New documentary 'Bought' exposes the ugly truth behind vaccines, GMO's and Big Pharma



You're about to see how Wall Street has literally "BOUGHT" your and your family's health.

The food, vaccine, drug, insurance and health industry are a multi-BILLION dollar enterprise... focused more on profits than human lives. The BOUGHT documentary takes viewers deep "inside the guts" of this despicable conspiracy...

Featuring exclusive interviews with the world's most acclaimed experts in research, medicine, holistic care and natural health... Bought exposes the hidden (and deadly) story behind it all.

Click here to see the documentary online for free until March 6 2015.

“…if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”
(1984, George Orwell)



The New Scientist has the stunning story (2/28/15, “Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links,” by Hal Hodson):

“The internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free ‘news’ stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.”

Great idea, right? Sure it is. The author of the article lets the cat out of the bag right away with his comment about “anti-vaccination” websites.

These sites will obviously be shoved into obscurity by Google because they’re “garbage”…whereas “truthful” pro-vaccine sites will dominate top ranked pages on the search engine.

This is wonderful if you believe what the CDC tells you about vaccine safety and efficacy. The CDC: an agency that opens its doors every day with lies and closes them with more lies.

The New Scientist article continues:

“A Google research team is adapting [a] model to measure the trustworthiness of a [website] page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the [ranking] system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. ‘A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy,’ says the team…The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.”

Right. Google, researchers of truth. Assessors of trustworthiness. Who in the world could have a problem with that?

Answer: anyone with three live brain cells.

Here’s the New Scientist’s capper. It’s a beaut:

“The [truth-finding] software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.”

Right. Uh-huh. So Google, along with its friends at the CIA, will engineer a new and improved, greater flood of (dis)information across the Web. And this disinfo will constitute an overwhelming majority opinion…and will become the standard for measuring truth and trustworthiness.

Think about what kinds of websites will rise like foul cream to the top of Google page rankings:

“All vaccines are marvelously safe and effective, and parents who don’t vaccinate their kids should be prosecuted for felonies.” “GMOs are perfectly safe. ‘The science’ says so.” “The FBI has never organized a synthetic terror event and then stung the morons it encouraged.” “Common Core is the greatest system of education yet devised by humans.” “People who believe conspiracies exist have mental disorders.”

In other words: (fake) consensus reality becomes reality. Which is the situation we have now, but the titanic pile of fakery will rise much, much higher.

Also, think about this: the whole purpose of authentic investigative reporting is puncturing the consensus…but you’ll have to search Google for a long time to find it.

In the field of medical fraud, an area I’ve been researching for 25 years, the conclusions of standard published studies (which are brimming with lies) will occupy page after page of top Google rankings.

Let me offer a counter-example to the Google “knowledge team.” Here is a woman who has examined, up close and personal, more medical studies in her career than the entire workforce of Google. She is Dr. Marcia Angell. For 20 years, she was an editor at The New England Journal of Medicine.

On January 15, 2009, the New York Review of Books published her stunning statement: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

In two sentences, Angell carries more weight than 20,000 blowhard “science bloggers,” to say nothing of lying drug companies and that criminal agency called the FDA.

Angell torpedoes an entire range of medical literature, based on her hard-won experience.

But you can be sure that when it comes to “medical facts,” the Google “truth team” will ascribe absolutely no merit (ranking) to her conclusion or its implications.

You may say, “But these search engines are already slanting the truth.”

The new Google program is going to double down. It’s going to set up its own Ministry of Truth. It’s going to standardize algorithms that unerringly bring about officially favored lies.

Stories on vote fraud?

Stories contradicting the official line on mass shootings?

Stories on the US government funding terrorist groups?

Stories on the hostile planetary intentions of Globalists?

Stories on corporate criminals? Secrets of the Federal Reserve?

Stories on major media censoring scandals?

Counter-consensus stories on 9/11, the JFK assassination, the US bankers and corporations who funded both sides in WW2? All anti-establishment versions of history?

After Google launches this Ministry of Truth program, you’ll have to put on diving gear and go deep underwater to find any trace of them.

Welcome to a new day.

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” (Opening line, 1984, Orwell)

Let’s take all this one step further. Google’s director of research is Ray Kurzweil, who many people know as the promoter of a “utopian” plan to hook the population up (through direct brain-machine interface) to a vast super-computer.

The super-computer will pass along virtually all human knowledge. Kurzweil believes such a momentous breakthrough will endow humans with a mystical level of consciousness.

Even if this technological wet dream could be realized, we can now see what “connecting to all human knowledge” means:

It means accepting all official knowledge. Being blind to counter-knowledge. It’s time to reverse AI (Artificial Intelligence) and call it IA (Intelligent Androids).

IAs would be humans who are programmed to be androids. IAs accept truth as it delivered to them by official sources.

Google makes its contribution by promoting official sources. And hiding other sources. Yes, this surely seems like Nirvana. You will be fed the Good and protected from the Evil.

Sound familiar?

Thank you, Google. When are you going to apply for non-profit status and open your Holy Church of Information?

“Today’s sermon will be delivered by the director of the CIA. It is titled, ‘Data: everything you need to know, everything you must not believe.’ Breathe deeply. Your neuronal circuits are now being tuned to our channel…”

Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network has now interviewed Christopher Bryson in this hard hitting video as the writer describes his discoveries about fluoride and its sinister connections to major policy agencies in the U. S. Government and to manipulation of popular scientific perception by major academic institutions such as Carnegie Mellon University.




He describes how a significant pollutant and industrial chemical by product of the smelting and phosphate fertilizer industry was eventually turned into a miracle cure for tooth decay. And, Bryson describes how career professionals were discredited and ruined in order to guard the dirty secrets of fluoride's adverse long term health effects.

Possibly one of the most important books to be published this decade - possibly in the last sixty years, "The Fluoride Deception" by former BBC correspondent and award winning investigative reporter, Christopher Bryson was published in 2004 by Seven Stories Press.

This is the book that uncovered the incredible history behind the inception of the public health policy called water fluoridation. It is the book that stripped away the secrecy of government cover-ups concerning the legal industrial battles of WWII and the poisoning of farms and workers exposed to this insidious toxin with unfortunate lifelong consequences.

Taking ten years to write, The Fluoride Deception has spawned a firestorm of controversy as groups of scientists, researchers and medical professionals around the world are now openly challenging the scientific, legal and ethical logic behind the government's seeming inability to admit how many citizens have had their health compromised or ruined from long term exposure to an accumulative poison that was once used in rat poison and is still used today in pesticides and agriculture.

Once you see this video, you will never think of your toothpaste or your tap water in quite the same way again.

A production of the Fluoride Action Network this video returns to its home on the FAN YouTube channel. The book is available through bookstores and libraries.

In the latest episode of Truth in Media, Ben Swann investigates the origins of the militant group referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Comment: Ben Swann is amazing in that his roots were in the mainstream media and he still works part-time for RT, but he also has his own channel online - where he reports the facts that the mainstream is not willing or able to. In this report (with video) he blows the Islamic State sideshow right out of the water - and effectively calls the cabal manipulators out on their game.

While it has been well established via multiple vectors and souces that the cabal employed two of their proxies, i.e. the CIA and MOSSAD, to bring ISIS / ISIL to the fore in this faux-war - Swann approaches this from a pragmatic position; such that those who are newly awakened to the ruse will be able to process the information with a minimum of shock.





“The name ISIS is one that every American knows,” Swann said “The biggest threat to our national security since Al-Qaeda, right? They are a brutal, savage group known for public beheadings and mass executions. They are the face of the new war on terror.”





Swann pointed out that while the U.S. Military is currently conducting airstrikes in Syria, in a supposed attempt to take out ISIS targets, the White House and U.S. military leaders are discussing possible boots on the ground in Iraq. These talks are arising just three years after President Obama declared that the war in Iraq was over.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told USA Today that in order to defeat ISIS, he believes the United States is looking at “a 30-year-war.”

As the U.S. goes to war in an attempt to defeat yet another terrorist group, the biggest question is: Who exactly is ISIS and where did they come from?

Angela Keaton, the founder of Antiwar.com, said that ISIS is “entirely a creation of the United States’ behavior in Iraq.”

“That’s how we got to where we are, because of war, because of occupation, because of torture,” Keaton said. “The United States government completely destabilized and wrecked Iraq. They caused it to fail miserably and that is entirely the fault of the United States government. There is no one else to blame.”

Swann explained that when the U.S. first invaded Iraq, it “blew the country apart.” By destroying the existing government, toppling Saddam Hussein, and destroying the infrastructure, the U.S. “left behind a power vacuum” that would never have existed under Hussein.

Daniel McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, said that the impact caused by the actions of the United States is a “historical fact that media just won’t discuss.”

“This has to do with U.S. action in the region, which destroyed the infrastructure, which destroyed Iraq society, which destroyed the Iraqi government,” McAdams said. He explained that while there were a lot of people who weren’t “as happy as larks” while living under Saddam Hussein, they also weren’t at odds with Hussein in the same way they were with the government established by the U.S.

The militant group ISIS was formed as a small insurgent group in Iraq in 2006. Swann noted that while they tried to create problems for the U.S. military, they had no money and no real ability to recruit.

“It wasn’t until 2009 that ISIS shifted its focus from Iraq, where it was largely unsuccessful in developing a foothold, and focused on the civil war in Syria,” Swann said.

While in Syria, ISIS still struggled to gain a foothold. Swann attributed this to the fact that two larger groups fighting against President Bashar al-Assad were overpowering them: al-Nusra Front – or al-Qaeda – and the Free Syrian Army.

“Then, came a pivotal moment that most Americans aren’t even aware of,” Swann said.  “In June 2013, a Northern General for the Free Syrian Army spoke out on Al Jazeera Qatar and stated that if international forces did not send weapons, the rebels attempting to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would lose their war within a month.”

Swann noted that just months before this occurred he had personally confronted President Obama on the issue of why the U.S. was covertly funding Syrian rebels.



Ben Swann confronts Barack Obama

Although Obama acted as if he was proceeding with caution, politicians such as Senator John McCain demanded action.

“Within a matter of weeks of the Syrian general making his plea for international help, the U.S., the Saudis, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and Israel began providing weapons, training and money to so-called rebel groups like the Free Syrian Army,” Swann said.

In September 2013, American media outlets began reporting that weapons were being given to Syrian rebels. CNN reported that while the weapons are not “American-made,” they were “funded and organized by the CIA.”

However, Swann said that things began to fall apart when less than one year after the U.S. supplied Syrian “freedom fighters” with weapons, those weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS fighters.

Those ISIS fighters came from the group McCain insisted would help the U.S. overthrow Assad: the Free Syrian Army. Swann explained that the army was not only sending the Islamic State weapons, it was also sending them fighters.

“The Free Syrian Army has lost most of the land that it ever claimed and it’s entirely incompetent,” Keaton said.  “The only thing that it has been good at is currying favor with western leaders.”

Swann said that it wasn’t until June 2014 that ISIS went from being a “no-name group in Syria” to a group that was “heavily armed and trained by U.S. and Coalition Special Forces.”

This revitalized group made a dramatic entrance by crossing back over the Syrian border into Iraq and capturing Mosul and much of the northern part of the country.

“One of the most important facts that mainstream media ignores time and time again is that ISIS was able to grow so fast, because of all the U.S. military equipment they were able to seize – equipment that our military left in Iraq,” said Swann. “Truckloads of Humvees, tanks and weaponry that instead of taking or destroying, the U.S. government simply decided to leave behind.”

However, even when the U.S. government became aware that ISIS fighters were capturing U.S. equipment, it did nothing.

