Lost In Transmission - Episode #013 - Sandy Hook Revisited w/ William Shanley

YouTube Logo

TONIGHT @ 9:15pm EST!! We will revisiting the Sandy Hook school massacre. We’re going deep down the rabbit hole. Filmmaker William Shanley will be joining us to dissect it, and not only that to discuss his lawsuit against the Mainstream Media who was allegedly involved in the cover-up.

Not only that, but he’s going to tell us everything he has dealt with since he brought this lawsuit on, such as being arrested and jailed among many other occurrences brought forth by the establishment in order to quiet him. Tune in!


The Kochs & the Nazis: Book Reveals Billionaires’ Father Built Key Oil Refinery for the Third Reich

Koch Nazis

In her new book, “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer explores how the Koch brothers and fellow right-wing billionaires have funded a political machine aimed at shaping elections and public policy. The book contains a number of revelations and new details. Mayer begins with revealing that the Kochs’ father, industrialist Fred Koch, helped build an oil refinery in Nazi Germany—a project approved personally by Adolf Hitler. The refinery was critical to the Nazi war effort, fueling German warplanes. Mayer joins us to discuss.  Continue reading

‘There is NO Debate’: Facts the Herald Sun Hides About the Anti-Vaccine ‘Myths’


The vaccine debate is heating up in Australia, following the ‘No Jab, No Pay; No Jab, No Play’ legislation that was introduced on the first of January.

There are strong feelings on both sides of the matter—and understandably—the well-being of our most vulnerable citizens, the citizens we are responsible for and love dearly—our children, is at stake here.  Continue reading

Is Planet X(Nibiru) On A Crash Course Towards Earth?

planet x 2

Have you ever heard about the possibility of another planet moving through our solar system? The Authentic Enlightenment team has had the chance to interview two leading researchers on the Planet X(Nibiru) subject and what we found was astonishing. There’s more to it than just a planet. Secret black budgets, underground bunkers for the elites. What do you think is going on?

Below are the two interviews we conducted, one with Marshall Master and one with Bob Fletcher. Both of them are well worth the listen and we urge you to do so and give us some feedback. Enjoy!

Continue reading

[ALERT] Exclusive Report: $8.5 Trln Went Missing w/ Nukes, While America Distracted - False Flag Looms

The Resistance Journals

jade helm.resistance journals.pentagon.missing nukes.south carolina.lindsey graham.dyess air force base.terror.attack.militia.activate.fbi

Andrew Pontbriand
June 30, 2015

*****This is not an attempt to fear monger. This is a legitimate ALERT*****

This is aResistance Journals exclusive, in-depth report and video which details why we have been inundated with distraction over the past month. I also explain eerie similarities to events in the past, and outline why we are in serious danger of a false flag attack! Please share this report & video everywhere and FEEL FREE to re-post! Get the information out!

The month of June was a hectic, agenda ridden month complete with false flags, engineered social division, divide and conquer tactics, and some of the biggest distractions we have seen in awhile. When the government engages in this type of behavior people like myself can’t help but ask why? Usually this is an indication that something is being either covered up, or the corporate media/government complex…

View original post 741 more words

BREAKING: Founder of The Silk Road Sentenced to Life for Nonviolent Crime

The Resistance Journals

Breaking news. image Andrew Pontbriand

May 29, 2015

Ross Ulbricht, founder of The Silk Road, has been sentenced to life in prison today.

The Silk Road was what some would call the “internet’s black market.” It was one of the few place where the free market thrived, absent government regulations. However, Ross Ulbricht learned the hard way that if you steal business from the government, they will surely lock you in a cage for the rest of your life.

View original post 176 more words

Authentic Enlightenment Radio - Ep#101 - Memorial Day, Fake Patriotism, Fake Christians, & ‘Murika!

Authentic Enlightenment Radio is Tuesday and Thursday night at 9pm EST

TONIGHT!! Wednesday May 27 @8:00pm EST - Ep#101 - Ep#101 - Memorial Day, Fake Patriotism, Fake Christians, & ‘Murika!

We will be joined by Andrew Pontbriand in the 1st hour, and we will close out with our new segment “Satanic” Hollywood Update with James Wright! Lines will be open tonight, feel free to call in and get whatever you want off your chest!

**We’re doing a special Wednesday night show due to not having a show last night.


Listen to internet radio with Authentic Enlightenment Radio on BlogTalkRadio

If the Internet becomes a public utility, you’ll pay more. Here’s why.


The Federal Communications Commission is in the middle of a high-stakes decision that could raise taxes for close to 90 percent of Americans. The commission is considering whether to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and, in doing so, Washington would trigger new taxes and fees at the state and local level. Continue reading

The Evidence That North Korea Hacked Sony Is Flimsy

Sony Hack Theaters

Today Sony canceled the premiere of “The Interview” and its entire Christmas-Day release of the movie because of fears that terrorists might attack theaters showing the film.

The actions show just how much power the attackers behind the Sony hack have amassed in a short time. But who exactly are they? Continue reading

What You Probably Don’t Know About The Evil 14th Amendment


The history of the Fourteenth Amendment stands relatively unclear to most people.

The US government knows about it, but it’s not very common for the ordinary person to understand it’s true meaning without actually reading and studying it. There was a point where even I was subject to this ignorance, but eventually a few years ago I had studied what it actually meant. I had a pretty good idea of it’s true meaning (or at least I thought I did), but ultimately it wasn’t until last year when I started getting deeper into it by intertwining myself into  The Red Amendment, a very well written book by LB Bork, and the PAC Alliance website. Andrew Pontbriand and Jared Dalen  from The Fourteenth Amendment Center explain how the evil 14th amendment instantly makes us slaves to the de facto government and how they’ve been doing this from the start of it’s creation in the year of 1868.

For more information on the 14th amendment’s Communist agenda, check out this two part interview done by ITBH Podcast on cavradio.com which can found below. It contains an abundance of priceless information which I believe everyone needs to at the very least listen to and become familiar with. I reached Mr. Pontbriand today for a short comment. He said, “Status correction is the only peaceful remedy. If we want to beat the Feds, we need to reclaim our birthright that is stolen by deceit and coercion from the moment we’re born.” Continue reading

BREAKING Car Bomb Kills 3, Injures 12 in Russia


By Andrew V Pontbriand
September 23, 2013


In what appears to be a suicide Car bombing in the Tabasaransky District, in the Dagastan Republic of Southern Russia, 3 people have been killed, including one police officer. The bombing took place during roll call just outside of the Police Station. Continue reading

Main Core: A List Of Millions Of Americans That Will Be Subject To Detention During Martial Law

Are you on the list?  Are you one of the millions of Americans that have been designated a threat to national security by the U.S. government?  Will you be subject to detention when martial law is imposed during a major national emergency?  As you will see below, there is actually a list that contains the names of at least 8 million Americans known as Main Core that the U.S. intelligence community has been compiling since the 1980s.

A recent article on Washington’s Blog quoted a couple of old magazine articles that mentioned this program, and I was intrigued because I didn’t know what it was.  So I decided to look into Main Core, and what I found out was absolutely stunning – especially in light of what Edward Snowden has just revealed to the world.  It turns out that the U.S. government is not just gathering information on all of us.  The truth is that the U.S. government has used this information to create a list of threats to national security that the government would potentially watch, question or even detain during a national crisis.  If you have ever been publicly critical of the government, there is a very good chance that you are on that list.

The following is how Wikipedia describes Main Core…

Main Core is the code name of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government of the United States. Main Core contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security. The data, which comes from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources, is collected and stored without warrants or court orders. The database’s name derives from the fact that it contains “copies of the ‘main core’ or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community.”

It was Christopher Ketchum of Radar Magazine that first reported on the existence of Main Core.  At the time, the shocking information that he revealed did not get that much attention.  That is quite a shame, because it should have sent shockwaves across the nation…

According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, “There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.

Of course, federal law is somewhat vague as to what might constitute a “national emergency.” Executive orders issued over the last three decades define it as a “natural disaster, military attack, [or] technological or other emergency,” while Department of Defense documents include eventualities like “riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or assemblages, [and] disorder prejudicial to public law and order.” According to one news report, even “national opposition to U.S. military invasion abroad” could be a trigger.

So if that list contained 8 million names all the way back in 2008, how big might it be today?

That is a very frightening thing to think about.

Later on in 2008, Tim Shorrock of Salon.com also reported on Main Core…

Dating back to the 1980s and known to government insiders as “Main Core,” the database reportedly collects and stores — without warrants or court orders — the names and detailed data of Americans considered to be threats to national security. According to several former U.S. government officials with extensive knowledge of intelligence operations, Main Core in its current incarnation apparently contains a vast amount of personal data on Americans, including NSA intercepts of bank and credit card transactions and the results of surveillance efforts by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies. One former intelligence official described Main Core as “an emergency internal security database system” designed for use by the military in the event of a national catastrophe, a suspension of the Constitution or the imposition of martial law.

So why didn’t this information get more attention at the time?

Well, if Obama had lost the 2008 election it might have.  But Obama won in 2008 and the liberal media assumed that he would end many of the abuses that were happening under Bush.  Of course that has not happened at all.  In fact, Obama has steadily moved the police state agenda ahead aggressively.  Edward Snowden has just made that abundantly clear to the entire world.

After 2008, it is unclear exactly what happened to Main Core.  Did it expand, change names, merge with other programs or get superseded by a new program?  It appears extremely unlikely that it simply faded away.  In light of what we have just learned about NSA snooping, someone should ask our politicians some very hard questions about Main Core.  According to Christopher Ketchum, the exact kind of NSA snooping that Edward Snowden has just described was being used to feed data into the Main Core database…

A host of publicly disclosed programs, sources say, now supply data to Main Core. Most notable are the NSA domestic surveillance programs, initiated in the wake of 9/11, typically referred to in press reports as “warrantless wiretapping.” In March, a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal shed further light onto the extraordinarily invasive scope of the NSA efforts: According to the Journal, the government can now electronically monitor “huge volumes of records of domestic e-mails and Internet searches, as well as bank transfers, credit card transactions, travel, and telephone records.” Authorities employ “sophisticated software programs” to sift through the data, searching for “suspicious patterns.” In effect, the program is a mass catalog of the private lives of Americans. And it’s notable that the article hints at the possibility of programs like Main Core. “The [NSA] effort also ties into data from an ad-hoc collection of so-called black programs whose existence is undisclosed,” the Journal reported, quoting unnamed officials. “Many of the programs in various agencies began years before the 9/11 attacks but have since been given greater reach.”

The following information seems to be fair game for collection without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on credit cards. All of this information is archived on government supercomputers and, according to sources, also fed into the Main Core database.

This stuff is absolutely chilling.

