obtaining such records with an NSL, as opposed to a court order, "allows us to intercede in plots earlier than we would if our hands were tied and we were unable to get this data in a way that was quick and efficient," the senior administration official said.

But the value of such data is the reason a court should approve its disclosure, said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's much more sensitive than the other information, like name, address and telephone number, that the FBI gets with national security letters," he said. "It shows associational information protected by the First Amendment and is much less public than things like where you live."

A Nov. 5, 2008, opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, whose opinions are binding on the executive branch, made clear that the four categories of basic subscriber information the FBI may obtain with an NSL were "exhaustive."

This opinion, said Sussmann, the former Clinton administration lawyer, caused many companies to reevaluate the scope of what could be provided in response to an NSL. "The OLC opinion removed the ambiguity," he said. "Providers now are limited to the four corners of what the opinion says they can give out. Those who give more do so at their own risk."

Marc Zwillinger, an attorney for Internet companies, said some providers are not giving the FBI more than the four categories specified. He added that with the rise of social networking, the government's move could open a significant amount of Internet activity to government surveillance without judicial authorization. "A Facebook friend request -- is that like a phone call or an e-mail? Is that something they would sweep in under an NSL? They certainly aren't getting that now."
7  Health, Family & Eugenics / Alternative Health / Natural Food / Re: Non-GMO Shopping Guide: How to find healthy choices when you're food shopping on: July 26, 2010, 01:36:14 pm

GM foods and ingredients approved for U.S. market
If the following are not certified organic, they may be genetically modified.

    * Soy — miso, soy sauce/tamari/shoyu, teriyaki marinades, tofu, soy beverages, tempeh, textured vegetable protein (usually soy), soyprotein isolate or protein isolate, lecithin or soy lecithin; bread, pastry, margarine, mayonnaise and salad dressings also may include lecithin
    * Corn — fructose/high fructose syrup, cornstarch, food starch/modified food starch, flour, meal, sorbitol, malt, malt syrup, malt extract, dextrin, maltodextrin, mono- and diglycerides, baking powder (corn starch is the usual filler, try the corn-free “Featherweight” brand at PCC), confectioners sugar (PCC sells organic), monosodium glutamate, vitamins that do not state “corn-free”
    * Cotton (seed oil)
    * Canola
    * Hawaiian papaya (PCC sells only non-Hawaiian papaya)
    * Zucchini and yellow crook-neck squash (a small amount)
    * Alfalfa for cattle (a federal judge halted plantings in March 2007)
    * GM additives such as aspartame
    * Milk — if cows are treated with GM growth hormone (rBGH)

8  Health, Family & Eugenics / Alternative Health / Natural Food / Obama Food Safety Czar is former FDA & Monsanto executive & lobbyist (change?) on: July 26, 2010, 01:21:22 pm
A reminder to help you appreciate how important it is for us to be cautious about the food we buy... we do NOT have a responsible 'Food Safety Czar' in the Obama administration. Quite the opposite. We have a former Monsanto VP now in a position to 'green light' anything for a buck, with extra points for eugenics agenda 'checkbox' items:

You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!
Jeffrey Smith
Author and founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology
Posted: July 23, 2009 03:17 PM


The person who may be responsible
for more food-related illness and death
than anyone in history has
just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.


Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever!  The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

9  The War Room / Afghanistan / Iraq / Re: IRAQ : Human Cost......... on: July 26, 2010, 12:59:14 pm
Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009 (Full Report)

by Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi

July 24, 2010

Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009

Report here :–2009

We are dropping depleted uranium bombs on the population and going back for long-term studies of the effects. This is Dr.Mengele's dream in action: live human experimentation in broad daylight, sanctioned by the silence of the progressive 'left' and the rationalization of the neocon right that it's all 'for our safety'.