Swann attributed the lack of action to the fact that ISIS fighters were taking the equipment back into Syria to continue fighting Assad, which was what the U.S. government wanted.

“How is it that the United States, with all of its intelligence capabilities, didn’t know this threat was coming?” McAdams said. “How many billions did we spend, maybe a hundred billion on total intelligence community budge over the year? How did they have no idea?”

Swann said that the answer is simple:

“The U.S. did know who ISIS was, but the so-called Islamic State was doing what the Obama administration wanted.”

The ISIS fighters continued to do what the Obama administration wanted, and in late summer 2014, they were labeled what Swann called, “the new boogeyman in the war on terror”.

“Over the past few months, the U.S. government, who acted like they had never even heard of ISIS, suddenly, with the help of media has turned the Islamic State into the new focus of the war on terror,” Swann said.  “Now, as ISIS has continued its rise, recruitment is exploding and the group is becoming stunningly wealthy.” Swann noted that in response to the “ISIS threat,” the U.S. began “conducting airstrikes on Syrian oil fields, instead of going after those buying the oil.”

McAdams pointed out that ISIS makes $2 million a day off of selling oil, and the United States’ response, of “undercutting the competition” by blowing up oil fields makes no sense. 

He questioned why the U.S., which is known for sanctioning “anything that moves,” when it’s angry, is not placing sanctions on the banks or the oil companies that are involved.

Swann added that in addition to those questions, Americans should also be asking, “Why is the U.S. sending $500 million to the Free Syrian Army to fight ISIS when the FSA is one of the biggest suppliers of fighters and weapons to ISIS?” and “Why are we sending new and more powerful weapons to the FSA like anti-aircraft missiles – weapons that we know will be in the hands of ISIS?”

Swann maintained that while the mainstream media will say that ISIS is the “creation of American inaction,” the reality is that they are the “product of direct action.”

This direct action started with “the action of creating a power vacuum in Iraq” and manifested into the “arming violent Jihadists, hoping they would overthrow a leader in a neighboring Middle Eastern country.”

McAdams described the U.S. government as a victim of its own insane policies, due to the fact that it is “very good at blowing things up, but really bad at putting them back together.”

In determining whether or not McAdams’ statement was true, Swann listed three facts:

Fact #1: “Our government armed Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and created al-Qaeda.” Fact #2: “Our government put Saddam Hussein into power – we helped supply and create chemical weapons for him to use against Iran in 1980 – and then we overthrew him in 2003.” Fact #3: “Our government trained rebel fighters in Syria who would become the group today known as ISIS. We have watched them commit every violent atrocity you can imagine to people living in Iraq and Syria, and now we want American taxpayers to fund a 30-year war with them.”

Swann came to the conclusion that it isn’t the U.S. government being held hostage by crazy policies; rather it is the American people.

“It is time that we reject the destruction of people groups around the world for the sake of foreign policy that makes so-called defense contractors rich, and perpetuates violence, death, and the destruction of entire people groups,” Swann said. “This is the central issue of our time – because humanity is greater than politics.”

A new paper challenges the prevailing opinion that depression is related to low levels of serotonin in the gaps between nerve cells in the brain.



This theory has predominated for nearly 50 years and has led to the development of the commonly prescribed anti-depressant medications called selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. But it has never been proven.

The science behind many anti-depressant medications appears to be backwards, say the authors of a paper posted by the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

SSRIs keep the neurotransmitter’s (serotonin) levels high by blocking its re-absorption into the cells that release it.

But those serotonin-boosting medications actually make it harder for patients to recover, especially in the short term, said lead author Paul Andrews, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience & behavior at McMaster University in Canada.

“It’s time we rethink what we are doing,” Andrews says. “We are taking people who are suffering from the most common forms of depression, and instead of helping them, it appears we are putting an obstacle in their path to recovery.”

When depressed patients on SSRI medication do show improvement, it appears that their brains are actually overcoming the effects of antidepressant medications, rather than being assisted directly by them. Instead of helping, the medications appear to be interfering with the brain’s own mechanisms of recovery.

“We’ve seen that people report feeling worse, not better, for their first two weeks on antidepressants,” Andrews says. “This could explain why.”

It is currently impossible to measure exactly how the brain is releasing and using serotonin, the researchers write, because there is no safe way to measure it in a living human brain.

Instead, scientists must rely on measuring evidence about levels of serotonin that the brain has already metabolized, and by extrapolating from studies using animals.

The best available evidence appears to show that there is more serotonin being released and used during depressive episodes, not less, the authors say.

The new paper suggests that serotonin helps the brain adapt to depression by re-allocating its resources, giving more to conscious thought and less to areas such as growth, development, reproduction, immune function, and the stress response.

Andrews, an evolutionary psychologist, has argued in previous research that antidepressants leave patients in worse shape after they stop using them, and that most forms of depression, though painful, are natural and beneficial adaptations to stress.

Also in this article:

ISIL Is Secret American Army In Middle East – US Historian
Get Some Guts Says John Key As He Prepares To Send Other Peoples Kids To War!

Also See: The Corporate US Government Are The Terrorists - The Islamic State Is A Big Lie




Since August 2014, the US Air Force with the support of a coalition of 19 countries has relentlessly waged an intensified air campaign against Syria and Iraq allegedly targeting  the Islamic State brigades.  


The Islamic State Was Created And Is Protected By The U.S. And Its Allies

Comment: It was disgusting to see John Key throw a faux-tantrum in parliament the other day in pathetic display of bad acting, in an attempt to convince the country of the importance of our involvement in this fake war; but then he has to in order to keep his handlers happy.

According to Defense News, over 16,000 airstrikes were carried out from August 2014 to mid January 2015.  Sixty percent of the air strikes were conducted by the US Air Force using advanced jet fighter and bombing capabilities  (Aaron Mehta, “A-10 Performing 11 Percent of Anti-ISIS Sorties”. Defense News, January 19, 2015.)

The airstrikes have been casually described by the media as part of  a “soft” counter-terrorism operation, rather than an act of all out war directed against Syria and Iraq.

This large scale air campaign which has resulted in countless civilian casualties has been routinely misreported by the mainstream media. According to  Max Boot, senior fellow in national security at the Council on Foreign Relations. ”Obama’s strategy in Syria and Iraq is not working… [ because] the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS has been remarkably restrained”.  (Newsweek, February 17, 2015, emphasis added).

Americans are led to believe that the Islamic State constitutes a formidable force confronting the US military and threatening Western Civilization. The thrust of media reporting is that the US Air Force has failed and that “Obama should get his act together” in effectively confronting this  ”Outside Enemy” of America.

According to CFR Max Boot, military escalation is the answer: what is required is for the president “to dispatch more aircraft, military advisers, and special operations forces, while loosening the restrictions under which they operate.” (Ibid)

What kind of aircraft are involved in the air campaign? The F-16 Fighting Falcon,(above right),  The F-15E Strike Eagle (image below) , The A-10 Warthog, not to mention Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor stealth tactical fighter aircraft.

Question for Our Readers

Why has the US Air Force not been able to wipe out the Islamic State which at the outset was largely equipped with conventional small arms not to mention state of the art Toyota pickup trucks?

From the very outset, this air campaign has NOT been directed against ISIS.  The evidence confirms that the Islamic State is not the target. Quite the opposite. The air raids are intended to destroy the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria.

We call on our readers to carefully reflect on the following image, which describes the Islamic State convoy of pickup trucks entering Iraq and crossing a 200 km span of open desert which separates the two countries.

What would have been required from a military standpoint to wipe out an ISIS convoy with no effective anti-aircraft capabilities?

Without an understanding of military issues, common sense prevails. If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June.

The answer is pretty obvious, yet not a single mainstream media has acknowledged it.

The Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory (see map right). With state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, F16) it would have been – from a military standpoint – ”a piece of cake”, a rapid and expedient surgical operation, which would have decimated the Islamic State convoys in a matter of hours.

Instead what we have witnessed is an ongoing drawn out six months of relentless air raids and bombings, and the terrorist enemy is apparently still intact. (In comparison, the NATO bombing raids of Yugoslavia in 1999 lasted about three months (March 24-June 10, 1999).

And we are led to believe that the Islamic State cannot be defeated by a powerful US led military coalition of 19 countries.

The air campaign was not intended to decimate the Islamic State.

The counter-terrorism mandate is a fiction. America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”.

The Islamic State is not only protected by the US and its allies, it is trained and financed by US-NATO, with the support of Israel and Washington’s Persian Gulf allies.

ISIL Is Secret American Army In Middle East – US Historian

Also see: Iraqi Army Downs 2 UK Planes Carrying Weapons for ISIL
(weapons made in the US, European countries and Israel from the areas liberated from ISIL's control)

US historian Webster Tarpley says that the United States created the Islamic State and uses jihadists as its secret army to destabilize the Middle East.



The Islamic State is a secret army of the United States and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a leader of the terrorist group, is a close friend of US Senator John McCain, says US historian Webster Tarpley, according to Iranian News Agency IRNA.

The author, known for his book “9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA”, said that all terrorism around the world is created and facilitated by the US government.

These are not Tarpley’s first comments in which he blames the United States for creating the Islamic State. Earlier, Press TV had an interview with Tarpley during which he explained his rationale why he thinks the United States was behind the creation of the terrorist group.

Shiite tribal fighters raise their weapons and chant slogans against the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the northwest Baghdad's Shula neighborhood, Iraq, Monday, June 16, 2014. Sunni militants captured a key northern Iraqi town along the highway to Syria early on Monday, compounding the woes of Iraq's Shiite-led government a week after it lost a vast swath of territory to the insurgents in the country's north.

Tarpley began by saying that the money that supports the Islamic State and its operations comes from Saudi Arabia, a key US ally in the Middle East. The main money donor of the Islamic State is allegedly Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, the brother of Saud bin Faisal Al Saud, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, and Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, the former Saudi Ambassador to the United States.

Having said that, Tarpley concludes that if the United States really wanted to get rid of the Islamic State, it would have easily issued an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia and told the Gulf Kingdom to stop sending arms and money to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria.


'Get Some Guts' Says John Key As He Prepares To Send Other Peoples Kids To War!

It seems that in the last two years from around the time John Key signed a brand spanking new partnership with NATO the recruitment of new soldiers went into overdrive. Especially in predominantly Maori areas with sometimes people being blackmailed into signing on with the threat of their welfare check being cut if they didn’t.

I have heard of non stop recruitment videos playing in WINZ offices and I am sure that many of young Maori have chosen an army career as this was considered an honourable path to take. That idea seems to be changing.

Now John Key tells Andrew Little to get some guts and get on the right side in a speech. The sentence reminds me of the “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists” speech of George Bush when he announced the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11.

After 15 years of ever spreading war with millions of victims John Keyhas the Gutspa to tell the lleader of the opposition to get some guts. Well he won’t have to wait long. The body bags full of guts and gore will begin to arrive as soon as those poor soldiers land in Iraq to partake in the invasion of Mosul. Another thing we can be sure off is that he will not tell his son or daughter to get some guts and lead by example. The rich and powerful never do.

American and British spies hacked into the internal computer network of the largest manufacturer of SIM cards in the world, stealing encryption keys used to protect the privacy of cellphone communications across the globe, according to top-secret documents provided to The Intercept by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.



The hack was perpetrated by a joint unit consisting of operatives from the NSA and its British counterpart Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. The breach, detailed in a secret 2010 GCHQ document, gave the surveillance agencies the potential to secretly monitor a large portion of the world’s cellular communications, including both voice and data.

