Wikileaks Leaks TPPA Draft March 29 2015 | From: DailyKos
This is an advanced January 2015 version of the confidential draft treaty chapter from the Investment group of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks between the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam.
The treaty is being negotiated in secret by delegations from each of these 12 countries, who together account for 40% of global GDP. The chapter covers agreements on investments from one TPP nation to another, including empowering foreign firms to "sue" other states' governments, as well as regulations around investor-state dispute settlements and tribunals
This document was prepared by TPP investment chapter negotiators in advance of the informal round of negotiations held in New York City 26th January to 1st February, 2015
Global Trade Watch has just provided an analysis of the leaked text via email and now on its website: more details
The TPP would grant foreign investors and firms operating here expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to U.S. firms under U.S. law, allowing foreign firms to demand compensation for the costs of complying with U.S. policies, court orders and government actions that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms. This includes:
Foreign investors would be empowered to challenge new policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms on the basis that they undermine foreign investors’ “expectations” of how they should be treated. This includes a right to claim damages for government actions (such as new environmental, health or financial policies) that reduce the value of a foreign firm’s investment (what the leaked text calls “indirect expropriation”) or that change the level of regulation a foreign investor experienced under a previous government (a violation of what the text calls a “minimum standard of treatment” for foreign investors).
The leaked TPP text largely replicates the “minimum standard of treatment” language found in previous U.S. pacts that tribunals have used to issue some of the most alarming ISDS rulings. Tribunals often have broadly interpreted this vague “right” to fabricate new obligations for governments that do not actually exist in the texts of ISDS-enforced pacts, such as “not to alter the legal and business environment in which the investment has been made.”
Due to such expansive interpretations, the “minimum standard of treatment” obligation has been the basis for three of every four ISDS cases “won” by the foreign investor under U.S. pacts.
The text allows foreign investors to demand compensation for claims of “indirect expropriation” that apply to much wider categories of property than those to which similar rights apply in U.S. law. To the limited extent that “indirect expropriation” compensation is permitted in U.S. law, it is generally available only for government actions affecting real property (i.e. land).
But the leaked text would allow foreign investors to claim “indirect expropriation” if government regulations implicate their personal property, intellectual property rights, financial instruments, government permits, money, minority shareholdings or other forms of non-real-estate property.
Foreign corporations could demand compensation for capital controls and other macro-prudential financial regulations that promote financial stability. This obligation restricts the use of capital controls or financial transaction taxes, even as the International Monetary Fund has shifted from opposing capital controls to officially endorsing them as legitimate policy tools for preventing or mitigating financial crises.
Proposed provisions touted as “temporary safeguards” for capital controls would fail to protect many standard forms of capital controls, including those successfully used by TPP governments in the past to ward off financial crises.
The leaked text could newly allow pharmaceutical firms to use TPP ISDS tribunals to demand cash compensation for claimed violations of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) rules regarding the creation, limitation or revocation of intellectual property rights.
Currently, WTO rules are not privately enforceable by investors. But the leaked TPP investment text could empower individual foreign investors to directly challenge governments over policies to ensure access to affordable medicines, claiming that they constitute TPP-prohibited “expropriations” of intellectual property rights if ISDS tribunals deem them to violate WTO rules.
There are no new safeguards that limit ISDS tribunals’ discretion to create ever-expanding interpretations of governments’ obligations to foreign investors and order compensation on that basis. The leaked text reveals the same “safeguard” terms that have been included in U.S. pacts since the 2005 Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). CAFTA tribunals have simply ignored the “safeguard” provisions that the leaked text replicates for the TPP, and have continued to rule against governments based on concocted obligations to which governments never agreed.
The leaked text also abandons a safeguard proposed in the 2012 leaked TPP investment text, which excluded public interest regulations from indirect expropriation claims, stating, “non-discriminatory regulatory actions … that are designed and applied to achieve legitimate public welfare objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety and the environment do not constitute indirect expropriation.” Today’s leaked text eviscerates that clause by adding a fatal loophole that has been found in past U.S. pacts.
Most TPP countries, including the United States, have decided to expose decisions regarding the approval of foreign investments to ISDS challenge. Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand have reserved the right to pre-approve foreign investors. But the United States took no exception for reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of planned foreign investments to determine whether they pose threats to national security.
The amount that an ISDS tribunal would order a government to pay to a foreign investor as compensation would be based on the “expected future profits” the tribunal surmises that the investor would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking as violating the substantive investor rights granted by the TPP.
The text would submit the U.S. government to the jurisdiction of World Bank and United Nations tribunals. All TPP nations have agreed to be so bound with the potential exception of Australia, which has indicated that it might do the same, “subject to certain conditions.”
None of the structural biases or conflicts of interest inherent in the ISDS system would be remedied. TPP ISDS tribunals would be staffed by highly paid corporate lawyers unaccountable to any electorate or system of legal precedent. They still would be allowed to rotate between acting as “judges” and advocates for the investors launching cases against governments.
Corporations launching cases would still directly select one of the “judges.” The text includes no requirements for tribunal members to be impartial, reveal conflicts of interest or recuse themselves in instances of direct conflict. There is no internal or external mechanism to appeal the tribunal members’ decisions on the merits, and claims of procedural errors would be decided by another tribunal of corporate lawyers.
The leaked text provides tribunals with discretion to determine the amount of compensation governments must pay investors and the allocation of costs, such as the tribunal members’ fees. A proposal that appeared in the 2012 leak of the text to standardize hourly fees for tribunal members at the lower end of the range of fees currently paid (about $375 per hour, compared to the $700 per hour that some tribunal members receive) has been eliminated.
An overreaching definition of “investment” would extend the coverage of the TPP’s expansive substantive investor rights far beyond “real property,” permitting ISDS attacks over government actions and policies related to financial instruments, intellectual property, regulatory permits and more.
Proposals in the 2012 leak of the text that would have narrowed the definition of “investment,” and thus the scope of policies subject to challenge, have been eliminated. Also omitted is a proposal from the earlier leaked version that would not have allowed ISDS cases related to government procurement, subsidies or government grants.
An overreaching definition of “investor” would allow firms from non-TPP countries and firms with no real investments to exploit the extraordinary privileges the TPP would establish for foreign investors. Thus, for instance, one of the many Chinese state-owned corporations in Vietnam could “sue” the U.S. government in a foreign tribunal to demand compensation under this text.