And it's happening in Fallujah, in Gaza, in Somalia and God only knows where else.
10  Health, Family & Eugenics / Alternative Health / Natural Food / Salmon: The First GM Farmed Animal? on: July 26, 2010, 10:51:34 am
Salmon: The First GM Farmed Animal?
June 28, 2010 on 11:40 am | By Andrew in Agricultural Policy, Featured Farmer, The Big Picture

News that an “efficient and environmentally sustainable” genetically modified (GM) salmon may be a step closer to commercial release had me reaching for a large pinch of salt—and not, I might add, to help season the dish.

As some of you will know from my previous blogs, I am extremely skeptical about the real benefits that GM technology offers us all. Indeed, I have grave concerns about GM—not only about the potential environmental and health risks associated with the technology, but also the potential control that GM gives “Big Ag” over global food production. These concerns are just as relevant to GM fish production as they are to GM soy, cotton or corn. The difference, of course, is that, with fish, we are dealing with a living creature, where welfare is also an issue.

On June 15, 2010, Massachusetts-based biotech company AquaBounty announced that it had moved a step closer to gaining formal U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval of its AquAdvantage® Salmon. According to the AquaBounty website, the AquaAdvantage Salmon is genetically modified to “include a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon that provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon.” This enables “shorter production cycles and increased efficiency of production.”

This fish would be the first GM animal
to be approved by the USDA, and would open the door
to the mass production of other GM fish.

AquaBounty already has plans for GM trout and GM tilapia, and once GM fish are permitted, biotech companies would no doubt push ahead with other GM farmed animals—including pigs, cattle and poultry.

Call me a cynic but I’ve learnt to take the claims of biotech companies with a rather hefty pinch of salt. Despite the billions of dollars thrown at the technology over the years, I think it’s fair to say that most of the “golden promises” of biotech have failed to come to any real fruition. Fifteen years later, for example, and we’re still waiting for the promised drought-resistant GM crops that would “solve global hunger.” The handful of GM products that have managed to reach the market have generally focused on herbicide or insect-resistant traits. These crops are now rapidly losing their appeal after the emergence of multiple herbicide-resistant GM “super weeds,” unpredicted pest and soil nutrient problems, and growing discontent among farmers over the heavy-handed business practices of some of the GM seed companies and their so-called “seed police.”

But I am also naturally skeptical of anyone making claims of finding a “panacea,” because you rarely get something for nothing. In my experience of farming, Mother Nature has a pretty reliable habit of balancing things out over the longer term. Sure, you might trick her for a while but there is always a cost somewhere down the line, even if it’s eventually borne by someone—or something—else.

This is why AquaBounty’s claim that its GM salmon will reach a marketable size in half the time caught my attention.

You don’t get such unnatural growth rates without a ”cost.”
Even without the “advantages” of biotechnology we have already managed
to cause significant welfare problems through selective breeding
and hybridization of several species.

For example, most farmers are well aware of the animal welfare problems associated with Belgian blue cattle. The double muscling mutation which breeders have selected for over the years has led to extensive calving difficulties and an extraordinarily high level of caesareans. Deformities of the jaw and tongue, as well as respiratory, heart and reproductive problems, are also well documented within the Belgian Blue breed. Similarly, research shows that the Cornish Cross chicken breed puts on weight faster than its body can actually cope with. The birds can suffer from heart strain and are prone to joint and ligament problems. Again, while the breed has not been genetically modified, the point is that our desire to constantly increase growth rates and shorten the time needed to reach a marketable weight has led to these associated welfare problems.

According to an expert panel from the Royal Society of Canada, set up in 2001 to consider the potential impacts of food biotechnology, experiments to genetically modify fish have already resulted in health and welfare issues, including “changes to enzyme activity, gross anatomy, behavior and, in all likelihood, hormonal activity.” This is why AquaBounty’s claims that its GM salmon will bring about “fish health benefits” had me reaching once again for a healthy pinch of salt.