The company targeted by the intelligence agencies, Gemalto, is a multinational firm incorporated in the Netherlands that makes the chips used in mobile phones and next-generation credit cards. Among its clients are AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint and some 450 wireless network providers around the world. The company operates in 85 countries and has more than 40 manufacturing facilities. One of its three global headquarters is in Austin, Texas and it has a large factory in Pennsylvania.

In all, Gemalto produces some 2 billion SIM cards a year. Its motto is “Security to be Free.”

With these stolen encryption keys, intelligence agencies can monitor mobile communications without seeking or receiving approval from telecom companies and foreign governments. Possessing the keys also sidesteps the need to get a warrant or a wiretap, while leaving no trace on the wireless provider’s network that the communications were intercepted.

Bulk key theft additionally enables the intelligence agencies to unlock any previously encrypted communications they had already intercepted, but did not yet have the ability to decrypt.

As part of the covert operations against Gemalto, spies from GCHQ - with support from the NSA - mined the private communications of unwitting engineers and other company employees in multiple countries.

Gemalto was totally oblivious to the penetration of its systems - and the spying on its employees:

“I’m disturbed, quite concerned that this has happened,” Paul Beverly, a Gemalto executive vice president, told The Intercept. “The most important thing for me is to understand exactly how this was done, so we can take every measure to ensure that it doesn’t happen again, and also to make sure that there’s no impact on the telecom operators that we have served in a very trusted manner for many years. What I want to understand is what sort of ramifications it has, or could have, on any of our customers.” He added that “the most important thing for us now is to understand the degree” of the breach.

Leading privacy advocates and security experts say that the theft of encryption keys from major wireless network providers is tantamount to a thief obtaining the master ring of a building superintendent who holds the keys to every apartment.

“Once you have the keys, decrypting traffic is trivial,” says Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union. “The news of this key theft will send a shock wave through the security community.”

For the full story see: TheIntercept

A Laura Poitras’ film about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has won Hollywood’s highest accolade by snatching the Oscar for Best Documentary.



“The disclosures of Edward Snowden don’t only expose a threat to our privacy but to our democracy itself," Poitras said during her acceptance speech. "When the most important decisions being made affecting all of us are made in secret, we lose our ability to check the powers that control," she pointed out, thanking Edward Snowden "for his courage, and for the many other whistleblowers."

Poitras added that she is sharing the award with Glenn Greenwald and "other journalists who are exposing truth." She was joined on stage by editor Mathilde Bonnefoy, producer Dirk Wilutzky and Snowden’s girlfriend, Lindsay Mills.

As the filmmaker and her collaborators walked offstage on Sunday night, Oscar host Neil Patrick Harris couldn't help quipping: "The subject of 'CitizenFour,' Edward Snowden, could not be here tonight for some treason."

As the filmmaker and her collaborators walked offstage on Sunday night, Oscar host Neil Patrick Harris couldn't help quipping: "The subject of 'CitizenFour,' Edward Snowden, could not be here tonight for some treason."

In response to the news, Snowden, who was charged under the federal Espionage Act and is currently living in asylum in Russia, wrote in a statement, released by the American Civil Liberties Union:

“When Laura Poitras asked me if she could film our encounters, I was extremely reluctant. I’m grateful that I allowed her to persuade me. The result is a brave and brilliant film that deserves the honor and recognition it has received." “My hope is that this award will encourage more people to see the film and be inspired by its message that ordinary citizens, working together, can change the world,” Snowden said.

The documentary features a series of face-to-face meetings between Berlin-based filmmaker Laura Poitras, who appeared to be on the US Homeland Security “watch list” at one point, and the whistleblower Snowden, who got in touch with Poitras last January when she was working on a feature about surveillance in the post-9/11 era.

"Every border you cross, every purchase you make, every call you dial is in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited but whose safeguards are not," Edward Snowden warns in the documentary’s trailer:




For the full story see: RT

As decision time looms with the proposal to merge the five Hawke’s Bay councils into one super council based in Napier, a new group has formed in Hastings to fight amalgamation.



Related: 63% of Hawke's Bay Voters are Opposed to Amalgamation

Hastings Against Amalgamation is holding an initial meeting at the Havelock North Community Centre on Tuesday, February 24 at 7pm, to plan the next step should the Local Government Commission opt to proceed with amalgamation.

That next step is to collect around 4,400 Hastings signatures to trigger a poll on the issue.

As a bit of background, a group of wealthy business people under the banner of A Better Hawke’s Bay started pushing for amalgamation about two years ago by letter-boxing a colour brochure throughout the region.

Although this group gave the appearance of a grassroots desire for change, the emergence of a similar group in Northland at the same time sparked speculation that local government amalgamation is a central government plan that would lead to the privatisation of local government assets and increase in local government debt.


The Auckland councils amalgamated on November 1, 2010. Amalgamation there:

Hiked rates by 8 percent in the first year. (1)
Increased debt by 30 percent in year one.
Set up powerless local boards.
Set up a Maori board that produced a $295-million spending plan for Maori.(2)


Amalgamating the five existing councils in Hawke’s Bay into one super council with five local boards and a Maori board all based in Napier is likely to:

Increase rates.
Increase debt.
Replace Hastings’ 14 councillors with six councillors and nine local board members.(3)
Introduce a Maori board and race-based spending.


The proposal from A Better Hawke’s Bay two years ago envisaged a unitary authority with one mayor elected district-wide, 16 councillors (Hastings six, Napier six, Wairoa two, Central Hawke’s Bay two), and five community boards (Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, Central Hawke’s Bay, and rural) with five members on each, and a five-member Maori Leader’s Forum.

The Local Government Commission presented a draft proposal for amalgamation in Hawke’s Bay and invited submissions that were presented in June of last year.(4)

That proposal envisaged a unitary authority with one mayor elected district-wide, nine councillors elected from five wards (Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Ngaruroro), five community boards (Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Ngaruroro) with a total of 37 elected members, and a Maori board.

Submissions showed a high degree of opposition, with 83 percent against. The commission produced a position paper last November with a revised scheme.

That envisaged a unitary authority with one mayor, 18 councillors elected from five wards (Hastings six, Napier six, Wairoa two, Central Hawke’s Bay two, and Ngaruroro two), five local boards (Hastings – nine elected, two appointed; Napier – nine elected, two appointed; Wairoa – six elected, two appointed; Central Hawke’s Bay – six elected, two appointed; and Ngaruroro – seven elected, two appointed), and a Maori board, presumably appointed.

An [Agenda 21] Amalgamation Agenda Noosa, a seaside township of some 30,000 residents on Australia’s Sunshine Coast, was established as a local authority in 1910. In 2008, following the recommendations of the Local Government Reform Commission, it was disestablished by the Queensland Government and amalgamated into a Sunshine Coast Council. A total of 157 councils were consolidated into 73 during Queensland’s reform period. Noosa residents were deeply unhappy about the forced amalgamation and the removal of local democracy. They vowed to fight back, and in the lead up to the State Government elections in 2012, they, along with three other Queensland communities, won the right to de-amalgamate. The “de-amalgamation” vote in 2013 was supported by over 80 percent of Noosa residents. They rejected the forced amalgamation agenda of the central planners, who saw super-councils as the way of the future. The other three Queensland communities also succeeded in their battles to restore local democracy. In Canada there were similar controversies over forced amalgamations in Toronto and Montreal. In both cases the provincial governments were attempting to reduce the number of local bodies to save costs. Amalgamation was extremely unpopular in both cities, particularly in Montreal. In 2006 residents forced de-amalgamation and just four years after Montreal’s amalgamation, at a massive cost, the city de-merged into 15 municipalities. Not all countries believe bigger local government is better. France has developed economies of scale for infrastructure such as roads and water (five water companies manage supplies for the whole of France), but not for local government. There are around 130,000 local bodies and a Mayor for every 300 or so residents. In Switzerland, one of the most successful economies in the world, where great emphasis is placed on both efficiency and democracy, the average Swiss Commune (local authority) has two thousand residents. Assessing amalgamation proposals in New Zealand is the responsibility of the Local Government Commission. Established in 1947, the Commission is an independent statutory body with three members appointed by the Minister of Local Government. The present Chairman is Basil Morrison, a former Mayor of the Hauraki District and President of Local Government New Zealand, who is also a member of the Waitangi Tribunal. Continue reading this article at: NZCPR

Quite striking in this increasingly complicated arrangement is the appearance of appointees acting as representatives. There are 10 appointees on community boards as well as the entirely appointed Maori board. The questions are who is doing the appointing and who do these appointees represent?


Other more basic points include:

The Local Government Commission predicts transition costs of around $19-million which would bring annual ongoing savings of around $10-million from year five.

Transition to a Hawkes Bay Council as proposed by the Local Government Commission is viable with a payback period of around four years. Table 6 shows that annual ongoing savings build to around $10-million from year five, requiring transition costs of around $19-million. (5)

Undiscounted gains over thirty years are expected to total $260-million.

Savings gains totalling $10-million comprise: Corporate personnel (37 percent of total) corporate other (30 percent, activities opex (14 percent), activities capex (9 percent), governance costs 6 percent) and audit costs (4 percent).

Information technology is expected to cost $12.6-million. Redundancy costs were unstated in the transition cost report

In Auckland, staff cost savings came from a combination of: reduction in staff, unfilled vacancies and filling positions at lower rates of remuneration. Around $80 million in staff cost savings were associated with $27-million in redundancies. Redundancy costs were therefore around 33 percent of staff cost savings.

A $4-million budget over 12 months is assumed for a Hawke’s Bay transition body.


Why is this being pushed now? What is the urgency?

The commission also stated an intention to survey 2000 residents across Hawke’s Bay, and parts of Taupo and Rangitikei, to gauge support for the revised position, arguing that the 83 percent opposition found in submissions only represented 1 percent of residents.

That survey is taking place around now.

According to the November 2014 position paper, the commission is expected soon to release its position regarding existing council debt and how this should be treated in an amalgamation. The Hastings District Council external debt is from $55-million to $79-million depending on whose figures you rely on, and Napier, $4-million.

By the end of March, the commission will decide whether to issue a modified draft proposal as the final proposal, largely reflecting the Nov 2014 position or if deciding not to issue a final proposal, will instead issue a public notice, and the re-organisation process in Hawke’s Bay would cease.

If a modified draft proposal is issued, residents have 60 days in April and June for 10 percent or more of affected electors in the district to demand a poll Around 4400 signatures would be required for Hastings.

If no valid petition is received, the final proposal would be implemented by an order in council establishing a transition body with an interim chief executive to prepare the required scheme.

But if a valid petition is received, a regional poll would be held after any successful petition from July to September. We would know if the regional poll supported or opposed the final proposal by October. If it supported the final proposal, then this would be implemented by an order in council establishing a transition body as detailed above.

If it opposed amalgamation, the re-organisation process would cease and the existing councils would continue.

While the other three mayors are all anti-amalgamation, Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule is a very vocal supporter of amalgamation and the Hastings District Council is spending around $50,000 to convince Hastings residents to back him. However, whether Hastings residents support amalgamation remains unknown.

This issue should go to a regional vote. The starting point for a vote is a petition calling for a vote. Around 4,400 Hastings signatures are required to trigger a poll on the issue. A total of 5,000 signatures could be collected by 50 people each collecting 100 signatures.

While organising this group I have not found a single person who supports the proposal to absorb the councils of Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, and Central Hawke’s Bay, plus the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, into one super council with five local boards, and a Maori board, with the headquarters in Napier.