The leaked text reveals that U.S. negotiators are still pushing, over the objection of most other TPP nations, to empower foreign investors to bring to TPP ISDS tribunals their contract disputes with TPP signatory governments relating to natural resource concessions on federal lands, government procurement of construction for infrastructure projects, as well as contracts relating to the operation of utilities. (In the leaked chapter, text that is not yet agreed upon appears in square brackets; Public Citizen has seen a version of the text that lists which countries support various proposals.)
More from Global Trade Watch:
The leaked text provides stark warnings about the dangers of “trade” negotiations occurring without press, public or policymaker oversight. It reveals that TPP negotiators already have agreed to many radical terms that would give foreign investors expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to domestic firms under domestic law.
The leaked text would empower foreign firms to directly “sue” signatory governments in extrajudicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals over domestic policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms that foreign firms claim violate their new substantive investor rights.
There they could demand taxpayer compensation for domestic financial, health, environmental, land use and other policies and government actions they claim undermine TPP foreign investor privileges, such as the “right” to a regulatory framework that conforms to their “expectations.”
The leaked text reveals the TPP would expand the parallel ISDS legal system by elevating tens of thousands of foreign- owned firms to the same status as sovereign governments, empowering them to privately enforce a public treaty by skirting domestic courts and laws to directly challenge TPP governments i n foreign tribunals.
And remember why this is important:
Foreign corporations have used these claims to attack tobacco, climate, financial, mining, medicine, energy, pollution, water, labor, toxins, development and other non-trade domestic policies.
Under U.S. “free trade” agreements (FTAs) alone, foreign firms have already pocketed more than $440 million in taxpayer money via investor-state cases. This includes cases against natural resource policies, environmental protections, health and safety measures and more.
ISDS tribunals have ordered more than $3.6 billion in compensation to investors under all U.S. FTAs and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). More than $38 billion remains in pending ISDS claims under these pacts, nearly
all of which relate to environmental, energy, financial regulation, public health, land use and transportation policies.
Even when governments win cases, they are often ordered to pay for a share of the tribunal’s costs. Given that the costs just for defending a challenged policy in an ISDS case total $8 million on average, the mere filing of a case can create a chilling effect on government policymaking, even if the government expects to win. [emphasis added]
By the way, the screams and groans you just heard are coming from the White House and TPP supporters because when the elite New York Times--which has always flogged so-called "free trade" and treated opponents of such deals as backward people--writes this, this deal is sinking fast:
An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue [not just] the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurts their business, according to a classified document.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
Backers of the emerging trade accord, which is supported by a wide variety of business groups and favored by most Republicans, say that it is in line with previous agreements that contain similar provisions. But critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.
Intelligence Services Block Activists’ Emails And Frame Them With Fake Emails March 28 2015 | From: Zerohedge
You send an email to a reporter saying that you’ve got proof of criminal wrongdoing by a government official … or a big bank. You never receive a response.
Or you send an email to an expert on monetary policy asking if the Federal Reserve’s policies help the rich at the expense of the little guy … or an expert on radiation asking if the Fukushima accident might endanger public health. You never receive a response.
This might be for any number of perfectly innocent reasons, including:
Your email ended up in their spam folder
They’re busy
They’re not interested enough to write back
They think you’re a bore or a crank
But there could be another explanation …
By way of background, China has blocked gmail for its citizens.
Bahrain uses British software that allows the government to frame political activists by creating messages from that person that they never typed. 35 other countries use the same software.
Tunisia monitored and blocked the emails of activists, so they were never delivered. For example:
"There is also technical surveillance whereby downloading or adding attachment to an email must go through a central server.
Under the pretext of protecting public order and national security, a 1998 post and telecommunications law enables the authorities to intercept and check the content of email messages and in fact electronic surveillance such as filtering of email messages of government opponents have been reported.
Global Voices Advocacy Director and Tunisia Activist Sami Ben Gharbia conducted a test from the Netherlands with two Tunisia-based activists and confirmed by logging to their email accounts from the Netherland that what he sees is not what they receive when they login from Tunisia, and that they cannot access some of the messages they receive."
The Tunisian government used software from Western companies to block emails of political dissidents.
A prominent American political writer said that – if Tunisia is doing it – you can bet that Western countries are, as well.
Indeed, Snowden revealed that the British spy agency GCHQ has developed numerous offensive digital tools, including:
Ability to deny functionality to send/receive email or view material online.
***
Ability to spoof any email address and send email under that identity.
***
Mass delivery of email messaging to support an Information Operations campaign.
Dead: 125 Scientists, 75 High-Level Bankers, And Within 24 Hours - 3 Investigative Journalists March 27 2015 | From: ASheepNoMore
One only has to consider the large number of highly suspicious deaths surrounding scientists, bankers and journalists to feel that something strange is afoot.
A Denver banker that supposedly shot himself 8 times in his head and torso with a nail gun, the infectious disease scientist who was stabbed 196 times, 4 investigative journalists who all work in explosive areas die within 24 hours…the list goes on and on.
Statistically, it makes no sense…unless it was all intended…
Last month 47-year old NASA Scientist, Alberto Behar died when his plane crashed near an airport just north of Los Angeles. Behar helped prove that there had once been water on Mars and was a leading robotics expert.
Dead Scientists
Add Behar to a long list of dead scientists, 74 in the just last 2 years and around 125 in the last 20. Some surmise that many of the scientists might not be dead, but have been ‘kidnapped’ by the govenment to work on black projects.
Dead Bankers
The deaths of 48 high level bankers (with a public total of 72 since the phenomenon was identified) in just within the LAST YEAR is even more striking bizarre due to the sheer number and manner of deaths. What are the odds these high-level, multi-millionaire bankers who are often described as happy people would kill themselves in the most odd of ways?
Are these bankers being killed in order to stave off prosecution by the banks? Our entire monetary system is a Ponzi scheme, are big banks scare of a whistleblower coming forward to expose all the corruption, leading to a loss of confidence and crash of the system?
Four American Journalists Dead Inside The US Within 24 Hours
Ned Colt of (NBC) dropped dead of a stroke yesterday.. he was “supposedly” kidnapped during the Iraq war for several days, then freed?