And there have been hints that such a list still exists today.

For example, the testimony of an anonymous government insider that was recently posted on shtfplan.com alluded to such a list…

“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me, giving me a look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger into my chest. “You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you can imagine, bigger than anyone can imagine. This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list,” he stated.

What in the world is happening to America?

What in the world are we turning into?

As I mentioned in a previous article, the NSA gathers 2.1 million gigabytes of data on all of us every single hour.  The NSA is currently constructing a 2 billion dollar data center out in Utah to store all of this data.

If you are disturbed by all of this, now is the time to stand up and say something.  If this crisis blows over and people forget about all of this stuff again, the Big Brother surveillance grid that is being constructed all around us will just continue to grow and continue to become even more oppressive.

America is dying right in front of your eyes and time is running out.  Please stand up and be counted while you still can.




Porn Stars Are Enraged That They’re Being Denied Loans And Bank Accounts

Chanel Preston

Chanel Preston knows not everyone approves of her chosen profession.

That’s one of the risks that go with being one of the biggest stars in porn.

But she never thought it would affect her ability to open a bank account.

Preston recently opened a business account with City National Bank in Los Angeles.

When she went to deposit checks into the account days later, however, she was told it had been shut down, due to “compliance issues”.

She found the manager she had originally worked with and asked what had happened. The bank, she was told, was worried about the Webcam shows she had on her site and had revoked the account.

(City National declined to comment on Preston’s accusations and on whether it had any policy regarding accounts tied to the porn industry.)

Preston is hardly the only porn star who has had trouble with the banking industry. Several performers and porn insiders (who were afraid to go on the record due to possible repercussions from their banks) said they have been denied accounts from a variety of financial institutions.

“The people within my [local] bank have urged me to downplay the nature of my business because corporate frowns on it,” said one long-time industry veteran.

The issue seems to be reaching a boiling point, though. Earlier this week, Marc Greenberg, founder of the soft porn studio MRG Entertainment, filed suit against JPMorgan Chase in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging the bank violated fair lending laws and its own policy for refusing to underwrite a loan for “moral reasons”.

Greenberg says he was approached by a representative of the bank about refinancing an existing loan. But once he started the process, he says he saw repeated delays for four months. That’s when he said he reached out to a JPMorgan vice president for an explanation.

The vice president “was evasive in his response to plaintiff’s application status requests and finally informed plaintiff during a telephone conversation that plaintiff’s loan application was refused due to ‘moral reasons,’ because of JPMorgan’s disapproval of plaintiff’s former source of income and occupation as an owner of a television production company that produced television programs that dealt with the subject of human sexuality,” the complaint reads.

(MRG was sold to New Frontier Media in 2006 for $22 million.)

Greenberg’s attorneys claim they were told by the vice president that the application was denied because of the potential “reputational risk” to the firm.

The rejection, noted the suit, was confounding since Chase had long held the original deed of trust on the home, without any comment on Greenberg’s career.

“JPMorgan purports to be so ashamed of nudity and human sexuality that it cannot process a refinance of a home loan of plaintiff, secured by plaintiff’s house, because plaintiff’s source of income six years ago included production of television programs that contained nudity and human sexuality,” the suit reads.

JPMorgan Chase declined to comment on the accusations due to the pending litigation.

Preston noted she, too, has been denied a loan because of her profession—though at a different bank.

“[The loan officer] asked me ‘are you affiliated with the adult entertainment industry?’ When I said yes, she said ‘We will not give you a loan.’,” she said.

Whether the decision to deny Preston’s business account or Greenberg’s refinance application is discriminatory lending is a matter of debate—and, in Greenberg’s case, something the courts will have to decide.

David Barr, a spokesperson for the FDIC, however, said institutions are permitted to make their own calls on who they work with to a certain degree.

“The decision to open or maintain an account is up to the individual institution,” he said. “The rules are not prescriptive, which means that the bank must make its own assessment to determine the risks associated with an account and whether that account should be terminated or not opened in the first place.”

And it is not uncommon for many businesses to take a moral stand about who they do business with. Indeed, some investment firms make it a point to avoid getting involved with tobacco producers or gun manufacturers because of the social issues tied to those industries.

Porn stars and adult entertainment industry insiders do note that the troubles they’ve experienced are tied to business—not personal—accounts. That may be because personal accounts are opened under their real names, which typically don’t raise an eyebrow, while business is done under more well-known pseudonyms, which is when people take notice.

“It’s kind of obvious about what I do when a young girl goes into a Valley bank with a different female name than the one on [their] driver’s license,” said Preston.

But such friction between people involved in the adult entertainment industry and banking institutions are likely to become more common. With the advent of the Internet, the $14 billion adult entertainment industry is undergoing a transformation.

Film and video distribution is giving way to Internet sites and Web cams. As a result, barriers to entry in the industry are being lowered and more of the industry is being based out of homes and being run through small business arrangements and partnerships, necessitating banking services.

Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100746445#ixzz2TeWLGRAr

Monsanto Now Owns Blackwater (Xe)

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services,” that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.

Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.

One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.

Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to

keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater.”

However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.” Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.

No wonder that a company engaged in the “science of death” as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of “market competition” of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

* The author is a researcher at ETC Group

‘Journalists Everywhere Would Go Nuts’: Why the Case Against a Fox News Reporter Is So Important

Fox News reporter Jana Winter returns to the court house after a midday recess to face Arapahoe County District Judge William Sylvester regarding evidence in the case of Aurora theater shooting suspect James Holmes at the Arapahoe County Justice Center in Centennial, Colo. on April 1, 2013. Winter is facing contempt charges for not revealing her sources that broke a gag order in the case.
The attorney for the Fox News reporter facing possible jail time for refusing to reveal her sources in a report about the Colorado movie theater massacre said her client knows the consequences of not talking. And a media expert tells us the implications in the case are far-reaching.
Jana Winter exclusively reported days after the Aurora shooting that suspect James Holmes mailed a notebook “full of details about how he was going to kill people” to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the attack. Winter cited confidential law enforcement sources for her report, and attorneys for Holmes want to know who they were — arguing they violated a gag order and could jeopardize Holmes’ right to a fair trial.
Winter has said she will not testify and give up her sources, and says Colorado’s reporter shield law and the First Amendment protect her from having to do so. But if that doesn’t hold up, it could mean jail time.
“She knows what the potential consequences are of being compelled to give up confidential news-gathering information and refusing to do it,” Winter’s attorney Dori Ann Hanswirth told TheBlaze in an interview Friday. “She can’t give up who her sources are because if she gives up her source, then no journalist in the country is going to be able to definitively convince a source that ‘journalists just don’t do that sort of thing and therefore you can trust me with your information.'”
At issue is whether the judge decides the notebook Holmes mailed should be evidence against him. If the notebook is deemed to be communication between a patient and a mental health professional, it would be considered privileged and therefore inadmissible in court — and the issue of forcing Winter to testify who told her about it would likely be over, Hanswirth said.
Judge Carlos Samour Jr. said Wednesday he was not ruling on the notebook issue yet, and said Winter did not have to return to Colorado until a hearing Aug. 19 — staving off any potential jail time at least until then.
“Even if the judge does rule that the notebook is admissible, that doesn’t mean necessarily that Jana will have to testify,” Hanswirth said. That’s because Holmes’ attorneys would have to prove the information she holds would be “directly relevant to a substantial issue in the proceeding” and therefore an exception to Colorado’s reporter shield law.
Shield laws to protect journalists vary by state — there is no all-encompassing federal law. Hanswirth said there’s case law in Colorado that’s on Winter’s side, but it’s not as “robust or wide-bodied” as in, say, New York, which has a stronger shield law and is where Winter lives.
Hanswirth believes there is no way that the names of her client’s sources are critical at all to the case against Holmes.
“We have a trial that’s not scheduled to begin until February of 2014 — by that time it will have been a year and half or so [since her reporting] — it’s really hard to understand how whatever conversation Jana Winter had with people back in July would really have any relationship to the issues in the case,” she said. “And because of that tenuous connection between information she had and the case, it’s even more troubling that Holmes is trying to make her disclose her confidential news-gathering.”
A First Amendment issue
Kelly McBride, an ethics faculty member at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla., thinks it’s more about the First Amendment than the shield law. When the Founding Fathers enshrined freedom of speech and a free press in the Bill the Rights, they specifically guaranteed the press — journalists — the ability to be critical of the government.
“When a government tries to force a reporter to reveal her sources for information, that is interpreted by the press as a hostile act meant to curtail the freedom of the press,” McBride told TheBlaze.
The shield law, McBride said, creates a special class for journalists, but First Amendment protections for the press can extend to anyone, particularly given new technology and the proliferation of blogging.
“If a court did send Ms. Winter to jail…I would think that journalists everywhere would just go nuts,” McBride said.
Anti-Fox bias?
There is the question of why it took so long for Winter’s case to gain widespread attention; until this week, coverage was largely limited to Fox News itself. Judith Miller, a Fox News contributor and former New York Times reporter who spent 85 days in jail in 2005 for refusing to give up the name of a source, said an anti-Fox bias was to blame.
“If she worked for mainstream newspapers or CNN, I think the case would have been covered,” Miller told BuzzFeed last week. “There’s a certain reluctance because it’s Fox News.”
Starting Monday, coverage about Winter’s case appeared in many of the major news outlets, including the Times and on CNN, where new anchor Jake Tapper demanded to know, “Where’s the public outrage?”
But McBride said she’s not convinced there was an anti-Fox sentiment in play, and thinks the general news blackout had more to do with the unbelievable nature of the case.
“The main thing I think is most people, when they look at the facts of the case, said ‘oh, this couldn’t possibly go anywhere,” she said.
Hanswirth, Winter’s lawyer, seconds that assessment.
“Probably people were thinking, ‘oh that’s never gonna happen, no judge is going to make her testify about that, that doesn’t happen in the United States,” she said. “I think that once it came to light that this was a potential reality, that the media indeed started to pay the appropriate attention to this matter.”
If it goes much further, Winter’s situation could have grave consequences for news and news-gatherers, Hanswirth said.
“As a society, we value our freedom of speech very highly…anytime somebody interferes with the relationship between a journalist and a source it is bad for journalism as a whole. It makes sources scared to come forward, it makes editors fearful, and it kind of chokes off the flow of news,” Hanswirth said.

Obama “I’m not a dictator.”

(CAV News) Derek Wood - I’m not sure what was more funny, “I’m not a dictator,” or “The United States has a constitutional government.” Okay, maybe it wasn’t a matter of being funny but just a matter of flat out bullshit. Both sides, the media (as you will see from this graceful question from a graceful reporter spelling her ignorance) have been pushing the sequester panic button.