Putting the GM issue aside for one moment, the welfare of farmed fish is already a big concern. Wild salmon are migratory fish and naturally travel thousands of miles. A farmed salmon is caged and swims around in a space equivalent to a large bathtub full of water. The parallels between intensive broiler production and salmon farming are, to my mind, quite striking—large numbers of animals in a small space being pushed to grow as fast as possible; the high risk of disease, leading to routine use of medication to avoid parasites and disease; the environmental pollution risk from feed and fish waste contaminating the seabed below the cages, and so on. This all goes completely against the type of farming system that AWA wants to see, whether it’s bird, animal or fish.

Some of you may well be thinking that we are”only” talking about a fish. But, as responsible people, we shouldn’t distinguish between the “cute and cuddly” and the “slimy”—either we care about what we eat, how it was produced, and the subsequent impact on the environment, or we don’t.

We also need to realize that USDA approval of this GM animal would undoubtedly pave the way for the future approval of GM pigs, GM cattle and GM poultry—all of which are already on the biotech drawing board, and which would entail the same health and welfare risks. And if you are expecting the public to kick up a fuss over this, think again: current labeling rules mean that most consumers wouldn’t even know they are eating a GM product.

On the plus side, AquaBounty has been seeking approval from the USDA for this GM salmon since 1996; and, back in 2004, the company publicly claimed that it was just ”two or three years away” from commercial production. So while the AquaAdvantage Salmon might still turn out to be another of biotech’s many burst bubbles, I’m not going to hold my breath.
11  Health, Family & Eugenics / Alternative Health / Natural Food / Re: Non-GMO Shopping Guide: How to find healthy choices when you're food shopping on: July 26, 2010, 10:30:59 am
GM Food: A Guide for the Confused

Our thanks to UK campaigner and lecturer Luke Anderson, geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou, and Prof Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, for helping us through the maze.

Q: What are genes?

A: Genes are the inherited blueprints for the thousands of proteins that form the building blocks of all life, from bacteria to humans. Proteins make enzymes, which carry out all the bodily processes, like digestion of food, that keep us alive.

Q: What is genetic engineering?

A: Genetic engineering involves taking genes from one species and inserting them into another. For example, genes from an arctic flounder which has "antifreeze" properties may be spliced into a tomato to prevent frost damage.

Q: Is genetic engineering precise?

A: No. It is impossible to guide the insertion of the new gene. This can lead to unpredictable effects. Also, genes do not work in isolation but in highly complex relationships which are not understood. Any change to the DNA at any point will affect it throughout its length in ways scientists cannot predict. The claim by some that they can is both arrogant and untrue.

Q: Isn't GM just an extension of traditional breeding practices?

A: No - GM bears no resemblance to traditional breeding techniques. The government's own Genetic Modification (Contained Use) Regulations admit this when it defines GM as "the altering of the genetic material in that organism in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination or both".

Traditional breeding techniques operate within established natural boundaries which allow reproduction to take place only between closely related forms. Thus tomatoes can cross-pollinate with other tomatoes but not soya beans; cows can mate only with cows and not sheep. These genes in their natural groupings have been finely tuned to work harmoniously together by millions of years of evolution. Genetic engineering crosses genes between unrelated species which would never cross-breed in nature.

Q: Could this be dangerous?

A: Potentially, yes. In one case, soya bean engineered with a gene from a brazil nut gave rise to allergic reactions in people sensitive to the nuts. Most genes being introduced into GM plants have never been part of the food supply so we can't know if they are likely to be allergenic.

More seriously, in 1989 there was an outbreak of a new disease in the US, contracted by over 5,000 people and traced back to a batch of L-tryptophan food supplement produced with GM bacteria. Even though it contained less than 0.1 per cent of a highly toxic compound, 37 people died and 1,500 were left with permanent disabilities. More may have died, but the American Centre for Disease Control stopped counting in 1991.