Bob Simon of (CBS) died in a car crash yesterday.. he was “supposedly” kidnapped held captive for 40 days in an Iraq jail
David Carr (NY Times) just died suddenly after interviewing Edward Snowden, and had just come out against Brian Williams from NBC while on CBS… calling Williams out for lying about being shot down in the Iraq war.
Bob Hager the NBC aviation expert now has a head on crash. hmm. And of course Brian Williams is off the air for lying about the Iraq war. FOUR journalists dead within 24 hours, here in the United States (not in a war zone). Did they know something that ‘we’ do not know? Is their a current campaign to silence the truth?
Police Given Personal Information Without Search Warrants March 27 2015 | From: NewZealandHerald
Officers obtaining personal data from range of organisations by citing clauses in legislation.
Broad swathes of people's personal data are being sought regularly by police from airlines, banks, electricity companies, internet providers and phone companies without search warrants by officers citing clauses in the Privacy Act.
Senior lawyers and the Privacy Commissioner have told the Herald of concerns over the practice which sees the companies voluntarily give the information to police.
Instead of seeking a legal order, police have asked companies to hand over the information to assist with the "maintenance of the law", threatened them with prosecution if they tell the person about whom they are interested and accept data with no record keeping to show how often requests are made.
The request from police carries no legal force at all yet is regularly complied with.
Production orders and search warrants, by contrast, carry a legal compulsion after being approved by a judge or senior court official.
The practice has emerged in recent cases cited by a number of lawyers and has seen a district court judge question the legal right of police to access a defendant's electricity records without a legal order because of the "increasingly intrusive nature of the information gathered by power companies".
Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said he was undertaking research to see if his office should become a central register recording the number of such requests. He said he intended to lead discussion with holders of information over how they could publicly declare the number of requests received.
"I have been concerned for some time there is not full transparency and accounting over the various means (those holding information) agencies are engaging with law enforcement agencies."
He said a range of law enforcement bodies were citing clauses in the Privacy Act to get people's personal details. Clauses in Principle 11 of the act allowed personal information to be provided if it was for "the maintenance of the law", "protection of the public revenue", to "prevent or lessen a serious threat" to inviduals and similar clauses.
But the broad intent of Principle 11 was to protect information, he said:
"It is not a power to obtain information for the police."
Mr Edwards said the ability to access information quickly was understandable when time was a critical factor.
He said there was value in a public declaration by companies and others supplying information to police under the clauses.
"It may well impose a greater discipline."
It would mean people could "see how their information is flowing between different types of entities".
Police assistant commissioner Malcolm Burgess said "there are controls around how information is both requested and provided".
But he said there was no information held by police to show how often information was requested in this way because:
"there is currently no business requirement to do so".
"While the Privacy Act provisions can be used to access low level information, such as basic account details, higher level data must be obtained through a production order."
Jonathan Eaton QC provided to the Herald with an excerpt from a recent district court case in which the judge questioned whether a company surrendering a customer's electricity information without a legal order was "authorised".
The judge said:
"Indeed, giving the increasingly intrusive nature of the information gathered by power companies, one must question whether this is material which out to be handed over without the authority of a production order."
Mr Eaton said the issue had yet to be properly tested in court and prosecutors were in danger of having evidence tossed out if it was judged to have been obtained by improper process.
He said there was also a burden of transparency on companies which held personal information.
"There's a very reasonable argument they have an obligation to inform their customers."
Criminal Bar Association president Tony Bouchier said he had a client whose phone and bank records had been provided to police with "absolutely no record whatsoever that any warrants had been issued".
He said those providing information to police had an "obligation" to tell their customers they had done so.
Barrister Chris Wilkinson-Smith said a client's personal information had been provided by an airline to police under a Principle 11 clause, showing booking details, immediate and future travel plans and personal information used to make the booking.
The information was revealed by the airline - which he did not name - after police said it would help with "maintenance of the law". In this case, the person was the target of police inquiries into drug distribution.
He said he had also had cases where TradeMe provided information without any sign of legal orders. He said police often sought search warrants to obtain information, which meant there was independent oversight.
"The danger for police is, if they don't go through the search warrant process, there could be the criticism they have taken a short cut."
Under the law the obligation to guard customers information lies with the company that holds it.
Vodafone and Air NZ were approached for information about the way they handled warrantless requests by police under the Privacy Act. Both companies said they acted in according to the law but refused further information.
A spokesman for Vodafone said questions about how often it provided information to police should be directed to police.
"Where disclosure is made in response to authorities' lawful demands, our responsibility to respect our customers' right to privacy is being balanced against wider public interest considerations."
The company's "transparency report" is silent on providing information under the Privacy Act clauses even though it details search warrants and ther invasive powers available to New Zealand's intelligence agencies.
In contrast, Spark detailed the process and type of information it made available. A spokesman said concerns about the safety of people would result in call or text metadata for the last week, IP address traces, location data of where calls were made and the name and address of the account holder.
For "maintenance of the law" requests, it would tell police if the numbers were active in the last seven days and trace listed numbers to the account holder.
A spokesman said it did not keep data on the number of requests made or complied with.
TradeMe was the sole holder of information identified by the Herald to publicly declare the number of Principle 11 clause requests it received.
Police made warrantless requests for information on 1663 occasions ending June 2014 while other government agencies made 641 requests.
Some Inconvenient Truths About Work March 26 2015 | From: BryanBruce
On John Key's website you will find the following quote:"We know children growing up in a home where at least one parent is working are better off. That's why we have such a strong focus on reforming the welfare system, to support more parents to find work and move off welfare.
We want parents to help themselves rise out of poverty. The way to do this is through paid work. Our reforms invest in the potential of New Zealanders to work, better their situation and set a good example for their kids." ( source http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/1667-Keynotes-Tackling-poverty.html )
It's a clear statement of his ideology so let's examine it.
"We know children growing up in a home where at least one parent is working are better off."
No we don't.
What we know, from one of the Ministry Of Social Development's own reports , is that 2 out of every 5 children in poverty live in families with at least one adult in full-time work. ( Source: B Perry Household Incomes In New Zealand : Trends In Indicators of Inequality And Hardship 2011)
Clearly work on it's own is not a solution to poverty because we have Working Poor - people who work all week and cannot meet the cost of the rent, food, electricity, transport and all the rest of life's essentials. So to "help parents help themselves rise out of poverty " as John Key puts it , you not only have to create jobs you have to pay realistic wages. Low wages simply keep the Poor - poor.