For those living in Hawke’s Bay, your say is critical. Find out what you can do to help by coming to the Havelock North Community Centre on Tuesday, February 24 at 7pm (admission free) or by visiting www.amalgamatehbnot.com

In a series of headlines that would pass as virtually unbelievable several years ago, mainstream economists are sounding the alarm over the financial decline of both fast food giant McDonald’s and biotech juggernaut Monsanto.



CNN asks, ‘Is McDonald’s doomed?’ Business Insider declares that ‘McDonald’s Is Losing America’ as the company fires its own CEO. What’s happening?

As it turns out, the world is starting to ask what they’re truly eating in their food — and the new conglomerate of natural grocers and restaurants are trailblazing the way into an entirely new economic environment. In other words: people are simply tired of shoveling garbage into their bodies, and they’re not going to put up with it anymore.

Here’s just a few of the ingredients you can find in many fast food meals:

Dimethylpolysiloxane – A chemical known for its use in silicone breast implants, silly putty, and also… chicken nuggets

Propylene glycol – A laxative chemical and electronic cigarette filler that even e-cigarette companies are beginning to phase out

Azodicarbonamide – A chemical used in the creation of foamed plastic items like yoga mats

So are you surprised to find that many are turning away from fast food leaders like McDonald’s?

Nations around the world are already rejecting the ensemble of artificial ingredients included in many staple McDonald’s meal options. Back in 2013, their attempts to expand operations in Bolivia were completely shut down by the reality that the Bolivian citizens were not willing to purchase their fast food creations. As reported back in July of 2013:

“McDonald’s restaurants operated in Bolivia for 14 years, according to Hispanically Speaking. In 2002, they had to shutter their final remaining 8 stores because they simply couldn’t turn a profit—and if you know fast food companies, you know it’s not because they didn’t try. The Golden Arches sunk plenty of money into marketing and campaigning—trying to get the food-loving Bolivians to warm to their French fries and burgers, but it simply wasn’t happening.”

The news comes as Monsanto continues to spend millions in attempts to stop GMO labeling campaigns around the nation, funding opposition groups and ensuring that you don’t know what’s in your food. After all, there’s a reason that 96% of Monsanto shareholders absolutely do not want GMO labeling legislation to pass within the US — it could hurt business.

As information continues to spread on key issues like the prevalence of toxic substances within fast food meals and the reality behind GMOs and their secrecy, there is no doubt that these two companies (and many others) will experience the economic backlash. Will they change in order to meet the new economic shift?

Read the full story at: NaturalSociety

"Mark Zuckerberg should unfriend the crazies before more people get hurt"



Comment: The following article is from one of the worst-offending cabal publications. If the reasoning of these sell-out writers was not so flawed and scary it would be comical. It has been proven that vaccines cause damage and are full of all sorts of heavy metals and poisons - but here we have the mainstream media trying to cover it all up again whilst going after the 'conspiracy theorists' because people are waking upto all the cabal lies and they are scared.

Time magazine writer Jeffrey Kluger, has suggested that Facebook should censor the posts on Facebook that conflict with “medical science”. Facebook, has been known to abruptly shut down accounts and pages for no apparent reason, and has admitted to censoring pages for “key words”. So, it wouldn’t be a particularly “new” concept to the social media giant.

Whatever your opinions on vaccinations are, one thing is clear – every one is entitled to their own choices and views.

There is much fear when it comes to vaccinations, whether getting them or not getting them. One thing that has not been remembered in this debate, is that people have been consenting or not – to vaccines in the United States for decades. If the state can force people to receive the vaccines, who owns our body? Beside the point, suggesting that Facebook censor the “anti-vaxx movement” must mean one thing – “they” are gaining momentum apparently.

Facebook Must Shut Down the Anti-Vaxxers

Mark Zuckerberg has never been famous for his reading choices. No one knows or cares if the founder of Facebook got around to Moby Dick when he was at Harvard. But in January, Zuckerberg launched an online book club, offering reading recommendations to members every two weeks.

Earlier suggestions included such important works as Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature and Sudhir Venkatesh’s Gang Leader for a Day.

But Zuckerberg dropped something of a small bombshell with his most recent—and most excellent—choice, On Immunityby Eula Biss. It’s a thoughtful exploration of what’s behind the irrational fear and suspicion in the anti-vaccine community, as well as a full-throated call for parents to heed medical wisdom and get their kids vaccinated. “The science is completely clear,” Zuckerberg writes, “vaccinations work and are important for the health of everyone in our community.”

So kudos to Zuckerberg for getting the truth out and challenging the lies. And shame on Zuckerberg for enabling those lies, too.

Social media sites can do an exceedingly good job of keeping people connected and, more important, spreading the word about important social issues. (Think the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge would have raised the $100 million it did for research into Lou Gehrig’s disease if people couldn’t post the videos of themselves being heroically doused?) But it’s long been clear the sites can be used perniciously too.

Want to spend some time in the birther swamp, trading conspiracy theories with people who absolutely, positively can tell you the Kenyan hospital in which President Obama was born? You can find them online. Ditto the climate-denying cranks and the 9/11 truthers.

But the anti-vaxxers have a particular power. People who buy the nonsense on a birther or truther page can’t do much more than join that loony community and howl nonsense into the online wind. Climate change denial is a little more dangerous because every person who comes to believe that global warming is a massive hoax makes it a tiny, incremental bit harder to enact sensible climate policy.

Anti-vaxxers, however, do their work at the grass-roots, retail, one-on-one level. Convince Mother A of the fake dangers of vaccines and you increase the odds that she won’t vaccinate Child B - and perhaps Children C, D or E either. And every unvaccinated child in her brood increases the risk to the neighborhood, the school, the community - the entire herd, as the epidemiologists put it. The multi-state measles outbreak that began in Disneyland, along with the epidemics of mumps and whooping cough in Columbus, Ohio and throughout California, have all been fueled by falling vaccine rates.

One thing that would help - something Zuckerberg could do with little more than a flick of the switch, as could Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and the other bosses of other sites - is simply shut the anti-vaxxers down. Really. Pull their pages, block their posts, twist the spigot of misinformation before more people get hurt.

The very idea of muzzling any information - even misinformation - will surely send libertarians to their fainting couches. Similarly, people who believe they understand the Constitution but actually don’t will immediately invoke the First Amendment. But of course they’re misguided. Is Facebook a government agency? No, it’s not. Is Zuckerberg a government official? No, he’s not. Then this is not a First Amendment issue. Read your Constitution.

It’s not as if the folks at Facebook aren’t clear about the kinds of things they will and won’t allow on the site, providing a brief listing and a detailed description of what are considered no-go areas. “You may not credibly threaten others, or organize acts of real-world violence,” is one rule, so nobody would get away with posting instructions for, say, how to build a pressure cooker bomb.

There is nothing in the regulations that specifically prohibits trafficking in bogus medical information, but the first section of the policy statement begins, “Safety is Facebook’s top priority,” and then goes on to say “We remove content and may escalate to law enforcement when we perceive a genuine risk of physical harm, or a direct threat to public safety.” (Emphasis added.)

It’s worth wondering if Facebook would consider a page arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS and that therefore condoms are not necessary a threat to public safety. What about one that told teens that bogus research shows it’s OK to drive drunk if you’ve had no more than, say, three beers?

If the site managers didn’t block these pages and a multi-car crack-up or a cluster of HIV infections occurred as a result, would they wish they they’d made a different decision? It’s hard to know. (As of publication time, Facebook had not responded to TIME’s request for a comment on, or further statement about, its policies.)

Facebook is equal parts town square, medium of communication and commercial bazaar - complete with ads. And it does all of those jobs well. What the site shouldn’t be is a vector for lies - especially lies that can harm children. Free speech is not in play here. This should be an easy call.

US Federal Register Drafting Plans To Vaccinate All Adults

We vaccine truthers told you this was coming. It’s what’s been behind the entire contrived measles scam. Why else has the corporate-whore mainstream media created national hysteria over a few cases of measles with NO DEATHS therefrom, even though there have been at least 108 DEATHS FROM THE MEASLES VACCINE in the last few years.

Maybe now some of you who have blindly championed toxic vaccines for kids will begin to look more closely at the brain-damaging effects of vaccines on adults, such as Alzheimer’s and other neurological disorders, proven to be caused by poisons such as mercury and aluminum in the shots. Multiply the already high numbers of vaccine-damaged adults many times over and start picturing masses of your fellow zombies on the horizon.

When the Government changed the Education Act to allow for charter schools, it bet that a bunch of non-educators using their own untested theories of education could run schools for our most disadvantaged students and achieve better results than state schools.



Not only that, it stacked the decks by deliberately removing the charter schools from the checks and balances that all state schools must face and gave them more money (as a series of set-up grants). For example, these schools are exempt from making disclosures under the Official Information Act, despite the fact that they are government-funded.

The policy was always ideological, always about neo-liberal thinking rather than straight thinking. In Sweden and the UK, charter school models (free schools) are contributing to the decline of educational outcomes. There are calls for change in both countries.

In the US, scandal after scandal has swept charter schools: poor teaching, poor facilities, financial scams, corruption, profiteering, abrupt closures of failed schools, political patronage, abuse ... Almost everything that could go wrong in these schools has done so, often over and over again.

The Quality Public Education Coalition (QPEC) has been tracking US charter schools daily for more than two years ago now, and not only are many of them an educational disgrace but they continue to contribute to the overall educational collapse of the US in world educational rankings. Per dollar spent, US schools are the world's worst.

The public was told things would be different in New Zealand (despite depressingly similar policy settings).

But our own tiny number of such schools have already suffered from student loss, concerns over quality and now a new school has recently had a principla resign as a result of being under investigation by the Teachers Council for potential serious misconduct at another school.

This is a clear example of deregulation leading to poor practice. The Minister calls these "teething troubles".

QPEC calls them an educational disaster in the making, and calls on this Government to stop this experiment, which is following the worst practices of schools internationally and will not improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged.

There is no empirical research that supports this model of charter schools, and plenty of evidence against the model. It is being driven by the first-term, right-wing Act MP, David Seymour, who promises to support these schools through thick, thin and very expensive, success or failure - competition at all costs, and the taxpayer must pay.

-John Minto and Liz Gordon are the national spokespeople for the Quality Public Education Coalition (QPEC)

This is the overall opinion of a new report by the Federal Trade Commission, which has announced a series of “recommendations” to major utility companies and transnational corporations heavily invested in the IoT and Smart Grid, suggesting that such technologies should be rolled out almost entirely on the basis of “free market” principles so as not to stifle “innovation.”

As with the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, the FTC functions to provide the semblance of democratic governance and studied concern as it allows corporate monied interests and prerogatives to run roughshod over the body politic.

The IoT refers to all digital electronic and RFID-chipped devices wirelessly connected to the internet. The number of such items has increased dramatically since the early 2000s. In 2003 an estimated 500 million gadgets were connected, or about one for every twelve people on earth. By 2015 the number has grown 50 fold to an estimated 25 billion, or 3.5 units per person. By 2020 the IoT is expected to double the number of physical items it encompasses to 50 billion, or roughly 7 per individual

The IoT is developing in tandem with the “Smart Grid,” comprised of tens of millions of wireless transceivers (a combination cellular transmitter and receiver) more commonly known as “smart meters.” Unlike conventional wireless routers, smart meters are regarded as such because they are equipped to capture, store, and transmit an abundance of data on home energy usage with a degree of precision scarcely imagined by utility customers. On the contrary, energy consumers are typically appeased with persuasive promotional materials from their power company explaining how smart meter technology allows patrons to better monitor and control their energy usage.