The US government declared that it was not GM that was at fault but a failure in the purification process. However, the company concerned, Showa Denko, admitted that the low-level purification process had been used without ill effect in non-GM batches. Scientists at Showa Denko blame the GM process for producing traces of a potent new toxin. This new toxin had never been found in non-GM versions of the product.

Q: Former UK government Cabinet Enforcer Jack Cunningham said, "Those GM foods on the market are as safe as the equivalent [non-GM] foods." Is he right?

A: Dr Cunningham is talking about the concept of "substantial equivalence". Substantial equivalence is a legal concept invented by the biotech industry. The industry claims that a GM food or food supplement is "substantially equivalent" to, or the same as, the non-GM version and therefore does not require labels or extensive testing.

Regulators have blindly accepted the substantial equivalence doctrine without backing up their belief with independent scientific research.

Showa Denko was not required to test the GM version of L-tryptophan because of the assumption that it would be the same as the non-GM version.

The doctrine of substantial equivalence means that there is nothing in the regulations to prevent another tragedy like the L-tryptophan case from happening again with new GM foods.

Naturally, when it comes to patenting, the rules change. The "substantially equivalent" GM food magically becomes completely different from its non-GM equivalent. It transforms into a unique product which remains the sole property of the patent holder, and woe betide anyone who infringes the patent.

Q: Are GE foods more dangerous to allergy-prone people?

A: The problem with GM foods is their unpredictability. A person may prove unexpectedly allergic to a food he has previously eaten safely. For this reason, people who are hyperallergenic or environmentally sensitive may want to avoid GM foods.

Q: UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "There is no GM food that can be sold in this country without going through a very long regulatory process." Does that mean there's nothing to worry about?

A: Health-risk assessment of GM foods compares only a few known components (e.g., certain nutrients, known toxins and allergens) between GM and non-GM equivalent varieties. If things match up then all is assumed to be well. Short-term animal feeding trials are conducted in some cases. All the research is done by the biotech companies themselves. Then government approval committees judge whether they believe that the evidence of safety is convincing.

No evidence from human trials for either toxicity or allergy testing is required. No independent checks of the company's claims are required. The fact that the L-tryptophan tragedy would repeat itself by these criteria highlights the inadequacy of the system.

Geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou says, "At the very least, long-term animal feeding trials followed by tests with human volunteers of the type required for GM drugs should be mandatory."

Prof Joe Cummins, professor emeritus of genetics at the University of Western Ontario, believes there is a cynical agenda behind the lack of proper testing: "The failure to test may provide some protection in the courts against lawsuits by those maimed or crippled by the foods. Most ill effects from food and allergies are not easily quantified until after the disaster. At best, there may be a small but marked increase in autoimmune disease and allergy associated with the foods. At worst, major outbreaks of illness could be observed and will be difficult to trace to the unlabelled foods."

Q: What will the impact of GM crops be on the environment?

A: Last year, 71 percent of all GM crops grown were genetically engineered to be herbicide resistant. A field can now be sprayed with chemicals and everything will die except for the resistant crop. The sales of one of the herbicides being used are predicted to rise by $200 million as a result.

Graham Wynne, Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, says: "The ability to clear fields of all weeds using powerful herbicides which can be sprayed onto GM herbicide-resistant crops will result in farmlands devoid of wildlife and will spell disaster for millions of already declining birds and plants."

There are also GM virus-resistant crops. Prof Joe Cummins says: "Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops - genetic recombination will create virulent new viruses from such constructions. The widely used cauliflower mosaic virus (present in the GM soy and maize currently on supermarket shelves in the UK) is a potentially dangerous gene. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power."

Q: What is genetic pollution?

A: Genes engineered into plants and animals can be transferred to other species. For example, genes from GM oilseed ****, salmon or micro-organisms may move into the gene pools of wild relatives. The introduction of GM organisms into complex ecosystems may bring knock-on effects that we are unable to control.

Q: Which foods are not GM?