Just how unrealistic and unfair wages are in New Zealand can be seen in the above graph.
It was supplied to me by Bill Rosenberg who is the Economist and Policy Director for The New Zealand Council Of Trade Unions. Bill is one of the experts I consulted when making MIND THE GAP . He was patient with me as I struggled to understand some aspects of our economic system and very generous with his knowledge. ( He has a B.Com in Economics, a BSc in Mathematics and a PhD) .
The graph actually comes from a text book on the NZ Economy and tracks the real average hourly rate \ ( the yellow line) against how much each of us is contributing the nations wealth - expressed as GDP percapita (the red line)
If you follow the two lines you will see that before 1984 (when we switched to Neo-liberal economics) workers received a far greater share of the nation's wealth than today.
Using a second graph Bill explained to me that from 1990 to 2010 productivity rose 48% but the average wage rose only 18%.
So what neo-liberal economics has created (and what Treasury and John Key's government perpetuates) is a system that increases profits for management , shareholders and business owners and lowered the wages of the workers (whose labours helped create that profit) to the point where many bread winners cannot earn enough to meet their family's living costs.
As for the last sentence in the John Key quote above:
"Our reforms invest in the potential of New Zealanders to work, better their situation and set a good example for their kids."
The insinuation is that parents on welfare are there simply because they are lazy. This is certainly not true of the many parents I have met who are struggling to get by. They want to work and most do, but there is a lack of jobs and those jobs that do exist pay minimum wage ( which as comedian Chris Rock recently put it " Minimum wage means - I'd like to pay you less but it's against the law.")
The other flaw in this ideology is that inference that the only valuable work is paid work.
Again not true.
A lot of the most important work done in our society involves no exchange of money. Parenting and bringing up the next generation is a case in point.
To insist that a Mum stacks shelves in a supermarket to make a few dollars while someone else looks after her baby makes absolutely no sense to me. We cannot build a "better future "for our country by short changing our children on the time, love and attention of their Mums and Dads in the pre-school years.
In short, you cannot measure all human worth in dollars and cents - and we certainly cannot solve the problem of child poverty by continuing with the poverty of mind and spirit that created it.
You Can Defeat Mass Surveillance: Here’s How (Pictorial Guide) March 25 2015 | From: TheFifthColumnNews
The only reason why mass surveillance works is because most of our communications are being sent in plain text, as easily read as you are reading this very article. Whether this is done willingly by the service provider or maliciously by the Government using devices and exploits without their knowledge, Encryption will keep (some of) your rights in tact, for now.
While I do admit there is a modest barrier to entry into the realm of secure communications, there is a number of ‘Out of the Box’ solutions emerging to attempt to reduce this barrier. I will detail these still in development solutions in the footer, and cover some of the more established solutions that require a small amount of setup next. (With a pictorial guide)
On the complaints about Tor, Let me detail a few of the weakness that exist in Tor so that you may be able to understand its strengths. Tor was initially developed and funded by the US Government to give itself plausible deniablity for its own illegal and malicious actions against businesses and countries worldwide.
If only the US Government used Tor it wouldnt be very Anonymous, So it has to be a free for all to provide anonymity. That said, The Government doesnt like supporting malicious actors other than itself. So, Darknet sites (The .onion network) were attacked. The reason this attack worked is for two reasons.
One, Using Tor in a browser provides a wide attack vector via the Flash and JavaScript scripting engines. A script in Flash or JavaScript can report back the IP Address in the context of that code, before it passes over Tor. This is because the code is running locally in your browser and not on the server which does not know your IP address.
Two, If every Tor node you are using is in fact owned by the US Government, a top-down view of all US Government nodes can in theory reveal your IP as an educated guess, but it is not conclusive. Using Tor outside of a browser and not on the Darknet/.onion network will defeat this attack. Me personally, when I use Tor.
I exclude all nodes that reside in a FVEY (Five Eyes) Member country. That is US, CA, AU, UK and NZ. I use an open source project called AdvTor to do this.
Pidgin is a messaging client that supports numerous protocols. The one I will focus on is XMPP, previously known as Jabber. The XMPP server I use is creep.im, You can add me using veritas@creep.im. Here is a list of many XMPP servers.
There is no reason Pidgin shouldn’t be the MSN or ICQ of this decade. Most people have resigned to using Facebook for their messaging needs, But this is a horribly insecure centralized target for … pretty much everyone. XMPP allows you to use any number of servers in any number of countries to route your conversations thru, all with full encryption.
The Lie We Live: This Video Exposes The Corrupt World We’re Living In. But We Have The Power To Change It March 24 2015 | From: TheMindUnleashed
At this moment you can be anywhere, doing anything. Instead you sit alone before a screen. So what is stopping us from doing what we want, being where we wanna be?
Each day we wake up in the same room, following the same path to live the same day as yesterday. Yet at one time, each day was a new adventure. Along the way something changed. Before, our days were timeless, now our days are scheduled. Is this what it means to be grownup, to be free, but are we really free? Food, water and land, the very elements we need to survive are owned by corporations.
If you try to take what earth provides you’ll be locked away, so we obey their rules.
We discovered the world through a text book, raised not to make a difference in this world, raised to be no different. Smart enough to do our job, but not to question why we do it. So we work and work left with no time to live the life we worked for.
If you live in America there is a 41% chance you will get cancer. Heart Disease will kill one out of 3 Americans.
We’re told that everything could be solved by throwing money at scientists so that they can discover a pill that makes our problems go away. But the drug companies and cancer societies rely on our suffering to make a profit.
We think we running for a cure but really we running away from the cause. Our body is a product of what we consume and the food we eat is designed purely for profit. We fill ourselves with toxic chemicals, the bodies of animals infested with drugs and diseases.
But we don’t see this. The small group of corporations that own the media don’t’ want us to. Surrounding us with a fantasy we’re told is reality.
It is not too late, we can change it.
GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto And The USDA March 24 2015 | From: HuffingtonPost
Perhaps no group of science deniers has been more ridiculed than those who deny the science of evolution. What you may not know is that Monsanto and our United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are among them.
That's right: for decades, Monsanto and its enablers inside the USDA have denied the central tenets of evolutionary biology, namely natural selection and adaptation.
And this denial of basic science by the company and our government threatens the future viability of American agriculture.