Almost two decades ago media sociologist Rick Crawford defined Smart Grid technology as “real time residential power line surveillance” (RRPLS). These practices exhibited all the characteristics of eavesdropping and more. “Whereas primitive forms of power monitoring merely sampled one data point per month by checking the cumulative reading on the residential power meter,” Crawford explains,

"Modern forms of RRPLS permit nearly continued digital sampling. This allows watchers to develop a fine-grained profile of the occupants’ electrical appliance usage. The computerized RRPLS device may be placed on-site with the occupants’ knowledge and assent, or it may be hidden outside and surreptitiously attached to the power line feeding into the residence. This device records a log of both resistive power levels and reactive loads as a function of time. The RRPLS device can extract characteristic appliance “signatures” from the raw data. For example, existing [1990s] RRPLS devices can identify whenever the sheets are thrown back from a water bed by detecting the duty cycles of the water bed heater. RRPLS can infer that two people shared a shower by noting an unusually heavy load on the electric water heater and that two uses of the hair dryer followed."

A majority of utility companies are reluctant to acknowledge the profoundly advanced capabilities of these mechanisms that have now been effectively mandated for residential and business clients. Along these lines, when confronted with questions on whether the devices are able to gather usage data with such exactitude, company representatives are apparently compelled to feign ignorance or demur.

i210Yet the features Crawford describes and their assimilation with the IoT are indeed a part of General Electric’s I-210+C smart meter, among the most widely-deployed models in the US. This meter is equipped with not one, not two, but three transceivers, the I-210+C’s promotional brochure explains

One of the set’s transceivers uses ZigBee Pro protocols, “one of several wireless communication standards in the works to link up appliances, light bulbs, security systems, thermostats and other equipment in home and enterprises.” With most every new appliance now required to be IoT-equipped, not only will consumer habits be increasingly monitored through energy usage, but over the longer term lifestyle and thus behavior will be transformed through power rationing, first in the form of “tiered usage,” and eventually in a less accommodating way through the remote control of “smart” appliances during peak hours

Information gathered from the combined IoT and Smart Grid will also be of immense value to marketers that up to now have basically been excluded from the domestic sphere. As an affiliate of WPP Pic., the world’s biggest ad agency put it, the data harvested by smart meters “opens the door to the home. Consumers are leaving a digital footprint that opens the door to their online habits and to their shopping habits and their location, and the last thing that is understood is the home, because at the moment when you shut the door, that’s it.”

ESAs the FTC’s 2015 report makes clear, this is the sort of retail (permissible) criminality hastened by the merging of Smart Grid and IoT technologies also provides an immense facility for wholesale criminals to scan and monitor various households’ activities as potential targets for robbery, or worse.

The FTC, utility companies and smart meter manufacturers alike still defer to the Federal Communications Commission as confirmation of the alleged safety of Smart Grid and smart meter deployment. This is the case even though the FCC is not chartered to oversee public health and, basing its regulatory procedure on severely outdated science, maintains that microwave radiation is not a threat to public health so long as no individual’s skin or flesh have risen in temperature.

Yet in the home and workplace the profusion of wireless technologies such as ZigBee will compound the already significant collective radiation load of WiFi, cellular telephony, and the smart meter’s routine transmissions. The short term physiological impact will likely include weakened immunity, fatigue, and insomnia that can hasten terminal illnesses.

Perhaps the greatest irony is how the Internet of Things, the Smart Grid and their attendant “Smart Home” are sold under the guise of convenience, personal autonomy, even knowledge production and wisdom. “The more data that is created,” Cisco gushes, “the more knowledge and wisdom people can obtain. IoT dramatically increases the amount of data available for us to process. This, coupled with the Internet’s ability to communicate this data, will enable people to advance even further.”

In light of the grave privacy and health-related concerns posed by this techno tsunami, the members of a sane society might seriously ask themselves exactly where they are advancing, or being compelled to advance to.

The program is hidden on hard drives manufactured by Western Digital, Seagate, Toshiba and other top manufacturers, Reuters reports.

Kaspersky did not pinpoint the country responsible for the software, but said it is closely related to Stuxnet, the cyber weapon developed by the Americans and the Israelis, with help from the Germans and the British.

Stuxnet was used to sabotage Iran’s effort to enrich uranium for its nuclear program.

However, in addition to setting back Iran’s nuclear program, the sophisticated malware engineered by the U.S. and Israel at the Dimona complex in the Negev desert was exploited to push for restrictive cybersecurity measures in the United States.

A former NSA employee told the news agency the NSA values the hard drive spy program as much as Stuxnet.

Kaspersky said its research discovered the program on personal computers in 30 countries. Most of the infections were on computers in Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Mali, Syria, Yemen and Algeria.

Although Kaspersky said the targets include government and military institutions, telecommunication companies, banks, energy companies, nuclear researchers, media, and Islamic activists, it is not unreasonable to conclude it is used to spy on American citizens engaged in political activity the establishment considers threatening.

In July of last year journalist Glenn Greenwald revealed the NSA has targeted a number of political activists for surveillance.

“I have long viewed this as one of the most important stories in the Snowden archive because it puts a face on the NSA’s surveillance overreach and illustrates, yet again — that domestic spying abuses usually target minorities, marginalized groups, and dissidents,” Greenwald said.

Five years in the making, it not only entertains and engages, it also gives audiences the tools to get involved in what is becoming the largest social movement our nation has seen in decades.

It’s a deeply political film, but not the old style that is so badly failing us. This the New Politics, bringing together old and young, city and country, conservative and progressive in a shared effort to prevent an environmental catastrophe.





Can we imagine any other issue that would bring together the likes of Alan Jones and Bob Brown?
See it and find out why.

Sometimes, even in states with stricter laws, getting the vaccine exemption is the easy part. The hard part, for some parents, is having that conversation with a doctor and just saying no to vaccines.

Also see: The vaccine safety myth

One government survey revealed that over 28 percent of parents question, delay, or refuse vaccines, including nine percent who accept a vaccine for their child even though they are not comfortable with it. Don’t allow yourself to be part of the nine percent who accepted a vaccine under pressure. [1]

1. Be prepared for what your doctor will tell you at your child’s appointment.

Doctors are trained to use certain techniques when parents question vaccination. This training is provided by pharmaceutical companies and other organisations that receive funding from vaccine makers. If you want to learn more about the specific responses doctors will offer, you can read this short article. [2]

When you share a concern, doctors will often respond with scripted answers, such as, “we are lucky to be able to protect our babies from many serious diseases with vaccines” and “vaccines do not cause autism,” but they are trained to provide empathy rather than unbiased, scientific information.

2. Identify why saying no to your child’s doctor is hard for you.

Are you uncomfortable because your child’s doctor has many degrees and awards on the wall? Are you someone who avoids arguments or confrontations? Do you consider yourself shy or quiet? Are you worried about your child getting sick if you decline vaccines? Are you still adjusting to being a new parent?

If you can determine why you are struggling to discuss vaccines with your doctor, you will be able to decide if you need to address that challenge, or if it is irrelevant to your conversation about vaccines.

3. Practice your own scripted responses when your doctor pressures you to vaccinate.

What will you say when your doctor tells you it’s time to vaccinate your child? Which response is most comfortable for you?

“Not today. My child is getting over a cold.”

“Our child is fine. Thank you.”

“We are delaying vaccines for now.”

“I have decided not to get this vaccine.”

“I’m doing some research about vaccines.”

“We will not be vaccinating at this time.”

4. Listen to your mama (or papa) bear instinct.

I’ve heard it called by lots of names: mother’s intuition, motherly instinct, sixth sense, subconscious mind, trusting your gut. Whatever you call it, listen to it.

There are so many times when we have that “gut feeling” about something, and we realize later that we were right. If vaccinating your child doesn’t feel “right,” trust your instinct. Give yourself a little more time to research and confidently decide if vaccination is right or wrong for your family.

5. Develop a network of supportive friends.

This suggestion has many benefits, including the support you will receive in your challenging and rewarding role as a parent. Your support system can be made of family members, friends, and people you meet online.

Spending time with these individuals gives you a chance have easy discussions about vaccines with others, which will make the conversations you have with your child’s doctor easier. You will also be able to share information with each other about research, friendly pediatricians, and ways to stay healthy naturally. And, having supportive people in your life always boosts your confidence and self-esteem!

6. Ask for the vaccine package insert.

When you take your child to a doctor appointment, ask the nurse or the doctor for a package insert from the vaccine your child is scheduled to receive. You will not be troubling or bothering them! These inserts, straight from the manufacturer, are much more informative than the “vaccine safety sheet” that the doctor often gives you after vaccination, which is printed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

You can tell the healthcare provider that you will take the information home and read it if you want to decide about the vaccine for a future visit. Then, you can carefully read the side effects and ingredients in a relaxed, quiet setting.

You must also be aware that not all ingredients are listed on the package insert, or anywhere. Some ingredients, such as peanut oil, are “generally regarded as safe,” so they are not listed but may certainly be dangerous for children. [3]

7. Practice confidence in other areas of your life.

If you feel intimidated, insecure, or inferior at the doctor’s office, you may be able to boost your confidence by being more assertive in other ways. Ask your server for a modification to your entree, or order something that is not on the menu. Ask for help with housework or errands when you need it. Accept help when someone offers it to you. Make time for yourself to do something you enjoy, even if only for a few minutes each day.

I know, when you are a busy parent, these reminders are not always easy to do! Sometimes, the discomfort we experience when talking with doctors about vaccines is a reminder that we need to boost our self-esteem and know our self-worth.

8. Find a supportive health care provider.

Doctors are now being encouraged not to refuse to provide services to families who do not vaccinate. However, some doctors still tell parents they will no longer treat their child if parents do not vaccinate. [4] Talk with other parents to discover a doctor or nurse practitioner who will be respectful of your wishes not to vaccinate.

Chiropractors can be a wonderful resource for families, for preventive care and for treating illness, as well as sharing the wealth of knowledge they have about holistic health, and their offices are usually free from pressure to vaccinate.

9. Reconsider the need for frequent well-child checkups.

For some families, routine visits to the doctor may not be necessary. Is your child growing well? Are they in good health? Most well-baby check-ups are primarily to keep your child on the CDC vaccination schedule. If you are choosing not to vaccinate, or to delay vaccinations, your child may not need to follow the same schedule for visits as suggested by your clinic or hospital.

Conclusion

Discussing vaccines with your child’s health care provider is not always easy. With time, research, and support, these conversations will become so comfortable for you that you will wonder why you ever worried about telling your child’s doctor that you are saying no to vaccines.

If you would like to know which vaccine exemptions available in your state, as mentioned above, click here.

Parents, how did you just say no to vaccines? If you have had this conversation with your child’s doctor or nurse, please share your experience in the comment section, so other parents can feel encouraged and empowered to make the an informed choice for their child.

This is one of the more startling of the many revelations in the best book I've read yet this year: Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs by Johann Hari.

We've all been handed a myth. The myth goes like this: Certain drugs are so powerful that if you use them enough they will take over. They will drive you to continue using them. It turns out this is mostly false. Only 17.7 percent of cigarette smokers can stop smoking using a nicotine patch that provides the same drug.

Of people who have tried crack in their lives, only 3 percent have used it in the past month and only 20 percent were ever addicted. U.S. hospitals prescribe extremely powerful opiates for pain every day, and often for long periods of time, without producing addiction. When Vancouver blocked all heroin from entering the city so successfully that the "heroin" being sold had zero actual heroin in it, the addicts' behavior didn't change.