A: Presently certified organic foods are the best bet for the anti-GM consumer. However, even with the best intentions, companies attempting to exclude GM ingredients from their products have found contamination from GM crops. De Rit recently had to recall a batch of organic tortilla chips after tests showed that they contained GM maize. The company believes that cross-pollination of crops was to blame. Iceland, the only supermarket chain to try to ban GM ingredients from its own-brand products, recently wrote to its suppliers acknowledging that some GM contamination is unavoidable, because of cross-pollination of crops. The Linda McCartney range of vegetarian meals has also been discovered to be contaminated with GM soya.

Meanwhile, organic farming is under threat from the biotech companies. In the U.S., lawyers from the biotech companies are trying to force the government to require that GM crops can be declared organic. Some U.S. states have succumbed to Monsanto's pressure and banned GM-free labels on food. Monsanto has successfully sued dairy farmers who labelled dairy products as free or Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Due to so-called free trade agreements established by the World Trade Organisation, it may become illegal for individual countries to maintain higher organic standards than the U.S. So what happens in the U.S. has a direct knock-on effect on Europe.

Q: Why are genes being patented?

A: Patents give a huge incentive to the biotechnology industry to create new GM organisms. Since most patents last for 17-20 years, the companies are keen to recoup any investment quickly, often at the expense of safety and ethics. There are currently patents approved or pending for over 190 GM animals, including fish, cows, mice and pigs. There are also patents on varieties of seeds and plants, as well as unusual genes and cell lines from indigenous peoples. Scouts are sent around the world to discover genes that may have commercial applications. Over half the world's plant and animal species live in the rainforests of the south and the industry has been quick to draw upon these resources.

The Neem tree, for instance, has been used for thousands of years in India for its antiseptic and insecticidal properties. Following in the well-trodden footsteps of Christopher Columbus, western corporations have filed a number of patents on these attributes.

Q: Are GM crops grown in the UK?

A: There are several hundred "deliberate release sites" in the UK where GM crops are being grown experimentally. In addition, this spring, a number of large-scale GM crop trials will be planted in order to assess their effect on wildlife. The first commercial crops could be planted within a year.

If commercial planting goes ahead, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for organic farming to stay free from contamination due to cross-pollination from GM crops.

Q: Are we eating GM food?

A: GM soya is in about 60 percent of all processed food as vegetable oil, soya flour, lecithin and soya protein. GM maize is in about 50 percent of processed foods as corn, corn starch, cornflour and corn syrup. GM tomato puree is sold in some supermarkets and GM enzymes are used throughout the food processing industry. Government regulations on labelling exclude 95-98 percent of the products containing GM ingredients because they ignore derivatives.

Q: Who is regulating the industry?

A: The lack of political will to scrutinise the industry is clear in this statement from Douglas Hogg: "Some estimates have predicted a £9 billion market by the year 2000. We cannot jeopardise this by over-regulating initiative and enterprise."

US trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, told EU leaders to expect punitive action through the World Trade Organisation if they allow domestic concerns over biotechnology to interfere with US trade.

Most of the people sitting on supposedly independent government advisory bodies have direct links to biotech companies. Should people whose careers are tied to the development of the technology be trusted to carry out impartial risk assessments?

When she was asked whether she felt that people should be given the choice of whether they eat GM food or not, Janet Bainbridge, chair of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, replied that we should not because "most people don't even know what a gene is." She added: "Sometimes my young son wants to cross the road when it's dangerous. Sometimes you just have to tell people what's best for them."

The European Commission has set up the "European Federation of Biotechnology Task Group on Public Perceptions on Biotechnology" to promote the "public understanding of biotechnology".