Frenemies? President Obama and Boehner are really good pals and everything is okay(satire)

(CAV News)Derek Wood -They make talk down on one another in front of the camera, pretend to possess a bold game during chats with journalists, place blame in front of fellow lawmakers or party affiliates, but the truth in the matter is… man love.

President Obama and Speaker Boehner go golfing once in every three months to the best courses taxpayer money can buy. They sip lemonade for photo ops but like media portion practices in the NFL, once they hit the clubhouse, they are smashing back hard liquor and popping Affordable Care Act percocets. Thanks Endo.

Once they are done giggling through the hallways after an insightful steam, where it is said they’ve talked fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, percocets, Fergie, and hot female senators, they finally leave the clubhouse and hop into their secret service limo.

Here they pop open the finest Champaign as they compare paychecks and head on over to Boehner’s favorite tanning spa. They do that for about 35 minutes and then it’s time to head back to the White House.

Before getting out of the limo where there’s a choir of reporters, they pep each up by smacking each other in the faces. This is partly because of the heavy boozing and pill use, but also to portray a mean look, a look of discontent and hate and late hour negotiations. Grab them folders, hang them shoulders, it’s time to go public.

Of course they both appear together, close by, like fraternal twins, and pretend not to hear any question from reporters… but… on Obama’s nod, Boehner cleverly and as scripted says “We are confident a deal will get done.”

Once they are inside the White House, Michelle Obama is furious. She knows Boehner is trouble and thinks they’ve been out with inner city prostitutes again. The two Obama’s fight and have to be separated by aides.

Assuring things are okay, Boehner and Obama get to work… on the Xbox. Playing Call of Duty for about an hour, they become bored and order a drone strike on Yemen.

“So I’m going to tell people it’s time for you to lead,” Boehner tells Barry.

“Let me be clear, that tan looks good on you,” Obama assures  John.

They part ways in front of the camera with a half-hearted handshake and a semi storm off to their respective mancaves. You see they aren’t enemies, everything is okay with them. In the next week they’ll attack each other before coming up with a status quo agreement and reaching a compromise that would make their masters of the big banking industry blush. Everything is okay but are you?

EU-US trade deal: creating a new world order

(Euriactive)-The world order has changed in the course of the financial crisis and with it, enhanced the consolidation of a new arena of world politics in which superpowers somewhat urgently seem to hunt for new allies to rescue their well-being, says Gabriele Suder.

Gabriele Suder is Jean Monnet chair and professor of International & European Business at Skema Business School.

“Globalisation is out, regionalism is in! One could argue that we might need to thank the lasting economic crisis for at least a few sweeping developments on the global level: Amongst them, the awareness that the world is in no way as ‘flat’ as some contemporary thinkers made many believe.

Because resolution of crises may primarily originate from bi-and multilateral, often region-to-region forms of cooperation and free trade conditions that governments (and corporations) hope will stimulate economies.

For the past three years and more, we have seen an exceptionally dynamic trend towards more and more free trade negotiations and agreements. They install a political and economic multi-polarity already predicted ten years ago, right after 9/11.

Yet it is the financial crisis that has caused the main changes to the world arena that used to be perceived as an international order run by a few somewhat fading superpowers.

The world order has changed in the course of this crisis however and with it, enhanced the consolidation of a new arena of world politics in which superpowers somewhat urgently seem to hunt for new allies to rescue their well-being.

Driven by political and economic motivations, they are weaving a net of trade agreements. This net is increasingly perceived as a competitive race for political and economic first-mover advantages (intensified political cooperation; market access for trade and investment) that come with signing the best, most comprehensive or earliest agreement.

This is part of today’s driving force of geopolitical and geo-economic change. Hadn’t we already seen this ever so clearly in the race towards trade agreements with South Korea?

Now, after many long years of hesitation, both the EU and the USA have come to realise that their system of regionalising the world will work even better (they hope) if they themselves, mutually and reciprocally, open trade and unite forces further.

Spill-overs from trade agreements for sure stimulate business knowledge, cross-border trade and growth: an anti-dote for crisis. But close attention needs to be given to this multi-polarity. It goes hand-in-hand with a complexity that may cause rather tricky legal and economic overlaps.

Business may lose clarity and claim over-regulation through multiple deregulation (as ambiguous as this may appear) and, discouraged, won’t follow suit in the long term. The newer players of global governance could then start a power game of inclusion and exclusion of powers in future formal and informal integration.

In this context, Europe, against all odds, remains the most advanced form of regional integration in the world, with a vast historical and contemporary experience of good and bad practices.

This is good news in the crucial struggle for appropriate solutions for its on-going crisis (mainly caused by the divergence of opinions of its members in regard to the depth of integration).

The EU construct continues to serve as a model to many less stable regions in the world, for peace-keeping, outreach and neighbourhood policies – and thus, for the management of complexity.

With the European belief in economic and political integration, and the US focus on reclaiming global economic status, this free trade agreement has huge potential. It might, in itself, open yet another chapter of polarity in the future.”

SchwartzReport: One Third of Americans (USA) Qualify as Idiots

I am having a hard time accepting this, it depresses me and makes me uncomfortable but data is data, and I am afraid I am going to have to accept that about a third of the country are too stupid to handle the 21st century. Here is some more data: Fifty per cent of the people in the U.S. have an I.Q. of 100 or less, and about 15 per cent have an I.Q. lower than 85. That didn’t matter! much in the 13th century, but it matters a lot in the 21st.

One-third of Americans Believe God Decides who Wins Sporting Events

A recent study by the Center for Public Religion has found that nearly 3 out of every 10 Americans believes that God decides the outcome of sporting events by favoring players who are virtuous and who God perceives as good.

According to the study, ‘Americans are less likely to believe that God plays a role in the outcome of sporting events than they are to believe God rewards religious athletes. While only about 3-in-10 (27%) Americans, believe that God plays a role in determining which team wins a sporting event, a majority (53%) believe that God rewards athletes who have faith with good health and success, compared to 42% who disagree.”

‘We can’t just gloss over this,” said Dennis Traynor of Acronym TV. ‘A majority of U.S. citizens in 2013 think that the all-knowing creator of the universe is sitting in the heavens looking down upon the extreme poverty and misery that encompass the world that he created in six days and sees that half of his beautiful creatures live on less than $2.50 a day and 80 percent of humanity living on less than $10 a day and not only gives a shit what happens on Super Bowl Sunday, but will be rewarding one team over the other based on the purity and faithfulness of the football players’ religion on either team.”


Source: http://www.phibetaiota.net/2013/02/scwhartzreport-one-third-of-americans-usa-qualify-as-idiots/

Alan Hart : “Anti-Semitism” What it IS and is NOT


QUOTE An anti-Semite used to be a person who disliked Jews. Now it is a person who Jews dislike UNQUOTE


by Alan Hart


Those are the words of my dear Jewish friend, Nazi (Auschwitz) holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Myer. They are taken from page 179 of his magnificent book An Ethical Tradition Betrayed – The End of Judaism (published in 2007).

Hajo was making a point in passing which had been provoked in his mind by an incident that happened in the Netherlands where he lives. Gretta Duisenberg, the wife of the former European Central Bank President Wim Duisenberg, hoisted a Palestinian flag at her home as a protest against Israel’s actions in the occupied territories. Her Jewish neighbours saw to it that their accusation that she was anti-Semitic went viral, and a Jewish lawyer not only sought to press a charge against her, he approached the Jewish World Congress in New York with the suggestion that Wim Duisenberg should be declared persona non grata in the United States. That affair, Hajo wrote, “reflects a caustic, contemporary definition of the term anti-Semite.” Then came his own redefinition as quoted above.

In the light of the false charges of anti-Semitism that were levelled against British Liberal Democratic MP David Ward for telling the truth, and then against Gerald Scarfe for his anti-Netanyahu cartoon in the Sunday Timeswhich reflected (yes, in a grotesque way) the truth, I would expand Hajo’s definition as follows. An anti-Semite today is a truth-telling person Jews who support the Zionist state of Israel RIGHT OR WRONG not only dislike but want to silence.

That last statement of mine should not be taken to imply that I am a denier of the existence of anti-Semitism. It is on the rise due mainly to the Zionist (not Jewish) state’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians and on-going colonization of their West Bank land and water in open defiance of, and contempt for, international law and UN Security Council resolutions.

Also true is that a number of web sites which reflect mainly American and European views are alive and crawling with the most vile expressions of anti-Semitism. That said, I think it’s more than possible that some of the anti-Semitic excrement in comments on web sites is the work of Zionist assets for the purpose of discrediting by association those of us who seek to tell the truth. (The web site of Veterans Today is an example of what I mean. It is one of quite a few sites that publish my articles, but many of the comments under them do not engage with what I have written. They spew out hatred of Jews and deny the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust. As I wrote in Volume One of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, I think holocaust denial is as obscene and wicked as the great crime itself).

The main point I want to convey in this article is that it really, really, really is time for peoples of all faiths and none everywhere to understand that it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (anti Zionism’s colonial enterprise), and fiercely condemnatory of the policies of Zionism’s in-Israel leaders, without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic. The assertion of those Jews (a minority of the whole?) who support Israel right or wrong that criticism of Israel’s leaders and their policies is a manifestation of hatred for all Jews everywhere is c-r-a-z-y. It can only come from traumatized minds which have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda.

In my view real understanding requires knowledge of the following.

There are two definitions of anti-Semitism in its Jewish context. One was born in real history and represents a truth. The other is part and parcel of Zionist mythology and was invented for the purpose of blackmailing non-Jewish Europeans and North Americans into refraining from criticizing Israel or, to be more precise, staying silent when its leaders demonstrate their absolute contempt for international law and resort to state terrorism.

Anti-Semitism properly and honestly defined in its Jewish context is prejudice against and loathing, even hatred, of Jews, all Jews everywhere, just because they are Jews. (I say “anti-Semitism in its Jewish context” because there is another context. Arabs are also Semitic peoples. A real and true anti-Semite is therefore one who is prejudiced against and lathes, even hates, both Jews and Arabs).

Anti-Semitism as defined by Zionism, the colonial, ethnic cleansing enterprise of some Jews, has come to mean almost all criticism of Israel’s policies and actions. Put another way, anti-Semitism as defined by supporters of Israel right or wrong is anything written or said by anybody who challenges and contradicts Zionism’s version of events. In effect Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong say, “If you disagree with us, you’re anti-Semitic.”

As a blackmail card to silence criticism of Israel and prevent informed and honest debate about who must do what and why for justice and peace in the Middle East, Zionism’s false charge of anti-Semitism has worked wonderfully well to date. Why? In the long (and still present) shadow of the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, a European crime for which, effectively, the Arabs were punished, there are few things Westerners in public life, politicians and media people especially, fear more than being accused of anti-Semitism. The charge – even when false as it most often is – can destroy careers.