Some 20 percent of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were addicted to heroin, leading to terror among those anticipating their return home; but when they got home 95 percent of them within a year simply stopped. (So did the Vietnamese water buffalo population, which had started eating opium during the war.) The others soldiers had been addicts before they went and/or shared the trait most common to all addicts, including gambling addicts: an unstable or traumatic childhood.

Most people (90 percent according to the U.N.) who use drugs never get addicted, no matter what the drug, and most who do get addicted can lead normal lives if the drug is available to them; and if the drug is available to them, they will gradually stop using it.

But, wait just a minute. Scientists have proven that drugs are addictive, haven't they?

Well, a rat in a cage with absolutely nothing else in its life will choose to consume huge quantities of drugs. So if you can make your life resemble that of a rat in a cage, the scientists will be vindicated. But if you give a rat a natural place to live with other rats to do happy things with, the rat will ignore a tempting pile of "addictive" drugs.

And so will you. And so will most people. Or you'll use it in moderation. Before the War on Drugs began in 1914 (a U.S. substitute for World War I?), people bought bottles of morphine syrup, and wine and soft drinks laced with cocaine. Most never got addicted, and three-quarters of addicts held steady respectable jobs.

Is there a lesson here about not trusting scientists? Should we throw out all evidence of climate chaos? Should we dump all our vaccines into Boston Harbor? Actually, no. There's a lesson here as old as history: follow the money. Drug research is funded by a federal government that censors its own reports when they come to the same conclusions as Chasing the Scream, a government that funds only research that leaves its myths in place.

Climate deniers and vaccine deniers should be listened to. We should always have open minds. But thus far they don't seem to be pushing better science that can't find funding. Rather, they're trying to replace current beliefs with beliefs that have less basis behind them. Reforming our thinking on addiction actually requires looking at the evidence being produced by dissident scientists and reformist governments, and it's pretty overwhelming.

So where does this leave our attitudes toward addicts? First we were supposed to condemn them. Then we were supposed to excuse them for having a bad gene. Now we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they have horrors they cannot face, and in most cases have had them since childhood?

There's a tendency to view the "gene" explanation as the solider excuse. If 100 people drink alcohol and one of them has a gene that makes him unable to ever stop, it's hard to blame him for that. How could he have known? But what about this situation: Of 100 people, one of them has been suffering in agony for years, in part as a result of never having experienced love as a baby.

That one person later becomes addicted to a drug, but that addiction is only a symptom of the real problem. Now, of course, it is utterly perverse to be inquiring into someone's brain chemistry or background before we determine whether or not to show them compassion.

But I have a bit of compassion even for people who cannot resist such nonsense, and so I appeal to them now: Shouldn't we be kind to people who suffer from childhood trauma? Especially when prison makes their problem worse?

But what if we were to carry this beyond addiction to other undesirable behaviors? There are other books presenting similarly strong cases that violence, including sexual violence, and including suicide, have in very large part similar origins to those Hari finds for addiction.

Of course violence must be prevented, not indulged. But it can best be reduced by improving people's lives, especially their young lives but importantly also their current lives.

Bit by bit, as we have stopped discarding people of various races, gender, sexual orientation, and disabilities as worthless, as we begin to accept that addiction is a temporary and non-threatening behavior rather than the permanent state of a lesser creature known as "the addict," we may move on to discarding other theories of permanence and genetic determination, including those related to violent criminals.

Someday we may even outgrow the idea that war or greed or the automobile is the inevitable outcome of our genes.

Somehow blaming everything on drugs, just like taking drugs, seems much easier.

Poitras had already been working on a film about surveillance for two years when Snowden contacted her, using the name “CITIZENFOUR,” in January 2013.  He reached out to her because he knew she had long been a target of government surveillance, stopped at airports numerous times, and had refused to be intimidated.

When Snowden revealed he was a high-level analyst driven to expose the massive surveillance of Americans by the NSA, Poitras persuaded him to let her film.

Citizen Four places you in the room with Poitras, Greenwald, and Snowden as they attempt to manage the media storm raging outside, forced to make quick decisions that will impact their lives and all of those around them.

Citizen Four not only shows you the dangers of governmental surveillance—it makes you feel them. After seeing the film, you will never think the same way about your phone, email, credit card, web browser, or profile, ever again.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) is calling on the world’s automobile makers to implement mandatory safeguards after his congressional inquiry revealed a widespread absence of security and privacy protection with regards to cars currently being sold around the world.

Security that could curb hacking against automobiles or allow sensitive information to be compromised must be put in place by the auto industry, Markey’s office warns in the report published Monday, and current protection, when it’s brought to bear, is largely inconsistent.

The report warns modern automobiles are increasingly collecting sensitive information about personal driving habits and history, which is often held indefinitely and then offered to third-parties, in turn allowing companies the ability to keep detailed information about not just car performance, but also where a driver has traveled.

READ MORE: Car-hacked: Cyber-criminals could target driverless vehicles, cause chaos – expert

"Drivers have come to rely on these new technologies, but unfortunately the automakers haven’t done their part to protect us from cyber-attacks or privacy invasions. Even as we are more connected than ever in our cars and trucks, our technology systems and data security remain largely unprotected,” Sen. Markey, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said in a statement on Monday. “We need to work with the industry and cyber-security experts to establish clear rules of the road to ensure the safety and privacy of 21st-century American drivers.”

Markey’s team considered studies by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2013 and 2014 in preparing the report, and sent questionnaires to 20 automakers inquiring about each manufacturer’s technology, security precautions and privacy policies.

Only 16 of the automakers responded, according to this week’s report, but their answers were enough to leave Sen. Markey’s office issuing a plea for car companies to increase security measures concerning the cars’ increasingly advanced technologies and privacy protections for the data it records.

Read the full story at: RT

The bank which has been most prominent among the list of "suicided" bankers notched one more casualty over the weekend when "a JPMorgan Chase & Co. employee strangled and stabbed his wife to death before turning the knife on himself, according to police who are treating the couple’s death in Bergen County, New Jersey as a murder-suicide."

Bloomberg reports the gruesome details according to which Michael A. Tabacchi, 27, and his wife, Iran Pars Tabacchi, 41, were found dead Friday about 11:30 p.m. in the bedroom of their Closter home after a 911 call placed by the husband’s father, Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli said in an interview. Closter is located in northern New Jersey, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from midtown Manhattan.

Autopsy results on Sunday showed the wife died of strangulation and a stab wound to the chest while Michael Tabacchi died from a single self-inflicted stab to the chest, he said.

As his LinkedIn profile below shows, Tabacchi was an associate for JPMorgan in its global custody product unit.

This is how he pitched himself: "Specialties: Excel and VBA is my bread and butter, I am very good and creative with data manipulation and reporting and can leverage my business knowledge to provide senior managers what is needed before asked to do so. I am also proficient with the remaining Microsoft office products (Word, Access, PowerPoint, and SharePoint)."

Read the full story at: ZeroHedge

This is very much worth the watch, and is only 30 minutes long. A prediction Max made two years ago that was then laughed at by the mainstream media has eventuated as he predicted.

It's time for the people to wake up and stop allowing the currently ruling elite to ride them to impoverishment.

In the second half, Max interviews filmmaker, blogger and author Kerry-anne Mendoza about her new top-selling book ‘Austerity: The Demolition of the Welfare State and the Rise of the Zombie Economy’.

To watch the video, visit: RT

You can listen to David's excellent presentation at the bottom of this page.


Quite a Mind-Expanding Body of Information

Extraterrestrials have been visiting and settling on Earth for millions of years.

Functional portals have existed on earth, both natural and artificial, allowing ETs to visit earth humans at various times. These legends have since become myths of phenomena like "fairy rings."

Our own people have had alliances with various ET groups for millennia -- but up until the 20th century it was only a one-way street. They visited us but would not bring us home.

The Germans were the first to secretly develop space travel capability beginning in the 1930s, thanks in part to a newly-minted alliance with certain ET groups that most would consider highly negative.

Once the Germans found out what kind of neighborhood it was, they wanted to side with the toughest kid on the block for protection.

Five Million Years of History

It was through this early effort that humanity discovered, firsthand, an incredible secret: Our solar system has been repeatedly colonized by ET groups for at least the last 5 million years.

The oldest groups were the most advanced -- and stood at an astonishing 70 feet in height.

This was not only something we were told, it was something we were able to go out and see -- with the technology we had been given.

Our solar system is littered with ruins of these ancient peoples, called names such as The Progenitors.

They primarily built beneath the surface of moons and asteroids for their own protection -- both against enemies and natural cosmic events as well.

There is an astonishing wealth of highly advanced ancient tech everywhere we look. This is one of the great secrets of our time.

The "Illuminati" Claim to be Descendants of One of these Groups

More and more people have come to realize that there is indeed a powerful, worldwide group that calls itself the Illuminati.

Arguably, the greatest secret of the Illuminati is that they consider themselves to be the descendants of certain ET human groups that arrived in the fairly recent past.

Originally, their descendants were the giants -- and the knowledge and scholarship on this subject is growing exponentially thanks to the Internet.

The amount of evidence for giant skeletons -- ranging from a 9-foot group to a 12-foot group to a 25-to-30-foot group -- is quite significant.

Much of it has been suppressed in order for this secretive organization to hide its true nature from the public.

However, thanks to a variety of new leaks, we are learning much more.

We have been Very Busy

This has been a very exciting time. Years can go by with no new insiders of any real significance arriving.

I have always held onto a great deal of information that is not public in order to assess who is real and who is just compiling what they have read online or heard from others.

Sadly, there are an ongoing number of people doing this, including in the present -- and some of them can be quite convincing.

However, when someone starts saying exactly the same things we've heard from as many as five other people, independently, and have never published, that catches our attention.

Once new insiders show up who pass the vetting-out process this extensively, we always feel an urgency to get as much intel out of them as possible, as quickly as possible.

So, between feverishly learning visual FX for our upcoming push into video work, and absorbing as much insider info as possible, we have been very busy. Not a minute's time has been wasted.

Leaking it on Stage for Protection

So here's what is happening. I am going to leak some of the story in front of a large audience at the Conscious Life Expo for my own protection -- and for your enjoyment.

Once this is done, it will be safe to talk about this as the genie will now be about of the bottle.

In the future this material will find its way onto this site, but for now this is how we have decided to release it -- at the keynote address I am giving at the Conscious Life Expo.

You can order livestream tickets and watch the event -- either while it is happening or for the next 10 days after the fact.

If you can't afford this, remember that we have the number-one show on Gaiam TV, with well over 100 episodes now in the can, and you can see any of them you want on a 10-day free trial at wisdomteachings.com.

I hope to get back to more regular posting and "long form" content creation in the near future!

A Brief Five-Million Year History of the Colonisation of Our Solar System

Dramatic new insider testimony, from the highest levels of the classified world, has finally shed light on the greatest mysteries of who we are, where we came from and how we got here.

After 18 years as a public figure on the internet, David Wilcock has built an extraordinary connection of insiders, including those who worked for many years off-planet in the "Secret Space Program."

Through combining multiple, interlinking testimonials, combined with the groundbreaking history revealed in the Law of One series, it is now possible for the first time to reconstruct the settlement of our solar system.

Learn the epic and incredible story arc that ultimately led to Earth being colonized by extraterrestrial beings -- and the massive wars that wiped out all but a small number of their descendants, who lived on as 12 to 13-foot giants until as recently as the 1700s.

Scientific evidence will be presented as often as possible -- including remarkable NASA photographs suggesting where the ruins of these lost civilizations may still be found.

Read the full story at: DivineCosmos

Comment: Since he cashed up, Gareth Morgan has become a wilful idiot in attaching himself to half-baked topics such as man-made global warming and killing cats. This is the latest of his fumbling attempts to find some relevance.