EuropaBio, a consortium of all the biotechnology companies with interests in Europe, was taken by surprise at the resistance in Europe and sought the advice of Burson Marsteller, past masters in crisis management. (Previous clients included Exxon after the Exxon Valdez oil spill and Union Carbide after the explosion of their chemical plant in Bhopal.) EuropaBio was advised that "Public issues of environmental and human health risk are communications killing fields for bioindustries in Europe - all the research evidence confirms that the perception of the profit motive fatally undermines industry's credibility on these questions . . ." Marsteller told them to refrain from participating in any public debate and leave it to "those charged with public trust, politicians and regulators, to assure the public that biotech products are safe."

Once released, genetically engineered organisms become part of our ecosystem. Unlike some other forms of pollution which can be contained or which may decrease over time, any mistakes we make now will be passed on to all future generations of life. With governments capitulating to commercial interests, it is up to citizens to respond.

GMO Chinese Rice Found in EU
by Jeremy Smith
September 5, 2006

European consumers are at risk from unauthorized genetically modified (GMO) rice grown in China after evidence of a strain was found in Britain, France and Germany, two leading environment groups said on Tuesday.

The Chinese rice, modified to resist certain insects, was found in samples of rice stick noodles in France and Germany, and also in rice vermicelli in Britain, Greenpeace International said, citing the results of two rounds of laboratory tests.

Its report, compiled with Friends of the Earth Europe, did not indicate the possible quantities involved but said the GMO rice had been detected in different product brands found in Asian specialty stores and Asian restaurants.

Five samples out of 27 tested positive for the unauthorized rice strain, officials at the two groups said.

"Innocent consumers again become the victims of the GE (genetic engineering) industry's 'contamination first' strategy," Greenpeace International GMO campaigner Jeremy Tager said in a statement.

The Chinese rice contained a protein that might cause allergenic reactions in humans, he said. It was supposed to be used only in field trials and was not approved for commercial growing because of concerns about its safety.

Dutch company Heuschen & Schrouff, one of the importers cited in the report, said it was investigating the case and would check with its suppliers.

"We have no comment. This information is very new to us, we received it just half an hour ago. We import the products so we are checking with our suppliers. Our quality department is also involved," commercial manager Bernard van Schaik told Reuters.

Heuschen & Schrouff Oriental Foods Trading BV says it is the market leading distributor of authentic Asian food and non-food in Germany, Austria, and the Benelux countries.

A spokesman for Seewoo Foods Ltd, Britain's largest supplier of Chinese foods which was also cited in the report, was not immediately available for comment.

The discovery of the experimental rice comes just a few weeks after the European Union tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain imports to prove the absence of another biotech rice type detected in samples intended for commercial use.

The EU does not yet permit the sale, import or marketing of any biotech rice on the territory of its 25 member countries.

European consumers are well known for their wariness over GMO foods, but the biotech industry says its products are perfectly safe and are no different to conventional foods.

"Once illegal GE crops are in the food chain, removing them takes enormous effort and cost. It is easier to prevent contamination in the first place," Tager said.

Last month the EU-25 tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of the GMO strain LL Rice 601 marketed by Germany's Bayer AG and produced in the United States.

The EU decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of LL Rice 601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples targeted for commercial use.

Additional reporting by Anna Mudeva in Amsterdam, Nigel Hunt in London

EU Lacks Data on US GM Contamination
By Daisy Ayliffe
September 15, 2006

The European food standards agency (EFSA) needs more evidence to provide a full risk assessment of an illegal GM rice that entered the EU food chain.

EFSA said the LL601 strain of rice is unlikely to damage human health but researchers will require more data to provide formal conclusions.

There is insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment," EFSA's GM panel said in a statement on Friday.

"The panel considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LL601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals."

The European commission asked the Parma-based agency to carry out a risk assessment on LL601 after the US announced that untested strains had entered the food chain in August.

"EFSA did not have the data to carry out full asssessment but still concludes that consumption of long imported rice is not likely to pose an immenent safety concern to humans or animals," a comission spokesman said on Friday.

"However, EFSA's conclusion on safety does not change the fact that LL601 remains illegal in the EU and cannot be placed on the market."