Unable to refute the substance of documented and objective messages of challenge and criticism, Zionism’s policy always was, and is, to shoot the messengers, usually with smears for bullets.

For complete understanding of what anti-Semitism is and is not, it’s necessary to know what Zionism is and is not.

Zionism claims to be the nationalist movement of “the Jews”, all Jews everywhere. But this claim, like almost all of its claims, does not bear examination.

As I document in detail in my book, the truth is that from Zionism’s foundation and first dishonest mission statement in 1897 until the Nazi holocaust, its colonial enterprise was endorsed and supported by only a tiny minority of the world’s Jews and was opposed by many eminent Jewish leaders.

Also true is that from Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence in 1948 until the  countdown to the 1967 war,many Jews of the world had no great affinity with Israel. They were in their chosen places as integrated citizens of many nations and Israeli Jews were in their chosen place, gained, mainly, by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing. (During his time as prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father, expressed dismay that not enough European and North American Jews wanted to move to Israel and become citizens of it).

For very many Jews of the world the 1967 war was a dramatic turning point in their relationship with Israel because they believed – were conditioned by Zionism and the mainstream Western media to believe – that poor little Israel was in danger of annihilation. Thus Israel’s survival (not to mention its conquest of more Arab land) against impossible odds was a source of great pride for most Jews of the world.

Though most Jews didn’t and still don’t want to know it, the truth was different. The Arabs did not attack first and were not intending to attack. The 1967 war was one of Israeli aggression. For Israel’s military and political hawks the grabbing of the West Bank including Arab East Jerusalem was the unfinished business of 1948. Taking the Syrian Golan Heights was a bonus.

Today much (meaning not quite all) of what supporters of Israel right or wrong claim to be anti-Semitism is actually anti-Israelism, which in my view is best described as anti-Zionism. And contrary to the assertions of Zionism’s spin doctors, anti-Zionism is not by definition anti-Semitism.

Short or long, any discussion of anti-Semitism should include the fact that Zionism needs it. The first to acknowledge this was none other than Theodore Herzl, Zionism’s founding father. In one of his diaries, not published until 1962, Herzl wrote (and probably said to some of his close associates) the following:

Anti-Semitism is a propelling force which, like the wave of the future, will bring Jews into the promised land. Anti-Semitism has grown and continues to grow – and so do I.”

He was right. Without the anti-Semitism unleashed by Adolf Hitler, Zionism’s colonial enterprise would almost certainly have been doomed to failure for lack of enough Jewish support.

Today Zionism needs anti-Semitism, or what it can present as anti-Semitism, to go on justifying its policies and actions.

Any discussion of anti-Semitism should also take note of the words of Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, he wrote:

I believe it was a damaging error on Menachem Begin’s part to insinuate that criticism of Israel is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. There is a recklessness in the grandiose assertion that ‘the whole world is against us.’ If indeed the whole world is against Israel, its future is very bleak. Only those intoxicated with their own greatness can believe that they can succeed in overcoming the entire world.”

In the same book Harkabi gave this warning:

“Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”

From the mid 1980’s when those words were written, Israel’s “misconduct” has been the prime cause in the rise of what Zionism presents as anti-Semitism but which is actually anti-Israelism/anti Zionism.

Today the biggest danger to the Jews of the world is, as Harkabi warned, that anti-Israelism/anti-Zionism will be transformed into anti-Semitism, with the consequence at some point or another great turning against Jews.

My own view is that such a catastrophe will most likely happen unless the citizens of the mainly Gentile Western world among whom most Jews live are assisted to understand why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to Zionism’s still on-going colonial enterprise) without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic.

If the day of understanding comes, it will mark the beginning of the end of Zionism’s freedom and ability to impose its will on the governments of the world that matter most (as well as on the Palestinians) and to remain above and beyond international law.


A few of those who put comments under my articles on various web sites, most notably that of Veterans Today, assert that I am an apologist for Zionism. If they really believe that, they are certifiably m-a-d. But perhaps there is another explanation. Perhaps they are acting for Zionism and it’s their way of seeking to destroy my credibility with those who know that I truly believe Zionism is the cancer at the heart of international affairs…?

More women in New Hampshire taking up firearms

(CAV News) - An article just released this weekend from a New Hampshire newspaper, released a report finding that more women are taking up safety classes and firearm courses, as gun control talk spreads throughout the country.

Last week, several hundred New Hampshire citizens marched and protested HB135, which would repeal the current stand your ground law in New Hampshire, and many women were part of that movement.

From The Union Leader

“Telling a woman she should try to turn her back on an assailant is the Legislature telling a woman to take a chance to become a victim or, worse yet, die at the hands of a criminal,” said Jenn Coffey, an Andover resident and the national legislative affairs director for the Second Amendment Sisters. “We value our right to choose what happens to our bodies. This legislation is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to mass media reports.”

“By repealing this law, the Legislature is encouraging criminals to sue the very victims of their crimes if they become injured,” said Coffey.

One thing is for sure, as we read more and more mainstream outlets asking for the end of the 2nd amendment or doing away of the constitution, it won’t be easy. As our page has reported and shared for the past month; more and more states, sheriffs, coalitions, groups are speaking out against gun control and rightfully so!

For the full article read: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130127/NEWS07/130129238

By: Derek Wood

Source: Union Leader

Florida legislators vote to ban spying with drones

(RT) -A Florida senate panel has voted to ban state police from using drones to spy on citizens. But several exceptions to the ban will ensure that the skies of the Sunshine State are not entirely drone-free.
The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act will limit law enforcement’s ability to use drones to gather evidence against suspects. Any such evidence would be made inadmissible in a court of law, and citizens would be able to sue agencies that violate the rules.
“I support the use of drones to kill terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not to monitor the activities of law-abiding Floridians,” Republican Senator John Negron said after the bill he sponsored flew through the Criminal Justice Senate Subcommittee.
“This bill will protect the privacy of our citizens while providing law enforcement the tools necessary to respond to emergencies,” he continued.
The panel amended the bill to allow for exceptions, such as when a warrant has been signed by judge or if “exigent” circumstances exist, including “reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence.”
The bill also includes an exception for terrorism-related searches, though the deployment of drones will only be allowed if the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security cites a credible intelligence risk and grants prior authorization.
Currently, Florida’s Miami-Dade Police Department is the only state law enforcement agency equipped with drones, though a Senate staff analysis revealed that they have rarely used them.
Last year, Congress empowered the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to grant governmental public safety agencies the permission to use drones.
The FAA has received at least 60 applications for drone deployments in the US; this month alone, the agency approved 348 drones for domestic use. While the bulk of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are being used along the Mexican border to help law enforcers curb illegal immigration, there are fears that drones could be against civilians on a national level in the future.
The sheriff’s office in Orange County, Florida, has already experimented with two domestic surveillance drones it plans to use over metro Orlando starting this summer, the Orlando Sentinel reported on Monday. The unarmed drones would be used to track down criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants, and for environmental monitoring and wildfire surveillance, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
“Technology has pushed us into a new frontier in privacy, and the principles behind Senator Negron’s bill establish guideposts for how to keep Floridians both safe and free in this new era,” Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida, said in a statement.
Simon explained that the ACLU has serious concerns about how the unregulated and warrantless use of drones, coupled with the rapidly evolving development of surveillance technology, has rendered obsolete the traditional legal mechanisms protecting individual privacy.
“Strict controls are needed to help guide law enforcement in using surveillance technology. Without those limits, we risk inching further into a society under constant and permanent surveillance,” Simon continued.
The measure has several more hurdles to cross in the Florida Senate before coming into effect. The bill will need to be approved by the Judiciary Committee, a budget subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee.

The bill has been filed in the Florida house, though it has yet to be referred to any committee.

Orlando Florida Patrolled By Surveillance Drones As Early As This Summer


Law Enforcement Drone


(Business Insider) -When Congress passed a bill last February allowing unmanned  drones to fly American skies it became only a matter of time before UAVs  patrolled U.S. cities for local law enforcement.


While most drones in the U.S. are flown along the Mexican border, the Orange County  Sheriff’s Office wants to put them over metro Orlando within the next few  months. The Greater Orlando metropolitan area is home to more than  2 million residents and is Florida’s third largest city.

Dan  Tracy at the Orlando Sentinel reports the local sheriff wants a pair of  unarmed UAVs able to record the activities of everyday citizens and criminals  alike.

From the Sentinel:

Sheriff’s spokesman Jeff Williamson  … would not say exactly how the drones would be used, he wrote in an  email that they might be deployed when looking for explosives, barricaded  suspects and to inspect “hostile/inaccessible terrain” or at train  accidents.

As for civil-rights concerns, Williamson wrote,  “The OCSO has the privacy of its citizenry as a foremost concern. The device  will only be put into operations on the command of the high risk incident  commander.”



Thermal drone image of a house showing rafters in the roof  and the heat lamps in the bathroom (click to expand)

The sheriff still  needs the County Commission to sign off on the request before it goes to the FAA  for approval. The federal agency should have no problem accommodating as it  was ordered by Congress to get as many drones as possible into the air by  November, and be able to handle 30,000  UAVs by 2020.


Though Orange County refused to specify which type of drone it would be  flying, the Los Angeles  County Sheriff’s Department fought to fly Octatron’s  SkySeer surveillance drone over its jurisdiction in 2006 after a long battle  with the city. The manufacturer has since been working  closely with law enforcement agencies to coordinate networks and platforms,  making it a reasonable choice for the Orlando Sheriff.

Octatron’s SkySeer  description:

SkySeer™ is a lightweight, portable,  autonomous-flight UAV designed for single-person operation. It weighs less than  five pounds, flies quietly, can be assembled in minutes, and is hand-launched.  It has a flight time of 70 minutes and is recoverable through a normal landing  or parachute-based vertical landing (optional). GPS coordinates  (latitude/longitude) can be programmed into the Ground Control Station so the  SkySeer™ can fly to a specific point of interest. The flight path can also be  set by pointing and clicking GPS waypoints on the ground controller, giving the  operator full control over the UAV’s air-borne activities as well as the  operation of its equipment, such as cameras. The video can be recorded to a DVD  or Flash media at the  ground station. The night version SkySeer™ includes a thermal camera that allows  filming in total darkness. A stealth surveillance mission at night at 250’ has  been demonstrated. The two-mile range of coverage can be extended using  NetWeaver™. Training is required to fly a SkySeer™

Octatron now offers the SkySeer to any law enforcement office  with the proper FAA paperwork. If Orlando does go with that model it should be  convenient, as the  company’s sales office is listed down the road in St. Petersburg,  Florida.