Third Grade Science
As we all remember from biology class. Let's start with interrelated concepts of natural selection and adaptation. This is elementary school science. In fact, in Washington D.C. it is part of the basic third grade science curriculum. , when an environment changes, trait variation in a species could allow some in that species to adapt to that new environment and survive. Others will die out.
The survivors are then able to reproduce and even thrive under the new environmental conditions. For example, if a drought were to occur, some plants might have traits that allow them to survive while other plants in the same species would perish.
The drought-resistant plants then become the "evolved" species, and they are able to reproduce in the drought environment.
Obvious, you are thinking. But let's explore how Monsanto's top scientists and government regulators would have failed a third grade science class in D.C. and the dire consequences that it is bringing to us all.
Biotech's Dirty Little Secret
First a little background. Since the early 1980s, Monsanto has endlessly hyped genetically engineered (GE) crops they claim could reduce hunger, reduce pesticide use, and survive droughts. In reality, no such "miracle" crops exist.
No significantly greater yielding crops, no more effective drought resistance crops. And as for the claim of less pesticide use, behind this myth lies the "dirty little secret" of agricultural biotechnology. Namely, that GE crops actually add hundreds of millions of pounds of pesticides to our fields and crops, and create greater agrochemical residues on our food.
Why? Because around 85 percent of all genetically engineered crops in the United States and around the world have been engineered to withstand massive doses of herbicides, mostly Monsanto's Roundup.
Usually, if toxic weed-killing chemicals such as Roundup come into contact with a crop they will destroy it as well as the weeds around it. But Monsanto scientists genetically engineered a cassette of bacterial and viral DNA into plants that allowed them to tolerate these herbicides. So the weeds are killed, but the crops remain.
In the United States, more than 50 percent of all cropland is devoted to GE corn, soy and cotton. They are commodity crops that feed cars, animals in industrial meat production and are used for additives like high fructose corn syrup.
Almost none directly feeds people. So rather than feeding the hungry, this technology is about chemical companies selling more chemicals, a lot more chemicals. So as noted, each year 115 million more pounds of Roundup are spread on our farmlands because of these altered crops.
Profits versus Science: Science loses
If half of our nation's cropland is doused year after year with a particular herbicide, that is a significant change in the environment. The accompanying problem of adaptation and selection has probably already occurred to you.
Wouldn't that massive increase in Roundup use over that huge a portion of our cropland cause some weed populations to develop resistance? Wouldn't weeds with natural resistance thrive in this new environment? Wouldn't these new "superweeds" eventually become a major problem for U.S. farmers, overrunning their crops?
As government regulators were considering whether to approve these plants in the mid-1990s, they asked Monsanto just that question. No doubt considering the billions they were going to make selling more Roundup, this is a moment when Monsanto's scientists seemed to find it convenient to their bottom line to deny basic evolutionary science. They stated:
"Evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) appears to be an unlikely event."
They also suggested that massive use of Roundup would lead to "no resistant weeds."
Independent scientists were aghast. They mocked Monsanto's view that Roundup was somehow "invincible" from the laws of natural selection, and pointed out that the company's scientists purposely ignored numerous studies that showed there would be weed resistance. But incredibly, despite the strong contrary evidence, the USDA regulators just nodded in science denying agreement with Monsanto.
Of course, adaptation and natural selection did take place. As a result, in less than 20 years, more than half of all U.S. farms have some Roundup resistant "superweeds," weeds that now infest 70 million acres of U.S farmland, an area the size of Wyoming.
Each year we see major expansion of this "superweed" acreage. Texas has gone so far as to declare a state of emergency for cotton farmers. Superweeds are already causing major economic problems for farmers with a current estimate of $1 billion lost in damages to crops so far.
Last year in a panel discussion with Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto and a founder of these herbicide tolerant crops, I confronted him. How could he and the other Monsanto scientists have claimed that natural selection would not take place? How could they ignore basic evolutionary science and clear contrary evidence?
He just shook his head and said:
"You're right, weeds have evolved resistance."
But apparently, Monsanto and their government regulators still haven't learned this third grade science lesson. They're denying science once again, and the stakes are even higher.
"Agent Orange Crops" and More Science Denial
Now Monsanto and Dow Chemical have received government approval to market new genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton, that are "stacked" with engineered DNA that make them resistant to Roundup as well as 2,4-D (one of the chief elements of "Agent Orange").
Monsanto has also gained approval from the USDA for the same three crops that can tolerate Dicamba. 2,4-D and Dicamba are older, more toxic herbicides than Roundup, and these companies are reverting to them because they have brought us to the point of peak herbicides. They simply don't have any new ones, similar to the current crisis in antibiotics.
But won't the weeds simply become resistant to these herbicides as well? Not according to the science deniers at Monsanto and Dow Chemical. Despite predictions that their new crops will add hundreds of millions more pounds of these herbicides each year, they say not to worry.
They claim -- as they did 20 years ago -- that natural selection will not happen; that it is extremely unlikely for weeds to survive simultaneous attacks from two or more different herbicides with different methods.
Weed scientists have shredded this argument, noting that weeds in the past, through adaption, have done this and will almost certainly do it again. So in a few years we will be overrun with "superweeds" that are virtually indestructible by any known chemical.
But by then Monsanto and Dow will have made billions selling their chemicals and can leave the "superweed" agronomic nightmare for others to solve. Nor will they have to deal with the other nightmares that could possibly occur: increased rates of cancer and diseases like Parkinson's associated with exposure to these herbicides.
A Better Way
A science-based, and safer, way forward is to abandon this doomed-to-fail chemical arms race against weeds and use ecologically based weed control.
There are proven organic and agroecological approaches that emphasize weed management rather than weed eradication, soil building rather than soil supplementing. Crop rotation and cover crops can return productive yields without ridding the land of genetic biodiversity, and could reduce herbicide use by 90 percent.
So it's long past due that our government required real and rigorous science when regulating GE crops. It's time for them to say "no" to these herbicide-promoting crops, and prevent the looming agronomic disaster they will inevitably bring with them.
In the meantime, the next time you read hear about "GMO science deniers" - think of 70 million acres of superweeds; think cancer, Parkinsons and other diseases caused by this growing use of herbicides; think Monsanto and its enablers at the USDA.