LL601 has been engineered to be resistant to some herbicides but it has not been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world.

Currently, no varieties of GM rice have been approved for growing or consumption in the EU.

NGOs slammed the commission's response on Friday.

"Greenpeace is calling for immediate worldwide recall measures to ensure no further contaminated rice enters the EU and the urgent implementation of a preventative screening system for countries with high contamination risks," the environmentalists said in a statement.

"Consumers should not be left swallowing experimental GM rice that is risky to their health."

Flap Over Modified Rice Weighs on Food Importers
By Julianne von Reppert-Bismarck
The Wall Street Journal
September 7, 2006

Brussels - When commercial rice stored in Missouri and Arkansas turned up traces of an illegal biotech strain last month, Britain's largest food importer said it was looking for a new supplier.

Now, Associated British Foods PLC -- a food empire with sales of £5.6 billion ($10.6 billion) last year -- may have to change suppliers again, this time to replace some of the foods it buys from China.

Environmental groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth this week said they found an illegal genetically engineered strain in rice-based products sold in Asian supermarkets in the U.K., France and Germany. European Union officials responded with strong language, telling food importers they could be sued if they failed to keep unauthorized foods out of Europe. The EU has yet to confirm the findings of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

The rice scare underlines problems facing food companies and biotech firms world-wide. Many genetically modified strains are banned in Europe. But techniques for stopping biotech crops crossing into the food chain by accident are imperfect. Companies are struggling to find reliable suppliers and to avoid legal suits by testing their product lines.

"We'll comply with European food law as best we can," Associated British Foods spokesman Geoff Lancaster said. Hours after the environmental groups announced their findings, Mr. Lancaster's company started isolating and testing several goods it suspected of containing Chinese rice ingredients that might include the illegal strain.

Farmers, importers and biotech firms are beginning to feel the sting. The U.S. Agriculture Department said on Aug. 18 that Arkansas and Missouri commercial-rice stocks had turned up traces of Liberty Link rice, an experimental and unauthorized modified strain. After the announcement, September rice-futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade sank 14% to $8.47 a hundredweight. Japan banned U.S. long-grain rice. American farmers say Europe's strict screening rules on all long-grain-rice imports from the U.S. are pinching profits.

Looking for compensation, U.S. farmers have filed at least three legal actions against German chemicals company Bayer AG, which owns the patent to Liberty Link rice. Such court cases can be costly: Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta AG last year put aside about $50 million to fund tests of U.S. corn-gluten exports to the EU following the discovery that Syngenta accidentally had sold an unauthorized corn strain to farmers exporting to Europe.

At the same time, food importers may face costly legal challenges in Europe. The European Commission has written to governments reminding them to take a hard line against companies that allow biotech crops to be sold on their territory. While no suits yet have been filed, the commission believes companies "are not doing enough" to comply, according to EU spokesman Philip Tod.

But testing is expensive and difficult. Swiss food empire Nestlé AG says it spends a "significant part" of its $1.2 billion research-and-development budget on in-house safety testing.

The amount of the illegal Liberty Link strain found in Arkansas and Missouri was equivalent to six rice grains out of 10,000. Companies without in-house labs are competing for the services of a handful of European labs capable of testing such small quantities.

Large companies say they can follow their ingredients back to their source. But the Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries this week said importers were unsure which rice-based products, such as vermicelli, sauce mixes or rice starch, came from China. Several Chinese regions were found to be using an illegal biotech strain in 2004, and importers say the problem hasn't been rooted out.

"You have to look at the various forms that the rice takes. It takes time for our members to know exactly what rice starch or flour they are using," said Nathalie Lecoq, from the confederation's commercial department.