Atty-Gen secretly granted the power to create, store dossiers on innocent Americans

(End The Lie) -It is now being reported that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder secretly gave the U.S. government the authority to create and store dossiers on innocent Americans not suspected of committing any crime, without any debate or approval from lawmakers.

This is hardly surprising since Holder gave the same entity, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) the ability to store the personal information of Americans for up to five years, even without so much as a suspicion of the individual being involved in criminal activity of any kind.

Furthermore, this is the same Attorney General who claimed that secret reviews of classified evidence count as due process when deciding if the executive branch can assassinate Americans allegedly involved in terrorist activity.

While in days past, the NCTC could not store data compiled on U.S. citizens unless they were at least suspected of some terrorist activity or were otherwise relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation, they not only can collect and store massive databases of private information but also “trawl through and analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior in order to uncover activity that could launch an investigation,” according to Wired’s Threat Level.

It just continues to get worse, if such a thing is even possible. Holder now instituted changes that allow databases filled with U.S. citizens’ private information to be shared with foreign governments for their analysis as well.

Of course, this is all done under the guise of fighting terrorism, something which is patently absurd given that Americans are included in the databases even when they do not have the most tenuous of links to terrorism.

According to one former senior White House official quoted by the Wall Street Journal, the new changes are “breathtaking in scope.” This did not, however, stop counterterrorism officials from attempting to downplay the seriousness of this new development, which was first reported by the Journal.

“The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes,” claimed Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

These types of claims are regularly made, but one must realize that they are likely without much merit seeing as the Obama administration didn’t even have formal drone guidelines while they were killing a 16-year-old American and countless others abroad with unmanned aerial systems (UAS).

Currently, the NCTC’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database houses data on over 500,000 people either suspected of terrorist activity or links to terrorism which includes “friends and families of suspects, and is the basis for the FBI’s terrorist watchlist,” according to Threat Level.

However, the new rules will likely make this database even larger since the NCTC can now gather any and all information they claim is “reasonably believed” to contain “terrorism information.”

This could include – and if the government’s history is any indicator, likely will – personal information ranging from financial forms submitted by individuals attempting to get federally-backed mortgages to health records of individuals who sought out mental or physical healthcare at government-run medical facilities, such as Veterans Administration hospitals.

Similar proposals but forth by the Bush administration in the past were shot down after a great deal of outcry, but it seems that the Obama administration is somehow immune to this type of scrutiny and condemnation.

Threat Level cites the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness program which, in 2002, “proposed to scrutinize both government and private databases, but public outrage killed the program in essence, though not in spirit.”

“Although Congress de-funded the program in 2003, the NSA continued to collect and sift through immense amounts of data about who Americans spoke with, where they traveled and how they spent their money,” Threat Level adds.

While the Federal Privacy Act prohibits government entities from sharing private data for any purpose other than that for which it was originally obtained, this is actually only in principle.

In reality, government agencies regularly avoid this restriction “by posting a notice in the Federal Register, providing justification for the data request. Such notices are rarely seen or contested, however,” according to Threat Level.

It seems that the justification being used in an attempt to make this slightly more palatable to the public is the 2009 case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, better known as the underwear bomber.

However, we now know that this case – like another underwear bombing plot earlier this year along with countless other cases – was intimately linked to the government itself.

While they claim that systems like that now implemented in the NCTC are necessary because “Abdulmutallab wasn’t on the FBI watchlist, but the NCTC had received tips about him, and yet failed to search other government databases to connect dots that might have helped prevent him from boarding the plane,” we now know that his father made several calls about his son, all of which were apparently ignored.

Furthermore, eyewitness testimony presented in court and in media reports (see TV news report on the subject here) by practicing lawyer Kurt Haskell makes the entire government narrative look dubious at best.

As Haskell stated in court, “I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar’s accomplices.”

It just got worse when Haskell noted, “Michael Leiter of the National Counter terrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government.”

So, is this something that should be remedied by giving the government even more power over the private information of Americans? I see no reason to believe that would help anything at all.

The NCTC claims that their counterterrorism activities were hindered because they “couldn’t look through the databases trolling for general ‘patterns,’” according to the Journal.

While former Department of Homeland Security Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan attempted to defend the rights of Americans by arguing that the new rules were a “sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public,” according to the ABA Journal.

This led to the conclusion that, as Threat Level put it, “every interaction a citizen would have with the government in the future would be ruled by the underlying question, is that person a terrorist?” Callahan ended up losing her battle and subsequently left her position after which she entered private practice.

So are these new powers necessary or justifiable? I seriously doubt it. Let us know what you think in the comments section of this post.

Hackers breaches Citizens Awareness Vanguard page and posts actual news

(Dirk Would?) - The company best known for politics and smut, a friendly and intriguing combination of news aggregating, has reported to Dirk Would? Monday morning, that the news networking smut agency has been hacked.

Citizens Awareness Vanguard and Smut Inc. reported a breach in security roughly three hours before this report.

What’s more appealing is that nothing has been tampered with other than the news. That’s right, it appears the hacker has hacked into the site to report actual news. Leaving a ransom note on the pages inbox the hacker wrote this: “I thought you guys were about the truth. I thought you guys wanted to bring down the illuminati. You have strayed away from the truth sharing network you boasted about and have become riddled with self-promoting tactics and sexual overtones. You need to clean your shit up or the next time I will post more news about the NWO and I won’t be as nice.”

Chris Perkins, Director of Smut Relations, responded by calling for more transparency in CAV’s network security grid and more oversight “will,” and “should” be implemented to satisfy the growing demands and urges of the page and its readership.

The other nitwit who runs the site and page couldn’t be reached for comment but his PR rep had this to say.

Chris and Derek understand the growing concern for transparency. Derek is on vacation and doesn’t want to be bothered

  about sexual stories and midget smut. Derek has no problem with the new vision for the company. He believes that

 mother/daughter porn, father/daughter having kids, and freak incidents are all key factors in defeating the “illuminati.”

Citizens Awareness Vanguard was officially launched in January of 2012. The page specializes in corruption in politics, government, Ron Paul, Globalism, Censorship, Health, and Porn…

More on this story when people start giving a shit about it!

For more info: Contact Dirk Would? at : (604) 555. 3232 or email: Stopsendingmemail.mail.com

Cheerios Removes App During Fury of Anti-GMO Backlash

(Activist Post) -Cheerios just faced a humiliating public relations failure thanks to the undiscriminating nature of free speech through social media.

Just a few days ago, Cheerios (General Mills) released an app on Facebook asking ‘fans’ to gratefully show what Cheerios means to them. Users could write their own sentiments by placing Cheerios’ iconic black font over a yellow template, complete with little cheerios for periods and dots.

The app was yanked after only one day when their Facebook page (and photo album associated with the app) was flooded with a torrent of anti-GMO messages from angry consumers.


You could literally spend all day looking at ‘Recent Posts by Others’ on Cheerios’ Facebook page - they are nearly all complaints about GMOs and declarations of boycotts.


Cheerios’ Facebook admins were hard pressed to keep up with the angry pics in plain view for everyone. They deleted most of them, but some screen shots still exist on Cheeseslave and here. Other Pins included “Cancerous”, “Science Experiment”, “Cheerigmos”, “Colony Collapse Disorder”, “We are not guinea pigs” and more…


It doesn’t appear they even tried to delete anti-GMO comments in the ‘Recent Posts by Others’ section because they are still flooding in at this moment. Feel free to go there and leave your comments on their wall.

And why wouldn’t customers be upset after the questionable defeat of Proposition 37 to label GMOs and the millions spent by corporations to snuff consumer desire to know what’s in their food?

According to Ballot Pedia, General Mills donated $1,135,300 for No on Proposition 37 in order to keep their products from having to bear GMO labeling. So even if they were to remove GMOs and promote an organic line, it would not appease former customers. General Mills has drawn their line in the sand, spent over a million to deceive paying customers, and is now trying to hide the backlash from other customers who do not yet know the damaging nature of genetic modification.

It just goes to show that the fight for truth about GMOs in the face of deception by Monsanto, DuPont, and large food corporations is far from over. And consumers are winning without needing millions for a failed hushmoney campaign. Unswayed, we are taking information into our hands, like the people who took to labeling grocery products themselves with anti-GMO stickers that you can print off here.

Perhaps consumers are also angry about the deceptive marketing of ‘whole grains’, added synthetic vitamins that our bodies don’t recognize, other toxic ingredients and fillers like wood pulp?

Regardless of that or the presence of GMOs, Sayer Ji at GreenmedInfo has fervently written on the dangers of wheat and other grains in our diet, most recently about mycotoxins (fungus) that our industrial food complex allows to incubate in large storage facilities and causes major hormone disruption.

To avoid spending money on corporations that spend millions to promote GMOs, maybe it would be better to take a look at breakfast meals around the world.

Thanks to real food blog  for catching this event before it was swept under the cyber rug. To Cheerios and General Mills - shame on you and your lies.

8pm news!

Hey everyone it’s Derek from CAV news. It’s been an interesting day in news and in case you have missed anything, all you have to do is click —-> http://cavnews.wordpress.com/ for a recap of what we have shared so far. I have 7 items coming up for the 8pm news cycle. You won’t want to miss what I’m sharing so make sure you swing back at 8pm to see what’s coming up tonight!

Organization of Islamic Cooperation: Islamophobia politicized

(Digital Journal) -Islamophobia has become institutionalized and politicized according to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The group considers the western media has played a major role in advancing Islamophobia.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, spoke of the growing trend of Islamophobia as he addressed the issue of “The Acts of Defamation Against Islam: Dimensions of Clash and Prospects of Coexistence between Islam and the West” at OICheadquarters.

The Saudi Gazettereported Ekmeleddin said Islamophobia grew from an initial phase where the world was in denial about the concept, to a second phase of “institutionalized and politicized” Islamphobia. He cited gains made by extreme rightists in some European countries, along with the legal ban on minarets in Switzerland, as examples of how Islamophobia is used for political purposes.

The Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Makkah, Ambassador Mohammad Tayeb, accused western media of promoting Islamophia, and a failure to understand Islam.

The OICdescribes itself as “the collective voice of the Muslim world,” representing 56 countries.

Following the release of the video “Innocence of Muslims” the OIC called for expressions of Islamophobia to be made illegal. The OIC addressed the U.N. Human Rights Council in September, claiming “Islamophobia must be acknowledged as a contemporary form of racism.” Thus far there have been no moves to placate Islamic nations demanding blasphemy be outlawed.

Companies are Mining your Facebook/ Twitter Info… and Selling it.

(Juan Cole) Yesterday, we got a rare look at how information on your public social media profiles—including Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn—is being harvested and resold by large consumer data companies.