Also; as an astute reader pointed out: "There is one element you should be aware of, which is in the minds of those who sold the land, no one can actually own the land, as the land is here before us and will be here after us. We are care takers of the land, which is a completely different mindset to the western way of thinkng and the Maori may have been mislead in the first place. Maori only see themselves are care takers and inheritors, you can not sell something that does not belong to you in the first place."

His conclusion that the treaty process is a success because the “treaty is now taken to mean whatever Maori leaders and the Crown, as the public’s representatives, agree it means” ignores the elephant in the room by way of a racial faultline that came into existence with the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975.

Along this faultine has widened a gap of haves and have-nots, both among citizens with some Maori ancestry and between those of Maori ancestry and those without, with the progress of successive “full and final settlements”.

The total settlement bill to March last year was $2.3-billion. The newly rich tribal corporations pay little or no tax and two entities, Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu, are entitled to repeated top-ups as a percent of the increasing grand total.

Morgan’s assertion that making it up as they (Crown and claimants) go along was necessary because "the original documents aren’t very useful” shows that he has not looked closely at the texts of either Te Tiriti or the official English and has ruled out the Busby February 4 draft, also known as the Littlewood treaty.

Morgan has either forgotten or has not thought about the fact that the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, which means the meaning and intent is clear in the source document, the original English.

That source document is quite likely the Busby February 4 draft that has only four words that differ from Te Tiriti, one of which is the date. But any mention of that document brings a torrent of spat tacks from grievers on the gravy train.

Because Morgan is woefully ignorant of the contents of the treaty he can make an idiotic statement like “how do we help Maoridom realise the all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga (used in Article 2, te reo version) in modern day Aotearoa New Zealand?”

If he had looked at the English source draft to see what the word “rangatiratanga” translated in Article 2, he would have seen that it translated the English word “possession”, as in “the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.”

Morgan is also wrong to buy into land-loss rhetoric when he writes “justice and reparations have been a long time coming and, as generous as they might look to non-Maori, they’re just cents in the dollar for what Maori lost in terms of property”.

No mention by Morgan of the fact that land-owner Maori sold New Zealand to the wicked white coloniser in hundreds of transactions painstakingly recorded in Turton’s deeds posted for all to see on the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre of the Victoria University of Wellington’s website.

New Zealand has 26.8-million hectares of land. A total 1.2-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s wars (much of which was returned at the time). There are approximately 1.47 million hectares of Maori land (including customary land). Therefore, Maori land owners sold 24.13-million hectares.

The staggeringly foolish policy by the fourth Labour government to look into grievances back to 1840 invited claimants to get cash-for-grievance top-ups on 19th century sale and purchase agreements.

Once "rangatiratanga" is understood to translate "possession", Morgan's pompous assertion about the "all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga" is reduced to the nonsensical concept of aspirations to asserting possession over property already sold.

And if "rangatiratanga" is taken to mean "self-determination", the "rangatiratanga" aspiration appears to describe either the state of self-reliance that every citizen who works for a living already has or Maori separatism. If the latter is the case, is Morgan talking up Maori separatism?

I challenge Morgan to present a coherent argument to support his contention that "because the chiefs’ signatures were on the te reo version, it’s certainly possible they didn’t cede sovereignty then".

If he had read the treaty he would know that article 1 clearly states “the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country”.

Anyone who refers to the "unique bicultural character of Aotearoa New Zealand" in a sentence, as Morgan does, has outed him or herself as a card-carrying treatyist who is looking for a seat on the gravy train.

Even though Morgan criticises the conduct of the Waitangi Tribunal I don't hold much hope for his proposal for a different course.

Mr Kuraia puts it down to taking [mega doses of] vitamin C.

Also see these related articles:

3News: Looking Elsewhere for a Cure for Cancer
New Zealand Herald: Taking on Big C with Vitamin C
TVNZ: Miracle Man
Uncensored: New Zealand Medical Authorities Continue to Ignore a Potential Cure for Swine Flu

"Major part of what I did – certainly gave me the time to get everything else on board, like the diet and the juice and all that sort of stuff, and all that together has got me to where I am right now."

Mr Kuraia drew inspiration from a TV3 story on Allan Smith who contracted swine flu and says he was woken from a coma with a high dose of vitamin C.

"It does work. We have evidence it does work. Anton's here today and so am I."

Taking intravenous doses of vitamin C is controversial and mainstream medicine hasn't made up its mind yet, but Dr Damien Voijcek, who treated Mr Kuraia, says it's a tool he uses.

"It can certainly be helpful in patients with cancer," says Dr Voijcek. "I think times are changing and many of my colleagues are more receptive to it."

Three-hundred friends and colleagues walked the first 34 kilometres with Mr Kuraia.

Today is just the first day and tomorrow Mr Kuraia will have to get up again tomorrow and do the same distances for a month until he's completed the 809 kilometres to the steps of Parliament in Wellington.

Mr Kuraia looks fit and able now, but his family's still worried.

"My mum has had a word with me and she's a little bit anxious, only in that she's worried that if I push myself too hard this cancer might come back, if I push myself too hard. So I'm a little bit anxious but I'll take care of myself and we'll be fine, we'll be fine."

If Mr Kuraia stays well he'll reach Wellington on March 3.

See the video at: 3News

With talks rapidly nearing completion, it’s more important than ever to understand the problems with this dangerous deal.

We’ve teamed up with a group of organizations, including Action Station, to make a video that explains one of the most serious issues with the TPPA - investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), allowing big corporations to sue governments for billions.





John Key and other leaders behind the deal know that most people wouldn’t like the TPPA if they knew more about it.

That’s why they’re going out of their way to keep the talks secret - like changing the location of the talks at the last minute, and stopping media from getting proper information.

The only real facts we have about the deal have come from leaks published online.But here’s what we do know: the TPPA could have a huge impact on our lives. It could make vital medicines more expensive, threaten our Internet freedom, and make it harder for governments to make laws that protect citizens -- and easier for corporations to do things that help corporate profits.

It’s vital that people get the facts fast -- so we can make our governments to do the right thing.

1. Despite FDA press releases announcing its ban of trans fats, trans-fatty processed hydrogenated oils are still ubiquitous. Don’t use them for cooking or salad dressings. They’re less expensive, but they’ve been processed only for creating a longer shelf life while shortening your time with a healthy life.

2. Speaking of fats, ignore the low or no fat food choices. The theory that ‘whole’ fats and cholesterol create obesity and heart problems is bogus. Don’t fall for the cholesterol myth.

The Swedish Council on Health Technology has officially abandoned this theory, which has seen cardiac and obesity issues increase while consumers frantically avoid healthy fats. Increased sugar and HFCS are at the root of issues saturated fats have been blamed for.

3. Some consider refined sugar or sucrose poison. It creates blood sugar spikes that ultimately affect you insulin response, leading to obesity and diabetes. It creates an oxidation process that, ironically, creates AGEs, or advanced glycation end-products or glycotoxins, which are diverse oxidant compounds that help create several chronic diseases. Minimize your sucrose intake.

4. Artificial sweeteners are worse than sucrose. Ignore the aspartame and diet soda trap, too. You should actually avoid all sodas, including diet soda. Aspartame is a neuron excitoxin that can excite brain cells to death, putting you in the fast lane to dementia or even brain cancer.

5. You should also shun high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). You can avoid this substance greatly by avoiding sodas and even off the shelf fruit juices that aren’t low calorie or artificially sweetened. But that’s not enough. Pastries, cookies, and candies usually contain HFCS, but often dodge the issue by using the label “corn syrup”.

Natural fructose in fruit is metabolized slowly due to other components of whole fruits. Concentrated HFCS used in processed foods and beverages isn’t rapidly metabolized into energy like glucose. Half of it gets trapped as fat in the liver, contributing to obesity, fatty liver, diabetes 2, or cancer.

6. Wheat is getting a bad rep because it’s a source of digestive problems for many, but a Canadian study determined that many gluten sensitive folks experienced little issues with real sourdough based breads. The same could be said of sprouted grain breads as well as other whole grain choices. Simply avoid all refined wheat or grain products.

7. Soy is another controversial food. While many individuals think soy is perfectly OK, research does show how soy creates digestive problems and induces estrogen hormonal imbalances. Oriental diets use soy sparingly. Don’t bother with soy anything unless it’s fermented, the way tempeh and fermented soy sauces are.

8. Processed or refined salt has a given all salt a bad rap. But unrefined sea salt is actually a health food! Some salts sold as sea salt are bogus because they are refined. They get away with this because technically all salt is originally from the sea.

Unrefined sea salt containing vital nutrients without toxic residues from processing is generally courser and not as white as refined salt. Find a salt you’re certain is the real thing and take it with you because restaurants don’t serve real salt.

Read the full story at: NaturalSociety

And just to be clear, what Berezow means is that parents who do not vaccinated their children no matter how toxic the vaccine ingredients really are should be thrown in prison. There is no exemption being discussed or recommended that would allow parents to object to vaccines because of the neurotoxic chemicals they contain (such as the heavy metal mercury, still found in flu shots given to children in America).

There is also no discussion that informed parents might reasonably object to vaccines based on the recent confession of a top CDC whistleblower who reveals how the CDC committed scientific fraud to bury scientific evidence showing a link between vaccines and autism.

But continuing with the imprisonment idea now being touted by USA Today, it begs the practical question: What exactly should happen after the parents are thrown in prison? Well, of course, the state will take custody of the children because they are now parentless.

So the suggestion that parents who seek to protect their children from toxic vaccine ingredients should be thrown in jail is simultaneously a call for the state to seize custody of all children who are not yet vaccinated with Big Pharma's toxic vaccines.

Read the full story at: NaturalNews

Neither Congress, the White House, or the Judiciary has done anything about the wrongful spying, because the spying serves the government. Law and the Constitution are expendable when the few who control the government have their “more important agendas.”

Bradley Manning warned us of the militarization of US foreign policy and the murderous consequences, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks posted leaked documents proving it.

Were these whistleblowers and honest journalists, who alerted us to the determined attack on our civil liberty, rewarded with invitations to the White House and given medals of honor in recognition of their service to American liberty?

No. Bradley Manning is in federal prison, and so would be Julian Assad and Edward Snowden if Washington could get its hands on them.

Binney escaped the Police State’s clutches, because he did not take any documents with which to prove his allegations, and thus could be dismissed as “disgruntled” and as a “conspiracy kook,” but not arrested as a “spy” who stole “national secrets.”




Glenn Greenwald - The journalist entrusted by Edward Snowden for the initial NSA material releases

Greenwald, so far, is too prominent to be hung for reporting the truth. But he is in the crosshairs, and the Police State is using other cases to close in on him.

These are only five of the many people who have provided absolute total proof that the Bill of Rights has been overthrown. Washington continues to present itself to the world as the “home of the free,” the owner of the White Hat, while Washington demonstrates its lack of mercy by invading or bombing seven countries on false pretenses during the past 14 years, displacing, killing, and maiming millions of Muslims who never raised a fist against the US.

Many commentators have written articles and given interviews about government’s ever expanding police powers. The totality of the American Police State is demonstrated by its monument in Utah, where an enormous complex has been constructed in which to store every communication of every American. Somehow a son or daughter checking on an aged parent, a working mother checking on her children’s child care, a family ordering a pizza, and sweethearts planning a date are important matters of national security.

Some educated and intelligent people understand the consequences, but most Americans perceive no threat as they “have nothing to hide.”