Environmentalists want to ban all Chinese rice goods or at least require countries farming with genetically engineered grains to label exports according to their biotech content. European experts meet again Monday to assess the biotech situation and may well discuss the question of Chinese rice goods.
12  Health, Family & Eugenics / Alternative Health / Natural Food / Non-GMO Shopping Guide: How to find healthy choices when you're food shopping on: July 26, 2010, 10:18:58 am
Non_GMO Shopping Guide:

13  General / Free Speech / Censorship / We gave you the Internet and we can take it away if we want to. STFU. on: July 25, 2010, 09:45:06 am
The internet was never yours.
It was always ours, and we had a plan.
We still do. Now STFU.

By Pilikia
July 24, 2010
Copyright Free

Here's the agenda we're expected to believe:
The dinosaurs of the media world, the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, et al, are terrified that they've become obsolete - no longer relevant in a world where information flows freely and widely at speeds that leave printing presses in the dust.

Just as Gutenberg and his press rendered scribes with pen and parchment obsolete, the internet has done the same in rendering print media and television obsolete. They simply can't deliver information fast enough, widely enough or with enough content to remain competitive.

They claim they're losing money because their content is being robbed and posted on the internet.

Well, ok, but that's only the cover story.

The globalists have enjoyed full control over the dissemination of information to the public for years. They've bought up all the media outlets; print, radio and television - and they have a well-oiled propaganda machine as a result. We have a mountain of evidence posted on this forum describing the information 'spin' and outright lies by the mainstream media as proof of this agenda.

But at some point in the past, when contemplating how to bring about a "New World Order", the globalists had to deal with a world where people in different countries would be able to conceive of themselves as part of a global community, instead of being part of their own local community or nation state.  

How could they introduce the 'need' for "global governance"
if people did not 'see' they were part of a global community?

A marketing problem, to be sure.  You must create a need before you can sell your product to meet the need.  So they decided to take the military's own network and open it up to the public. They decided to 'allow' us to use the internet; promoting it as the 'information superhighway' to make everyone aware of their place in the global community.

And sure enough, it wasn't long before people were reading and writing to audiences that stretched far beyond their own local communities, beyond their country boundaries. People were becoming aware of the world beyond what they had only glimpsed in newspapers or documentaries on television. It was a good thing, this awakening to the world at large. It was working well, according to plan. They started being more open about the "New World Order", now that they'd introduced us to global interdependence as a concept.  

They giveth and they can taketh away

They 'gave' us the internet because they needed a way to make the nationalistic masses realize they are part of a global community which, they would demonstrate with false flags, required global governing. They were successful - they gave us lots of reasons to show the need for global governance, including international 'terrorism', 'climate change' and the destruction of the gulf of Mexico as examples.  Yes, we all know we're part of a global community now --  we are part of humanity as it exists in every town, city, state and country on the planet.  

But they never intended that we would carry this information beyond their carefully orchestrated propaganda, in fact, pointing out their own words as proof of their deceit.  Their own hubris, their achilles heel, is that they can't conceive of our ability to understand what they have themselves been quite open about. Their own documents have been our primary sources in revealing their agenda.  They never anticipated we might actually READ their information and disseminate it, and explain it, and react to it negatively. They can't tolerate information being shared among people who are not 'on board' with the plan for a global government; the plan for mass culling of the population; the plan for realignment of the industrial sector to new geographic locations, movements of people based on how they will be allowed to participate in the 'new' world structure; the plan for controlling the very water, food and air we breathe.

So time is short - they are desperate to take this free and open communications resources away from us. They have to do whatever they can to shut us up. They are using copyright laws to do it at the moment, and we can see a cyber terror false flag on the horizon.

Because, we have built up great information outlets - libraries of content - and this forum is among the best on the internet. We have a digital library of information that can be used for research into thousands of different subject areas. They want to make us bend over and grab our ankles and be thankful that we can still see our favorite sites on the internet, that we can still post our opinions, and read about the 'truth' on sites like ppf.

But bit by bit they will strip each of our rights away, and we must resist them, as Michael Badnarik so eloquently explains in the following video.
Pages: [1]
Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.114 seconds with 20 queries.