Responding to a congressional query, nine data companies provided answers to a detailed set of questions about what kinds of information they collect about individual Americans, and where they get that data.

Their responses, released Thursday, show that some companies record — and then resell — your screen names, web site addresses, interests, hometown and professional history, and how many friends or followers you have.

Some companies also collect and analyze information about users’ “tweets, posts, comments, likes, shares, and recommendations,” according to Epsilon, a consumer data company.

While many of these details were already available on the data companies’ websites, the lawmakers used the letters as a chance to raise awareness about an industry that they said has largely “operated in the shadows.”

“Posting to Facebook should not also mean putting personal information into the hands of data reapers seeking to profit from details of consumers’ personal lives,” Massachusetts Rep. Edward J. Markey told ProPublica in an e-mailed statement.

“Users of social media want to share with friends, not enable the sale of their personal information to data miners.”

Companies that collect social network information said they only take what is publicly available, and that they follow the rules laid down by each social networking site.

Acxiom, one of the nation’s largest consumer data companies, said in its letter to lawmakers that it collects information about which social media sites individual people use, and “whether they are a heavy or a light user.”

The letter also says Acxiom tracks whether individuals “engage in social media activities such as signing onto fan pages or posting or viewing YouTube videos.”

The company said that it does not collect information about individual postings or lists of friends.

Data companies of course, do not stop with the information on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Intelius, which offers everything from a reverse phone number look up to an employee screening service, said it also collects information from Blogspot, WordPress, MySpace, and YouTube.

This information includes individual email addresses and screen names, web site addresses, interests, and professional history, Intelius said. It offers a “Social Network Search” on its website that allows you to enter someone’s name and see a record of social media URLs for that person.

Epsilon, a consumer data company that works with catalog and retail companies, said that it may use information about social media users’ “names, ages, genders, hometown locations, languages, and a numbers of social connections (e.g., friends or followers).”

It also works with information about “user interactions,” like what people tweet, post, share, recommend, or “like.”

But Epsilon said it does not connect this social media information with any other consumer information in its databases. Other companies, including Acxiom, include social media profile data as part of detailed profiles on individual consumers.

Instead, Epsilon said, it uses information from social media sites to “provide companies with analytics insights” and “help them better understand and interact with their customers.”

Both Epsilon and Acxiom said they obtain information from third parties that specialize in collecting social network data.

Experian, the credit reporting company, said that its marketing services operation “does not collect data from social networks for the purpose of sharing such data with other entities.” It did not say whether or not it uses social network data collected by other companies. (Experian said the data used for its marketing services is “completely separate” from the data used for your individual credit report.)

Markey, the co-chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, and a group of other members of congress sent questions to nine companies this July, in response to a New York Times profile of Acxiom, one of America’s largest consumer data companies.

“The data brokers’ responses offer only a glimpse of the practices of an industry that has operated in the shadows for years,” the lawmakers said in a joint statement yesterday on Markey’s web site. ”Many questions about how these data brokers operate have been left unanswered.”

“We continue to collaborate with the U.S. government and federal agencies to help broaden the understanding of our business practices and the enormous value that the industry creates  for individuals and businesses alike. As such, we advocate for a conversation that balances privacy considerations as well as the benefits of the appropriate use of data,” Acxiom CEO Scott Howe said in an e-mailed statement.

“While we provided a thorough response to the Caucus’ request, we honored all client, partner and vendor confidentiality agreements. We remain focused on our mission to strengthen connections between people, businesses and their partners.”

AP Officially Calls Florida for Obama 4 Days After the Election

AP Officially Calls Florida for Obama 4 Days After the Election

(The Blaze) The Associated Press has officially called the state of Florida for President Barack Obama four days after the general election, putting Obama’s electoral vote tally at 332 to Mitt Romney’s 206.

The Romney campaign had already conceded the state, which finished counting its votes on Saturday.

Florida officials said Obama received 50 percent of the vote to Romney’s 49.1 percent, winning by about 74,000 votes, according to the AP.

Obama had already clinched the necessary 270 Electoral College votes to secure a second term, regardless of Florida’s outcome.

Occupy Wall Street buy-up US debt just to abolish it

(Telegraph) The Rolling Jubilee project is seeking donations to help it buy-up distressed debts, including student loans and outstanding medical bills, and then wipe the slate clean by writing them off.

Individuals or companies can buy distressed debt from lenders at knock-down prices if it the borrower is in default or behind with payments and are then free to do with it as they see fit, including cancelling it free of charge.

As a test run the group spent $500 on distressed debt, buying $14,000 worth of outstanding loans and pardoning the debtors. They are now looking to expand their experiment nationwide and are asking people to donate money to the cause.

David Rees, one of the organisers behind the project, writes on his blog: “This is a simple, powerful way to help folks in need - to free them from heavy debt loads so they can focus on being productive, happy and healthy.

“Now, after many consultations with attorneys, the IRS, and our moles in the debt-brokerage world, we are ready to take the Rolling Jubilee program live and nationwide, buying debt in communities that have been struggling during the recession.”

A video released to promote the project says: “We shouldn’t be forced into debt to cover basic needs like healthcare, housing and education. We need a jubilee, a clean slate. The math is on our side; a little bit of money goes a long way. If we can raise $50,000 we can buy a million dollars worth of debt and abolish it.

“We bailed-out the banks and in return they turned their backs on us. We don’t owe them anything, we owe each other everything. It’s time for a bail-out of the people, by the people.”

Around 100 Indian scientists back experts call for GM moratorium

(gmwatch) Below is an open letter sent by nearly a hundred Indian scientists to the Supreme Court. They write in support of the report of the Supreme Court’s Technical Expert Committee (TEC) calling for a 10 year moratorium on GM field trials while regulation is put in order.

The scientists come from across India, and include Vice Chancellors and heads of various scientific institutions and from various specializations, mostly related to the Life Sciences. Most are (or were) associated with institutions connected to DARE (the Department of Agricultural Research And Education), CSIR (India’s main R&D body for science and industry), or ICMR (the Indian Council of Medical Research). Also below is a letter to the Supreme Court from Dr Sudarshan Iyengar, the Vice Chancellor of Gujarat Vidyapeeth - a university founded originally by Mahatma Gandhi.

Open Letter from Indian Scientists to the Supreme Court

In the case of Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005)

November 8 2012

To: Hon’ble Justices Swatanter Kumar & S.J Mukhopadhyay
Supreme court of India

In the case of Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005)

Respected Sirs

Sub: Request to accept the interim report submitted by the court-appointed Technical Expert Committee on the matter of field trials of GM crops and passing Orders on the same

Never in the history of agricultural science had a technology been as controversial as Genetic Engineering/Genetic modification of crops. The unpredictability and irreversible nature of Genetic Modification (GM) as a living technology and the uncontrollability of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in the environment, coupled with scientific studies pointing at the potential risk to human health and environment has resulted in a controversy across the world where questions around the safety as well as the very need for introducing such potentially risky organisms into our food and farming system are being raised. Added to this is also the issue of corporate control of the seeds, the most important input in agriculture, through this technology (rigid Intellectual Property Rights go hand in hand with this technology, given the ease with which tinkering at the level of genes allows exclusive monopolistic rights to accrue to commercial entities; most such IPRs on important componentsand processes of GM are already in the hands of a handful of MNCs). In the Indian context there are also concerns on massive displacement of farm labour if Herbicide Tolerant GM crops are introduced. Given that the world is heavily tilted against the introduction of the technology at this point of time, with a majority of nations not opting for it, this also raises serious trade security issues. All of these issues have been appropriately taken on board by the TEC appointed by the Court.

The debate around GM crops in India started in late 1990s, around the time when the field trials of Bt cotton, the first and only GM crop to have been commercialised in our country, started. It has grown in sum and substance over time with increasing scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of GM crops, both potential and real, emerging from within the country and outside. This debate was most visible around Bt Brinjal, the first GM food crop that had reached commercial approval stage in 2009 and has only got stronger ever since. It was the scientific concerns on the open releases of GM crops in general and Bt brinjal in particular from both eminent global and Indian Scientists along with specific concerns on the inadequacy of the biosafety assessments for GM crops  in our country and the inability of our regulatory system to do assessments and monitoring of GM crops that finally led to the indefinite moratorium on the commercial release of Bt Brinjal by the then Minister forEnvironment and Forests, Sri Jairam Ramesh. As said in the moratorium order by him, that decision was indeed “responsive to science and responsible to society”.

The debate around Bt Brinjal as well as regular reports from around the country brought out by investigations on field trials by certain state governments and civil society groups also opened up various issues with regard to any open release of GM crops including field trials.

It is necessary to look at the Technical Expert Committee’s recommendations in this context and hence, our letter to the learned judges requesting you to fully appreciate the important and critical recommendations of the Committee.

The fact that members of the TEC, who are eminent scientists in the fields of biodiversity, nutrition science, toxicology, molecular biology etc. were jointly agreed upon by the petitioners and the respondent (Union of India) adds to its credibility. It is worthwhile to remember that safety assessment is the matter in question (not the technologist’s job of creating a GMO) and the TEC members are experts in that field. It is also noteworthy that the committee followed the Terms of Refrence given to it by the Court which again was mutually agreed upon by both the parties in the case. Added to this is the process through which the Committee has come to its set of recommendations in this first report. The Committee has heard experts from all fields and interest groups before arriving at its own conclusions. The Committee’s first report submitted to the Hon’ble Court on the 7th of Oct 2012 has a thorough scientific assessment of the situation with regard to various aspects of GM crops and its impact, both potential and actual, in the Indian scenario. The report also does a comprehensive analysis of the regulatory system for any open releases of GMOs in our country.

A lot of us in the scientific fraternity hence feel that this is a Committee which has credibility in its composition, clarity in mandate and has taken up an elaborate and detailed process to come to its conclusions. The conclusions and recommendations themselves are sound and scientific, as the reasoning in the report showcases.

It is no surprise that the Committee has come up with logical recommendations on the matter of field trials of GM crops. To start with, the Committee’s stress on a precautionary approach towards GMOs in which potential risks from such a novel technology and its living products need to be identified and minimised, is a globally accepted norm. So it is completely logical when the committee says that “a comprehensive assessment including the risk assesment should start with a need assessment of the technology/product and should encompass a socio-economic analysis which looks at impact of it on various sections of the society and economy”.

The need for overhauling the unsound regulatory system

Given the serious questions raised on the design, capacity, intention and implementation of our regulatory system (from the time field trials of Bt cotton started), the committee has looked at the various aspects of the existing regime. This included the way approvals for field trials have been given, when they are given and the way they have been conducted besides the manner in which monitoring during and after the trials has happened in the country.