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights and attached it to the US Constitution did not have anything to hide, but they clearly understood, unlike modern day Americans, that freedom depended completely on strictly limiting the ability of government to intrude upon the person.

Those limits provided by the Founding Fathers are gone. The hoax “war on terror” demolished them.

Today not even the relationships between husband and wife and parents and children have any protection from arbitrary intrusions by the state. Essentially, government has destroyed the family along with civil liberty.

Those insouciant Americans who do not fear the police state because they “have nothing to hide” desperately need to read: Home-schooled Children Seized By Authorities Still In State Custody.

In Police State America, authorities can enter your home on the basis of an anonymous “tip” that you are, or might be, somehow, abusing your children, or exposing them to medicines that are not in containers with child-proof caps or to household bleach that is not under lock and key, and seize your children into state custody on the grounds that you present a danger to your children.

The government does not have to tell you who your accuser is. It can be your worst enemy or a disgruntled employee, but the tipster is protected. However, you and your family are not.

The authorities who receive these tips treat them as if they are valid. A multi-member goon squad shows up at your house. This is when the utterly stupid “I have nothing to hide” Americans discover that they have no rights, regardless of whether they have anything to hide.

We owe this police power over parents and children to “child advocates” who lobbied for laws based on their fantasies that all parents are serial rapists of children, and if not, are medieval torturers, trained by the CIA, who physically and psychologically abuse their children.

In the opinion of “child advocates,” children are brought into the world in order to be abused by parents. Dogs and cats and the fish in the fishbowl are not enough. Parents need children to abuse, too, just as the Police and the Police State need people to abuse.

Of course, sometimes real child abuse occurs. But it is not the routine event that the Child Protective Services Police assume. A sincere investigation, such as was missing in the report on the home-schooled children, would have had one polite person appear at the door to explain to the parents that there had been a complaint that their children were being exposed to a poisonous substance in the home.

The person should have listened to the parents, had a look at the children, and if there was any doubt about the water purifier, ask that its use be discontinued until its safety could be verified. But nothing sensible happened, because the Police State does not have to be sensible.

Instead, a half dozen goon thugs show up. The parents are put outside in the snow for 5 hours while the children are scared to death with questions and then carried away from their home, mother, and father.

In pur Police State countries, this is called Protecting Children. We owe this tyranny to the idiot “child advocates.”

It is no longer important to protect children from child molesters, unless they are Catholic child pedophiles. But it is absolutely necessary to protect children from their parents.

So, yes, dear insouciant American fool, whether you have anything to hide or not, you are in grave danger, and so are your children, in Police State America.

You can no longer rely on the Constitution to protect you.

This is the only way that you can protect yourself: grovel before your neighbors, your co-workers, your employees and employers, and, most definitely, before “public authority” and your children, as your children can report you. Don’t complain about anything. Do not get involved in protests. Don’t make critical comments on the Internet or on your telephone calls.

Don’t homeschool. Don’t resist vaccines. Turn your backs to leaders who could liberate you as it is too dangerous to risk the failure of liberation. Be an abject, cowardly, obedient, servile member of the enserfed, enslaved American population. Above all, be thankful to Big Brother who protects you from terrorists and Russians.

You, dear insouciant, stupid, American are back on the Plantation. Perhaps that is your natural home. In his masterful A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn documents that despite their best efforts the exploited and abused American people have never been able to prevail against the powerful private interests that control the government. Whenever in American history the people rise up they are struck down by brute force.

Zinn makes totally clear that “American freedom, democracy, liberty, blah-blah” are nothing but a disguise for the rule over America by money.

Wave the flag, sing patriot songs, see enemies where the government tells you to see them, and above all, never think. Just listen. The government and its presstitute media will tell you what you must believe.

"When you go the bank for a loan, most people think they are borrowing other people’s money, money that those other people have deposited with the bank after working hard and saving it. So paying interest for the privilege of using someone else’s money seems fair. But as this Bank of England article says, “the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans”. The remarkable truth is that the commercial banks actually just create the ‘money’ they lend you. Still seem fair and reasonable to pay high interest rates for the privilege?" - Russell Norman 31-12-2014

Norman made the announcement this morning, saying it was time for a change. He will officially leave at the party’s annual meeting where a replacement will be voted in. Metiria Turei will stay on as co-leader.

Norman said it was “time to find a new challenge for myself and to spend more time with my family, and now is also a good time for new leadership for the party.”

Norman’s partner Katya Paquin recently gave birth to their third child, a girl. Norman will stay on as a list MP.

Read more here.

The document deals specifically with the Infanrix Hexa vaccine (combined diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated poliomyelitis and haemophilus influenza type B) made by GSK, as well as the Prevenar 13 vaccine by Pfizer and several other vaccines.

It explains that, contrary to the skewed data presented by GSK suggesting that dozens of sudden death cases following vaccination were not linked to Infanrix Hexa, the same data broken down by time of occurrence reveals that the vaccine was, in fact, directly linked to the deaths.

The devil is in the details, as they say, and in this case GSK masked these details by clumping together the majority of the deaths that occurred within 10 days following vaccination with the select few that occurred after 10 days. By doing this, the drug giant made it appear as though sudden deaths were spread out over a much longer period than they actually were, which it claimed served as evidence that the vaccine was not the cause of sudden death.

Table 36 in the GlaxoSmithKline Biological Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance report to Regulatory Authority shows that nearly all of the 67 reported deaths following Infanrix Hexa administration occurred within the first 10 days. Only two of these reported deaths occurred after 10 days, and yet GSK reported them all together as transpiring sporadically across the entire 20-day period, insinuating that they were merely coincidental.

"[I]f one analyses the data looking at deaths in [the] first 10 days after administration of vaccine and compares it to the deaths in the next 10 days, it is clear that 97% of deaths (65 deaths) in the infants below 1 year, occur in the first 10 days and 3% (2 deaths) occur in the next 10 days," explains Child Health Safety.

90% of deaths occurred within five days of vaccination An even closer look at the data tables, which GSK deliberately withheld from public view, reveals an even more shocking fact -- the vast majority of sudden deaths actually occurred within five days of Infanrix Hexa administration, which further implicates the vaccine. A shocking 90% of the deaths, 60 of them, occurred within five days of the shot being given. And 75% of the deaths occurred within three days of the shot.

"The clustering of deaths around the time of vaccination demonstrates a link between the vaccination and the sudden deaths," adds Child Safety First. "It indicates this is not by chance as otherwise the deaths would be spread across the entire 20 days. Rather than showing the total deaths each day, GlaxoSmithKline disguised the clustering of deaths around vaccination."

This is all quite revealing -- the stuff of lawsuits, no doubt, with which GSK is more than familiar. As you may recall, GSK is the same drug company that was fined $3 billion for promoting antidepressant drugs for off-label uses. The case has since been dubbed the largest health fraud settlement in U.S. history, which says a whole lot about the integrity of this company.

Should GSK ever be found guilty of deliberately withholding critical safety data that, while it probably would have cut into the company's bottom line to make it public, may have saved children from early death, it could potentially make history again as earning the title of the most shamefully greedy and profiteering corporation in the world (next to Monsanto, of course).

If drug and vaccine companies are really about helping people, why don't they develop treatments for disease rather than vaccines?

"[N]o effective treatments for basic well-known longstanding childhood diseases have been developed," explains Child Health Safety. "That is a scandal in the scientific 21st Century. If there were effective treatments vaccines would not be needed."

"Educated parents can either get their children out of harm's way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines -- full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) -- are a miracle of modern medicine," wrote Andrew Baker at NSNBC.me.

Nervous financiers from across the globe have begun purchasing landing strips, homes and land in areas such as New Zealand so they can flee should people rise up.

With growing inequality and the civil unrest from Ferguson and the Occupy protests fresh in people’s mind, the world’s super rich are already preparing for the consequences. At a packed session in Davos, former hedge fund director Robert Johnson revealed that worried hedge fund managers were already planning their escapes.

“I know hedge fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway,” he said.

With growing inequality and riots such as those in London in 2011 and in Ferguson and other parts of the USA last year, many financial leaders fear they could become targets for public fury.

Robert Johnson, president of the Institute of New Economic Thinking, told people at the World Economic Forum in Davos that many hedge fund managers were already planning their escapes.

Johnson, who heads the Institute of New Economic Thinking and was previously managing director at Soros, said societies can tolerate income inequality if the income floor is high enough. But with an existing system encouraging chief executives to take decisions solely on their profitability, even in the richest countries inequality is increasing.

He said: “I know hedge fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway." “People need to know there are possibilities for their children – that they will have the same opportunity as anyone else. There is a wicked feedback loop. Politicians who get more money tend to use it to get more even money.”

Mr Johnson, said the economic situation could soon become intolerable as even in the richest countries inequality was increasing.

He said: "People need to know there are possibilities for their children – that they will have the same opportunity as anyone else." "There is a wicked feedback loop. Politicians who get more money tend to use it to get more even money."

His comments were backed up by Stewart Wallis, executive director of the New Economics Foundation, who when asked about the comments told CNBC Africa:

"Getaway cars the airstrips in New Zealand and all that sort of thing, so basically a way to get off.  If they can get off, onto another planet, some of them would." He added: "I think the rich are worried and they should be worried. I mean inequality, why does it matter? "Most people have heard the Oxfam statistics that now we’ve got 80, the 80 richest people in the world, having more wealth that the bottom three-point-five billion, and very soon we’ll get a situation where that one percent, one percent of the richest people have more wealth than everybody else, the 99."

But as former New Zealand prime minister and now UN development head Helen Clark explained, rather than being a game changer, recent examples suggest the Ferguson movement may soon be forgotten.

"We saw Occupy flare up and then fade like many others like it,” Clark said. “The problem movements like these have is stickability. The challenge is for them to build structures that are ongoing; to sustain these new voices.”

So what is the solution to having the new voices being sufficiently recognised to actually change the status quo into one where those with power realise they do matter?

Clark said: “Solutions are there. What’s been lacking is political will. Politicians do not respond to those who don’t have a voice In the end this is all about redistributing income and power.” She added: “Seventy five percent of people in developing countries live in places that are less equal than they were in 1990.”

The panellists were scathing about politicians, Wallis describing them as people who held up wet fingers “to see which way the money is blowing in from.”

Author, philosopher and former academic Rebecca Newberger-Goldstein saw the glass half full, drawing on history to prove society does eventually change for the better. She said Martin Luther King was correct in his view that the arch of history might be long, but it bends towards justice.

In ancient Greece, she noted, even the greatest moralists like Plato and Aristotle never criticised slavery.

Newberger-Goldstein said: “We’ve come a long way as a species. The truth is now dawning that everybody matters because the concept of mattering is at the core of every human being.” " Knowing you matter, she added, is often as simple as having others “acknowledge the pathos and reality of your stories. To listen.”

Mexican micro-lending entrepreneur Carlos Danel expanded on the theme. His business, Gentera, has thrived by working out that:

“those excluded are not the problem but realising there’s an opportunity to serve them.” He added: “Technology provides advantages that can lower costs and enable us to provide products and services that matter to the people who don’t seem to matter to society. And that’s beyond financial services – into education and elsewhere.”

Which, Danel believes, is why business was created in the first place – to serve. A message that seemed to get lost somewhere in the worship of profit.

This website is optimised for viewing in Mozilla Firefox

Fair Dealing Notice

These pages / videos may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. With reference to The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 such material is made available for critical, review, educational purposes and the reporting of current events. In accordance with The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994, this material is distributed without profit to those with a general interest in such information for research and education.

Fair Use Notice

These pages / videos may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those with a general interest in such information for research and education.