Ex Canadian Minister Of Defence Hon. Paul Hellyer Calls On Citizens To Oust The Cabal March 23 2015 | From: DailyPaul
This is a new video from former Minister of Defence, Paul Hellier, beseeching the people to oust their corrupt governments and put your countries back in order.
As a Canadian,I know that it's these same criminals in charge of our country as well. It seems to me that if you good folks in the USA oust the evil, the rest of the world would follow. It's a Big Order, but you guys are on the front lines.
France Moves To Make ‘Conspiracy Theories’ Illegal By Government Decree March 23 2015 | From: 21stCenturyWire
The apparent "Political elites" and super-bureaucrats are worried. It’s becoming harder to control consensus reality.
A history stitched together by lies and cover-ups, political assassinations, slight-of-hand false flag deceptions, secret societies, dual loyalties and stolen fortunes – this has been the exclusive privilege of organized crime and the ruling elite for centuries.
Putting aside history’s ‘big ticket’ items though, the real reason for this authoritarian trend is much more fundamental. By knocking out their intellectual competition, political elites and their media moguls hope to minimalize, and thus eliminate any alternative analysis and opinion by applying the completely open-ended and arbitrary label of “extremist” to speech.
They want to wind back the clock, where a pre-internet, monolithic corporate media cartel held a monopoly on ideas.
Although France has taken the lead in this inter-governmental effort (see below), the preliminary assault began this past fall with British Prime Minster David Cameron publicly announcing on two separate occasions, that all of these so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ (anything which challenges the official orthodoxy) should be deemed as “extremist” and equivalent to “terrorist” and should be purged from society on the grounds of ‘national security’.
Watch this UN speech by Cameron where he clearly claims that ‘conspiracy theorists’ are the ‘root cause’ and indeed, an equal threat to national security as ISIS terrorists currently running amok in Syria and Iraq (start 4:26)…
As yet, few are aware of how in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, French Prime Minster, Francois Hollande delivered an official declaration (see full report and text from his speech below).
However, Hollande takes it beyond the usual hyperbole and focuses on giving the state an administrative and legal foothold for policing both speech and thought crimes in France. If this is can be accomplished in France, then a European [and beyond] roll-out would soon follow.
Ironically, in order to achieve this fascist leap forward, Hollande has equated “conspiracy theories” to Nazism, and is calling for government regulations to prevent any sharing or publishing of any views deemed as ‘dangerous thought’ by the state.
Specifically, Hollande is citing “Anti-Semitism” and also anything which could inspire ‘acts terrorism’ – as the chief vehicles for what the state will be designating as ‘dangerous thoughts’. With the thumb of Hebdo still pressing down, this may just sound like politics writ large by the French leader, but in reality it’s full-blown fascism.
Worse yet, with all of the world leaders gathered togther in Paris in Januarysupposedly marching solidarity for ‘free speech’ and proudly chanting “Je Suis Charlie” (image above), that Hollande would use this as political cover to restrict free speech in Europe should shock even.
RINF reports how the new censorship regime has already been implemented this week:
“Earlier this week, the Interior Minister of France — with no court review or adversarial process — ordered five websitesto not only be blocked in France, but that anyone who visits any of the sites get redirected to a scary looking government website, saying:
While it could be argued that the four websites initially listed by the government for ‘blocking’ were exclusively for ISIS/ISIL-related activity and thus, should be kept hidden, the governmenthas made no caveat in its reams of policy literature, other than some vague language as to what it defines as ‘extremist’, as to where this growing list will stop, or indeed, if it has any limits at all.
Because this process is extrajudicial, then there will be no warning to gov’t targets of this new regime. In fact, as RINF reports, this has already happened:
“In that first batch was a site called “islamic-news.info.” The owner of that site not only notes that he was never first contacted to “remove” whatever material was deemed terrorist supporting (as required by the law), but that nothing in what he had posted was supporting terrorism.”
Will French gov’t censors also block this website – because it is challenging the government’s new public filtering program?
Are we entering a new intolerant, Chinese-style policing culture in Europe, and throughout the west? Certainly they have the ability and the legal clearance to do just that right now.
Fear of losing control over manipulative narratives has always been a primary obsession with those in power, and clearly, based on what we’ve seen here – governments are making an aggressive move on free speech now. Skeptics will no doubt argue that this 21WIRE article itself constitutes a conspiracy theory.
Does that not already prove what the government modus operandi is? As if that wasn’t enough already, now France wants to take it to a whole new authoritarian level. It may sound ridiculous, but this is exactly what is taking place in government as we speak.
History shows that once this new regime is in place, they will not relinquish any new powers of censorship, and so a long, intellectual dark age is certain to follow…
At the request of President François Hollande, the French Socialist Party has published a note on the international “conspiracy theorist“ movement. His goal: to prepare new legislation prohibiting it to express itself.
In the US, the September 11, 2001 coup established a “permanent state of emergency“ (Patriot Act), launching a series of imperial wars.
Gradually, the European elites have aligned with their counterparts across the Atlantic. Everywhere, people are worried about being abandoned by their States and they question their institutions. Seeking to retain power, the elites are now ready to use force to gag their opposition.
The President of the French Republic, François Hollande, has assimilated what he calls “conspiracy theories” to Nazism and called to prevent their dissemination on the Internet and social networks.
Thus he declared, on January 27, 2015 at the Shoah Memorial:
“[Anti-Semitism] maintains conspiracy theories that spread without limits. Conspiracy theories that have, in the past, led to the worst “(…)” [The] answer is to realize that conspiracy theories are disseminated through the Internet and social networks.
Moreover, we must remember that it is words that have in the past prepared extermination. We need to act at the European level, and even internationally, so that a legal framework can be defined, and so that Internet platforms that manage social networks are held to account and that sanctions be imposed for failure to enforce” [1].
Several ministers also decried what they called conspiracy theorists as so many “fermenters of hate and disintegrators of society.”
Knowing that President Hollande calls “conspiracy theory” the idea that States, whatever their regimes – including democracies – have a spontaneous tendency to act in their own interests and not in that of their constituents, we can conclude that he presented this confused amalgam to justify a possible censure of his opponents.
This interpretation is confirmed by the publication of a note entitled “Conspiracy theories, current status” by the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, a Socialist Party think tank of which Mr. Holland was the first secretary. [2]
Let’s leave aside the political relations of François Hollande, the Socialist Party, the Fondation Jean-Jaurès, its political radicalism Observatory and the author of the note and let’s focus on its message and its ideological content.