The glaring gaps in the regulatory system whether it is lack of rationale for deciding on a particular crop or a trait, particular time or location, incorrect sequencing of biosafety assessment, lack of comprehensive risk assessment including long term independent testing besides serious issues of conflicts of interest are all real issues that beg for an immediate correction. It is to be remembered that unlike any regulatory mechanism in other sectors, regulation here deals with living organisms that can contaminate, reproduce, spread and remain in the system for ever. Hence utmost care needs to be put in place in keeping them contained, until and unless, based on a credible set of biosafety assessments, one can say with confidence that these novel organisms do not pose a threat to health of humans or environment, now or in future.

The recommendations of the Committee not to permit event selection trials outside contained conditions in greenhouses/glasshouses and the need to do a set of biosafety tests including food safety and toxicity studies including sub-chronic feeding studies on rodents along with molecular characterisation of the Genetically Engineered plant, potential toxicity of the    novel protein and potential allergenicity before open field trials merit attention and action from this Court.

The Committee also stresses the need for independent, long-term, inter-generational feeding studies to be conducted as part of the risk assessment as food is something that we consume throughout our life and this would help in determining safety at various stages of development starting from conception till end of the life cycle.

Delving further into the existing risk assessment procedure by looking at the Bt cotton biosafety data, the Committee observed that there were instances where the number of samples were lower than minimum prescribed, thereby affecting the quality and sensitivity of the tests even though such dossiers passed through the lax regulatory system. There were also cases of significant differences in bioindicators like blood cell parameters, tissue and organ health and integrity, milk yield between Bt and control samples. The fact that hundreds of hybrids of Bt cotton have been approved by our regulator over the last 10 years with all these gaps in biosafety assessment is a testament of the weakness in the review of biosafety data in the existing regulatory regime. This had been pointed out many a times in the past including during the Bt Brinjal consultations. The Committee is therefore correct in asking for a review of all biosafety data both of approved GMOs as well as ones in the pipeline.

This, when viewed along with the observation by the Expert Committee that there is a serious issue of conflict of interest, completes the picture of an inadequate and unscientific regulatory regime with clear vested interests. The issue of conflict of interest had come into focus several times in the past too, and has vitiated the entire regulatory process of GMOs in India, including field trials. There have been instances of GM crop developers with their products in the pipeline sitting in both RCGM and GEAC, the two nodal agencies for risk assessment and approval for open releases.

Besides putting in place a rigorous biosafety and risk assessment protocol, the TEC also felt that there is a need for a wider set of representation to be included in the regulatory system including sociologists, agriculture economists, toxicologists, ecologists, plant breeders, representatives from civil society and farmers’ unions to ensure a rigorous assessment of GMOs beyond just biosafety checks.

10-Year Moratorium on Bt crops’ field trials:

The TEC found serious flaws in the safety conclusions from the Bt cotton biosafety dossier as the examples cited in the report indicate. Further, there are several scientific studies which point out to the serious problems with this technology for pest control, including pest resistance, changes in pest ecology, impacts on soil biology etc. This is true with Bt cotton in India too, with pest resistance as well as secondary pests being reflected including in official records. Even after ten years of Bt cotton, there has been no official review and the lack of post-marketing monitoring was clearly noted by the TEC also. Issues around Bt GMOs’ safety to animal and human health are unresolved. The unsustainability of the science of Bt technology for pest management is well-noted in other processes of inquiry too. The then Minister for Environment & Forests is reported to have quipped that “Bt is a solution looking for a problem,” given that highly successful alternatives to chemical pesticides and Bt crops exist for crop pest management, which are farmer-controlled, nature-friendly, safe and affordable. The Bt brinjal biosafety dossier analysed by eminent scientists also pointed to the inadequacies in the safety conclusions of that Bt product which began with something as basic as incorrect molecular characterization! It is all in all very appropriate that the TEC had called for a moratorium on Bt crops’ field trials.

Protecting Centres of Origin and Diversity:

The TEC’s recommendation not to permit field trials of those crops for which India is a Centre of Origin/Diversity is a matter that needs urgent attention. It is a globally accepted norm that regions which are rich genetic pools in the megabiodiversity countries like India need to be protected and enriched. This is essential both for the survival of communities who are dependent on them for their livelihoods and also for the growth of science. GMOs have been acknowledged as one of the main threats to this biodiversity in global treaties like the Convention  on Biological Diversity (CBD) which has stressed on the need for precaution when dealing with GMOs. Given that India hosted the CBD last month and that we are a presiding nation for the next two years, we should take a leadership role in protecting biodiversity from potential threats. It should not be forgotten that we have only seen the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of the wild genepool that has been the basis of our agricultural breeding and development. It will be an injustice to our future generations if we promote its destruction without even getting a chance to unravel and utilise such diversity sustainably.

Moratorium until a comprehensive independent review of Herbicide Tolerant GM crops:

The other major recommendation is the need to revisit our policy of permitting any open releases of herbicide tolerant GM crops due to various scientific concerns emerging on the impact of such GM crops and the related usage of herbicides, on human health and environment. This is more so in a country like ours where farm sizes are small and application of herbicides cannot be restricted to one’s boundaries. There is also a serious concern on the socioeconomic impact of these crops as they are being brought in to replace farm labour. It is important to remind ourselves that we are still an agrarian country with majority of our population dependent on agriculture. More than 80 percentage of our farmers are small, marginal and landless and depend on agricultural work like weeding for sustenance. So any technology that takes away such employment chances especially for rural women will have serious socioeconomic repercussions. In fact this was pointed out by the Taskforce onAgricultural
Biotechnology led by Dr M.S Swaminathan set up by the government way back in 2003.  This Task Force also recommended the avoidance of this technology in India.

TEC recommendations reinforce other such in-depth inquiry processes in India:

The TEC interim report comes after the report on GM food crops by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture on 9th of August, 2012. The Standing Committee, comprising of 31    Parliamentarians from across party lines including those from the ruling coalition, did widespread consultations over two and half years with diverse experts and stakeholders before coming to the conclusion that the country should not embrace GM crops in a haste and that there should be a precautionary-based approach towards GM crops. Identifying the inherent risks of GM crops to human health, that of livestock and biodiversity and the inadequacy of the regulatory system to conduct field trials, the Parliamentary Committee had recommended for a stopping of all field trials.

Several recommendations of the TEC also find resonance in the report of the Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology, set up by the Government of India, whose report was accepted in 2004. Similarly, the Bt brinjal public debate and the subsequent moratorium order also reflected the main concerns and recommendations of this TEC.

It is to be remembered that the scientific debate around environmental release of GMOs is happening around the globe and a majority of countries have decided to stop the open releases of them until the answers to various concerns have been arrived at. Any haste in doing this will not only impact the society and the environment but also impede scientific progress. Already there is a growing concern amongst the scientific community that Genetic Engineering and GMOs are getting undue attention where as other non controversial and sustainable technologies like agro ecology are getting ignored in the process. Within the vast area of biotechnology, there are many safer and proven tools which need to be harnessed better.

All open-air field trials are deliberate releases of untested organisms:

The TEC was absolutely right in recognizing that all field trials are essentially deliberate open air releases of untested and unknown organisms and has correctly given its recommendations based on such an analysis (the issue of open air releases gains more significance in the context of repeated violations of biosafety norms and Rules, with impunity) – the fact that need assessment should take place before clearing all applications, that certain traits and crops should be avoided, that biosafety testing should precede open air testing at least to some extent, that regulation should be devoid of conflict of interest, that safety assessment should be comprehensive with more tests including long term and inter-generational, that monitoring and liability regimes have to be put into place, that biosafety review capabilities have to be built etc. are all welcome suggestions based on the legally and scientifically valid Precautionary Principle.

WE would like to specifically point out that many who argue that ‘America has allowed GM crops on a large scale and so should we’ are fundamentally wrong in making a comparison with America – neither our food production nor our food consumption patterns are comparable, not to mention the socio-economic conditions of our producers and consumers. Further, the American regulatory system is very lax and does not even have any segregation or labeling systems. There are no studies that indicate that some of the increasing health problems in the USA are not connected to GMOs. Chemical use in agriculture has been increasing there, while superweeds and superpests are a major issue that farmers are contending with. Some of the biggest losses of the biotech industry are from the US due to contamination from field trials. America is also facing threat to its agri-trade security by adopting transgenics. Any comparison with America is untenable.

As part of the scientific community in India, we hope that the Hon’ble Court will not overlook important analysis and recommendations of the TEC,  and would take a prudent, science-based and precautionary approach. We sincerely hope that the learned judges will accept the recommendations of the court appointed TEC in toto. This is important for upholding the scientific temper in India and most importantly not losing vision of humanity while translating science into technologies.

The Signatories:

Padma Bhushan Dr Pushpa Bhargava, Hon Distinguished Professor, School of Life Sciences, JNIAS, Founder-Director of Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CCMB) – Supreme Court-appointed Observer in India’s apex regulatory body for GMOs (GEAC)

Dr A Biju Kumar, Associate Professor and Head, Dept. of Aquatic Biology & Fisheries, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

Dr A K Yadav, Rajendra Agri University, Pusa, Bihar

Dr Alok Mukhopadhyay, Managing Trustee, Health for the Millions

Dr Amol Patwardhan, Entomology expert, Prof of Zoology, Thane

Dr Anbazhagan Kolandaswamy, Molecular Biologist, Post doctoral Research engineer on human immune cells, France

Dr Anupam Paul, Agriculture Scientist, State Agricultural Technologists’ Service Association, West Bengal

Dr Anurag Goel, Agriculture Scientist, WAPRED

Dr Aruna Chakraborty, Consultant Biochemist, BN Hospital, Kolkata

Dr Atul Mehta, Plant Breeder, Anand Agriculture University

Dr B Chaudhary, Former Director Research, RAU, PUSA.

Dr B N Viswanath, Agricultural Entomologist, Consultant in Organic Farming, Bangalore

Dr C T S Nair, Former Chief Economist (Forestry Dept), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Former, Exec-Vice President, Kerala State Science Technology and Environment Council

Dr Chandrakant Pandav, Professor & Head, Centre for Community Medicine, AIIMS

Dr D G Bhapkar, Retd. Director of Research, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra

Dr Debal Deb, Centre for Inter-disciplinary Studies, Odisha.

Dr Dhanya Bhaskaran, Asst Professor (Environmental Science), University of Agriculture Sciences, Raichur

Dr Dileep Kumar R, Post Doctoral Fellow, Institute of Venom Science, Centre for Computational Biology and Bio informatics, University of Kerala,Thiruvananthapuram

Dr Dinesh Abrol, Scientist, NISTADS

Dr E Kunhikrishnan, Professor, Dept of Zoology, Kerala University

Dr Elizabeth Joseph, Retd. Scientist (Fisheries), Kerala Agriculture University

Dr G S Kaushal, Retd. Director Agriculture, Govt of MP

Dr Goldin Quadros, Senior Scientist, Wetland Ecology Division, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore

Dr H R Prakash, Retd. Soil Scientist, Department of Agriculture, Bangalore

Dr Hrideek T.K, Scientist, Genetics and Tree Breeding, Kerala Forest Research Institute

Dr J K Roy, Joint Director (Retd), Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack.

Dr Jagdish Parikh, Medical Scientist, Ex-Deputy Director, National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH)

Dr Johannas Manjrekar, Associate Professor, Microbiology Department, MS University

Dr K V Sankaran, Former Director, Kerala Forest Research Institue, Peechi, Kerala

Dr K M Shyamprasad: Chancellor, Martin Luther Christian University, Shillong, India

Dr Lalitha Vijayan, Sr Scientist, Salim Ali Foundation and formerly, Acting Director and Senior Principal Scientist, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural Studies (SACON), Coimbatore

Dr Latha Anantha, Director, River Research Centre, Thrissur, Kerala

Dr M Ganapathy, Executive Director, Public Health Resource Network, New Delhi

Dr M S Chari, Former Director, CTRI (Managing Trustee, CSA, Hyderebad)

Dr M Seenath, Professor, Zoology, University of Calicut

Dr Madhuri Pejavar, Zoologist, Principal of B. N. Bandorkar College, Thane

Dr Manas Pandit, Associate Professor, Dept of Vegetable Crops, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal

Dr Mangal Borkar, Prof. of Botany, Thane

Dr Meenakshi Gautham, Public Health Specialist

Dr Mira Shiva, Coordinator, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society

Dr Mogalli Ganesh, Hampi University, Karnataka

Dr N Paul Sunder Singh, Karunalaya Social Service Society, Chennai

Dr Nandita Shah, Medical Doctor, Homeopath,  SHARAN

Dr Nimisha Shukla, Professor, Gujarat Vidyapeeth

Dr Om Rupela, Soil Microbiology, Formerly with ICRISAT

Dr P K Prasadan, Botanist, University of Calicut

Dr Partha Chakraborty, Scientist, CSIR, IICB

Dr Partha Sarathi Ray Asst Prof, IISER, Kolkata

Dr Ponnammal Natarajan, Retd Dean, Anna University

Dr Priti Joshi, Botany, National Organisation for Community Welfare, Wardha

Dr R K P Singh, ICRA, Patna

Dr Ramanjaneyelu GV, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad

Dr Ravi Narayan, Community Health Advisor, SOCHARA

Dr Rudraradhya, Retd Senior Plant Breeder, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore

Dr S Jeevananda Reddy, Former Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN

Dr Sagari Ramdas, Veterinary scientist & Director, Anthra

Dr Sant Kunmar Gautam, Plant Breeder, Delhi.

Dr Santhi, Ecologist, Trivandrum

Dr Santosh M. Tungare, Environmental Chemistry, TechnoGreen Environment Solutions, Pune

Dr Sasikumar Menon,  Expert in Medicinal Plants & Species Conservation,  Univ of Mumbai

Dr Siddhartha Gupta, Pathologist, CPT Hospital

Dr Sivaraman, Siddhha Expert, AROGYA

Dr Sujatha Byravan, PhD, Scientist based in Chennai, Former President, Council for Responsible Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dr Sujatha Lakhani, Agriculture Scientist, WAPRED

Dr Sultan Ismail, Soil Biologist & Ecologist, Tamilnadu.

Dr Sunita Rajadhyaksha, Pharmacology, Mumbai University

Dr Sunita Rao, Ecologist, Vanastree and ATREE (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment), Sirsi

Dr T A V S Raghunath, Entomologist, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad

Dr T K Maqbool, Professor in Zoology, Calicut University

Dr T S Channesh, Agriculture Scientist, UAS Bangalore

Dr Tarak Kate,    Organic Farmers’ Association of India, Wardha

Dr Thelma Narayan, Director, SOCHARA School of Public Health, Equity and Action

Dr Thomas Varghese, Soil Scientist (Retd.), Kerala Agriculture University, Ex-Chairman, Kerala State Agriculture Prices Board

Dr Tushar Chakraborty, Principal Scientist, CSIR, IICB, Kolkata

Dr TV Sajeev, Scientist (Entomologist), Forest Health, Kerala Forest Research Institute

Dr Usha Balram, Professor and Head (Retd.), Dept of Zoology, All Saints College, Trivandrum, Kerala

Dr V S Vijayan, Chairman, Salim Ali Foundation, Former Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board; Former and Founder Director, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural Studies (SACON, a Centre of Excellence of the Govt of India)

Dr Vanaja Ramprasad, Founding member of Foundation for Genetic resources, Energy, Ecology and Nutrition ( Green Foundation), Bangalore, Karnataka

Dr Vijaya Venkat, Founder of The Health Awareness Centre (THAC), Mumbai, Maharashtra

Prof A Prasada Rao, Retd Professor, Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU)

Prof B N Reddy, Professor of Botany, Osmania University

Prof Jalapati Rao, Professor in Agronomy and Registrar (Retd), ANGR Agricultural University, Hyderabad

Prof K R Chowdhary, Retd Professor, Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad

Prof Lalit M Nath, Retd Professor & Dean, Centre for Community Medicine, AIIMS

Prof M K Prasad, Ex-Pro-VC, Calicut University, Ex-Chairman, Information Kerala Mission

Prof Mahadeb Pramanik, Dept of Agronomy, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, WB

Prof N Venugopala Rao, Retd Professor of Entomology, ANGRAU, Andhra Pradesh

Prof R N Basu, Retd. Vice Chancellor, Kolkata University

Prof S Krishnaswamy, Structural Biologist and Former President, Tamil Nadu Science Forum

Prof Satya Prasad, Professor of Botany, Osmania University, Andhra Pradesh.

Prof Shree Ram Padmadeo, Convener, Department of Biotechnology, Patna University, Patna.

Prof Sudarshan Iyengar, Vice Chancellor, Gujarat Vidyapeeth

Prof T K Bose, Former Director-Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, WB

Prof Veena Shatrughna, Deputy Director (Retd), National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad


To Hon’ble Justices Swatanter Kumar & S.J Mukhopadhyay
Supreme court of India
New Delhi

November 8, 2012.

In the case of Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005)

Respected Sirs

Sub: Appeal to judge and order with due consideration to harmonious relationship between nature and human beings in the case of field trials of GM Crops.

Global warming is a reality that all accept today in the world. Need and greed both have contributed to it. However, the justification is mainly done by putting forth the need argument. Exploitation of minerals, land, forest, and water resources to expanding material production is evidently to meet the needs of millions of poor, but in reality it is largely to satisfy limitless wants of affording population. The rising carbon levels are accepted, but for controlling it low carbon technology is sought and there is hardly any discussion on changing the life style by reducing consumption, (As if Gandhi never existed!) Production alone is on agenda, and confidence bordering to arrogance obtains about improving the technology to maintain same levels of more global production of goods and services.

As if the physical resources in the form in which they exist on earth were not enough, the genetic science has worked on technologies that can manipulate genes and/or genetic characteristics to increase the food production. Hunger and food security are the reasons that are advanced to support the GM technology. The Technical committee that the Hon. Court had appointed has given sound reasons for not giving green signals for field trials of GM crops. Based on the experience and understanding that we have developed in Gujarat Vidyapith, which is a university with difference and founded by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920, we are making some more points for pointing out why the approval for field trials of GM crops should not be granted.

There is enough evidence to say confidently the if the land use planning is rationalised, land ownership issues are resolved, appropriate agronomical practices are introduced, nature’s own resources are used as farm inputs including the animal draft power, the world can produce enough for the growing population.

We have conveniently ignored the agri-food production that is fed to animals for meat production. This is grossly energy intensive and wasteful production.

Serious and well-funded research to improve crop productivity in eco-system specific conditions carries promise for better food production. The research and investment in agriculture is dominated by monopolistic multinational seed producers who want to take away permanently the autonomy and control of farmers over seed production and use. Harvard Economics Professor in his book Stephen A. Marglin, The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA, 2008, says,

“The problem with the idea that economics is purely, or even primarily, a descriptive undertaking is that the apparatus of economics has been shaped by an agenda focused on showing that markets are good for people rather than on discovering how markets actually work. And from this normative perspective has come the constructive agenda. If you believe that economics is or should be about describing the world, then it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. If you believe, as I do, that the normative agenda has been central to economics from well before Adam Smith’s time, then it is more understandable why the apparatus of economics is built on foundations that undermine community. Undermining community is the logical and practical consequence of promoting the market system.”

Most importantly, tampering with nature increases the risk and uncertainty beyond human control with best of the brains and technology available. The whole humanity can be in jeopardy.

Closing our plea I wish to bring to your kind notice the Indian heritage we have on human’s relationship with nature. It is the first shloka from Ishavasya Upanishada that Gandhi had readily endorsed to describe harmony between human being and nature.

[Sanskrit text]
इशावास्यम इदम सर्वम यत्किंचित जग्त्याम जगत।
तेन त्यक्तेन भुन्झिथा मा गॄद्ध कस्यसविद धनं ॥

This is a plea in the testing times for humanity.

With respects,

Yours Sincerely

(Sudarshan Iyengar)

Prop 37 Fails in California

(Activist Post) It appears that the big advertising push by big food companies defeated the California’s Proposition 37, a ballot initiative to require labeling of genetically modified foods (GMOs).
The last few weeks has seen a stunning reversal of poll numbers in favor of Prop 37. Nationwide polls consistently show around 90% of Americans support GMO labeling, and a month ago California polls showed over 60% supported labeling.
Then, large food conglomerates pooled their funds to oppose to the measure and outspent the citizens Right to Know campaign nearly 6-to-1 ($45 million to $8 million).
Here is the listof the top donors that opposed labeling:


Some radio spots even claimed that labeling would raise prices at the grocery stores in an attempt to scare voters. After this barrage of ads, polling as recent as two weeks ago showed less than 40% of the people still supported labeling GMOs with over 50% opposed to it.
As the final vote tallies come in from California, it looks like Big Business has bought themselves a seemingly impossible double-digit victory — currently leading 55% to 44% with 41% of the vote reporting.
By any standard this is an unprecedented turnaround in such a short period of time, especially for an issue that seems like an obvious “Yes” vote. Who would not want to know what’s in their food?
Some are already speculating that Prop 37 poll numbers were being fudged in the lead up to the vote to make stealing the vote less obvious.  Although this would normally seem outrageous and conspiratorial, it seems nearly as believable as the miraculous last-minute win by Big Agribusiness