Definition of “conspiracy theories“
The terms “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorism” have developed in France in the wake of the publication of my book on US imperialism post-September 11, titled The Big Lie [3].
At the time, we had trouble understanding what the terms meant because they referred to American political history. In the United States, are commonly called “conspiracy theorists” those according to whom President Kennedy had not been assassinated by one man but by many, forming a conspiracy (in the judicial sense).
Over time, these expressions entered in the French language and have overlapped with memories of the 30s and the Second World War, those of the denunciation of the “Jewish conspiracy“. These are therefore now polysemous, sometimes evoking the law of the state-Stator silence and, at other times, European anti-Semitism.
In its note, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation gives its own definition of conspiracy theorism. It is…
“an ’alternative’ narrative that claims to significantly upset the knowledge we have of an event and therefore competes with the “version” which is commonly accepted, stigmatized as “official”” (p. 2).
Observe that this definition does not apply solely to the delusions of the mentally ill. Thus, Socrates, through the myth of the cave, affirmed his challenge to the certainties of his time; Galileo with his heliocentric theory challenged the prevailing interpretation of the Bible of his time; etc.
For my part, and since they see me as the “pope of conspiracy theorists” or rather the “heretic” in the words of Italian philosopher Roberto Quaglia, I reaffirm my radical political commitment, in keeping with the French republican radicalism of Leon Bourgeois [4], of Georges Clemenceau, [5] of Alain [6] and of Jean Moulin. [7]
For me, as for them, the state is a Leviathan which by nature abuses those it governs.As a radical Republican, I am aware that the state is the enemy of the common good, of the Res Publica; which is why I wish not to abrogate it, but to tame it. The republican ideal is compatible with various political regimes-including monarchies, as was enacted by the authors of the Declaration of 1789.
This opposition, which the current Socialist Party disputes, has so shaped our history as Philippe Pétain repealed the Republic to proclaim the “French State“. Immediately after his assuming presidential office, I denounced Hollande’s Petainism [8]. Today, Mr. Hollande claims to be of the Republic to better fight it and this inversion of values plunges the country into confusion.
Who are the “conspiracy theorists“?
The “conspiracy theorists” are thus citizens who oppose the omnipotence of the State and who wish to place it under surveillance.
The Jean-Jaurès Foundation describes them as follows:
“[It’s] a heterogeneous movement, heavily entangled with the Holocaust denial movement, and which combines admirers of Hugo Chavez and fans of Vladimir Putin.
An underworld that consist of former left-wing activists or extreme leftists, former “malcontents”, sovereignists, revolutionary nationalists, ultra-nationalists, nostalgists of the Third Reich, anti-vaccination activists, supporters of drawing straws, September 11th revisionists, anti-Zionists, Afrocentricists, survivalists, followers of “alternative medicine”, agents of influence of the Iranian regime, Bacharists, Catholic or Islamic fundamentalists “(p. 8).
One will note the amalgams and abuse of this description aiming to discredit those it designates.
Myths of the “conspiracy theorists“
The Jean-Jaurès Foundation continues its vilification by accusing “conspiracy theorists” of ignoring the realities of the world and naively believing hackneyed myths.
Thus, they would believe in the “World Zionist plot“, the “illuminati conspiracy” and the “Rothschild myth” (p. 4).
And to credit these three statements, it cites an example solely on the “Rothschild myth“: blogger Etienne Chouard – whose work is not simply about the Republic, but goes beyond to treat Democracy [9] – says the Pompidou-Rothschild 1973 law is the source of the debt of France.
And the Foundation goes on to refute this assertion by quoting an article published by Libération…
NZ Politics Daily: Can We Trust The Police? March 22 2015 | From: NationalBusinessReview
The integrity and competence of the New Zealand Police is under intense scrutiny, following the release of the highly critical watchdog report on the police investigation into the Roastbusters scandal.
The report raises questions, yet again, of how much faith the public can put in the Police. So far the reactions in the political sphere suggest we shouldn’t place too much confidence in the law enforcement agencies, and that significant reform is required.
The IPCA’s report is described today by the Dominion Post newspaper as “A portrait of carelessness and incompetence” – see the editorial, Police failed vulnerable young women. The newspaper says the police incompetence described in the report is “shocking” and “mystifying, especially as most cases were investigated by specialist detectives.”
“Here’s what’s amazing. The officers making these decisions were detectives in the Child Protection Unit. They’re a special team trained to ‘exclusively focus’ on child abuse and they either did not understand the law around the age of consent or deliberately misinterpreted it.”
To explain other elements of police incompetence, Barry Soper uses an analogy:
“it was a bit like burglaries being committed in the same neighbourhood, with the burglar leaving his calling card at each one of them and the police failing to join the dots, reaching the obvious conclusion that the same person was responsible for lifting the loot”
See also, Murielle Baker’s Radio New Zealand item, IPCA report provokes strong response, which includes the observation of lawyer Catriona Maclennan, that the police:
“seem to almost think that a complaint and evidence from a victim are required for a prosecution. But that's obviously not the case, or no one would ever be prosecuted for homicide. I think they need to evaluate more carefully where evidence for prosecution could come from."
Police unwillingness to accept and demonstrate full culpability is highlighted in today’s Otago Daily Times editorial, A damning indictment, saying that:
“The authority's findings are damning and will inevitably open up questions of accountability once again, as well as the adequacy of police procedures and communication with agencies, notably Child, Youth and Family”.
The editorial says that Police failure to communicate with the young men involved, and their families, is perhaps the “most chilling” revelation in the report.
Bloggers are condemning this lack of accountability in stronger terms. Blogger No Right Turn says that:
“Two of the officers - Officers C and E - appear to have been absolutely crap at their jobs, and are specifically identified as failing to meet the police's investigative standards.
Police PR is absolutely silent on what has been done about these officers, and in particular, whether they have been sacked - there's not even the usual bullshit about more training”
“Police can blandly say they accept criticisms and recommendations and apologise to victims, etc, but if they don’t sack incompetent officers specifically identified as being the cause of this debacle then none of it means anything”.
An Isolated Problem, or Systemic?
Much of the political debate has been on the question of whether the major problems found in the report constitute an isolated one-off problem, or a wider systemic issue for the force. Police Minister Michael Woodhouse has said he believes it’s a case of individual actions rather than wider problems – see the Herald report, IPCA: Police 'let down' Roast Busters' alleged victims.
Rape Prevention Education director Dr Kim McGregor says she “had spoken to top police officers about the issue”, and that:
"They know that they have pockets in areas where maybe there's an old-school attitude... Some of the heads within certain districts have misogynistic views towards women”
McGregor is quoted elsewhere saying that the problem “sounds like a systemic failure”.
She points the finger at the police bosses:
“I think we need to look higher, look at who was managing that team and why they were not able to liaise the way they should have".
"We just need the police to step up and sort out those pockets of poor practice, sort out any managers, leaders who have misogynistic views, who don't take reports of sexual violence seriously, and that culture needs to come from the top”
In the same article, Police Association president Greg O'Connor points the finger instead at a lack of resources, saying “police's workload was ‘impossible’, meaning systemic failures were inevitable”.
There’s support for O’Connor’s position in Rachel Smalley’s column, Roast Busters case handling a shambles. She says that “a lack of resourcing mean police have a huge workload, and systemic failures are therefore inevitable”.
Blogger No Right Turn also asks about the scale of the problem in the police:
“there's an obvious question: if the police were so crap at investigating these cases, are they also crap at others? How many other rapists are going free because police just can't be arsed doing their jobs properly?”
The IPCA’s report does actually address this issue, saying that:
"the Authority has not found any evidence of ongoing and widespread poor practice nationally".
But, according to No Right Turn, this response is to be expected, because the IPCA:
“didn't look. Instead, they leant their mana (such as it is) to protect the reputation of a police force which has manifestly failed to do their job. Because at the end of the day, that's the IPCA's job.
Not to get to investigate, not to hold the police to account, but to protect them and the system they are part of. And as long as that is the case, things will never change”.
Police Reform Demanded
There are increasing calls now for the Government to implement some significant reform of the Police. Much of this comes out of the observation that the institution of the Police appears incapable of reforming itself – an observation actually made by the IPCA itself, in saying that the authority is "disturbed" by the lack of progress by the police in implementing change demanded by previous inquiries.
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei is therefore leading the charge for an independent taskforce to be established. Turei says:
"We have come to the unfortunate conclusion that the police are not capable of making the changes themselves, and they can't be trusted to take seriously the complaints of sexual violence victims in every case”
Others are expressing skepticism about the police apologies and promises to change. Barry Soper says:
“We've seen top cop Mike Bush offering mea culpas, saying they weren't up to their normal high standards and they were disappointed in themselves. How many times have we heard that before?”
“what's most disturbing is that these are all issues we've seen before, in the Police-rape cases. And despite a commission of inquiry recommending changes, and despite the police saying they have made them, nothing appears to have changed”.
Making the most elaborate case for reform is Selwyn Manning, who argues that the IPCA report:
“findings demonstrate how the Police, as an institution, is unable to self-assess what ought to be done about this enduring culture of leniency toward sexual crimes and abuse.”
Manning calls for:
“an authority outside the Police club be established and empowered to root out this culture once and for all”.
He argues that this is necessary because;
“These conclusions paint a picture of an arrogant force resistant to outside commands”.
Police issues are being strongly politicised, and more public and parliamentary debate can be expected. Yesterday Parliament went into an urgent debate on the issue, which included some interesting speeches and accounts from Jarcinda Ardern and Catherine Delahunty – see Jo Moir’s MP recounts 'date-rape and assault' as young woman.
There will continue to be pressure on the Government, and especially on whether they are responding adequately to the release of the report. For example, the Herald’s political reporter Adam Bennett (@AdDeville) has tweeted, “Shouldn't Police Min Michael Woodhouse be speaking out more about #Roastbusters report?”
Similarly, drawing attention to the lack of media releases in response, satirist Lyndon Hood (@lyndonhood) has tweeted what, at first, looks like an incomplete sentence: “The following is an ehaustive list of Government press releases on the IPCA report:”
Finally, for a fascinating insight into one person’s experience of police culture and why it doesn’t change, you can read former police inspector (and politician) Ross Meurant’s controversial 2011 North and South magazine feature, When the good guys are the bad guys.
In Today's Tyrannical "We Told You So" News: EU Calls For Tracking Computers In All Vehicles To Monitor, Regulate Travel March 21 2015 | From: NaturalNews
The controlling surveillance state is deepening, prying further into people's lives like a chisel carving its way through skin and bone. Governments have become opportunistic control freaks, centralizing their micromanagement powers whenever possible.
[The dupes will say "Yes, but that it just happening in Europe" - but the astute now see that this is the very same "thin end of the wedge" scenario that has snuck into the world quite successfully on so many occasions because the dumbed down, sleeping masses were too stupid, pathetic and gutless to face reality beyond the distractions that have been purposely fed to them.]
[If you are incapable of comprehending this notion then you would be best to return to your favourite inane Master Cook / Idiotic Singing Pleb show thing - and never attempt to consider anything beyond such superficial excrement ever again.]
Please excuse the increased use of highlighting - but we are now in the most extreme of times; and some points simply are of too much importance - and the amount of material that needs to be exposed is increasing exponentially.
Now the European Union is rolling out plans to monitor travel on all European roads, tracking drivers' mileages and time traveled per vehicle. This controlling scheme is not for surveillance alone; it's essentially a plan to tax every driver for the for the distance they travel on European roads.
Could you imagine being taxed for every quarter-mile you drive?
A senior European politician is doing just that, calling on all European vehicles to be installed with road-pricing systems.
This would include mandatory installation of a computer that would track how long one has driven on European roads and how far. This plan would serve as a built-in tax, harmonizing all road toll charges across the EU. The plan would end road-side tollss and replace them with time-tracking and/or distance-tracking toll micromanagement systems.
EU Transport Commissioner says computer system should regulate distance traveled
One of the plan's advocates, Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc, is also trying to make the computer system as efficient as possible.She said that the EU travel regulations will put "a burden on car drivers" while becoming an "obstacle to their mobility."
Bulc is advocating for a plan that charges drivers per kilometer and not by time.
Her plan also includes a way to limit the speed of cars to minimize fuel loss.
Bulc doesn't want to encourage speeding drivers by pressuring them for every minute they are operating their vehicle.
Instead, she thinks it's safer and more efficient to charge drivers by the mile.
It doesn't matter which way she looks at it, the plan to install computers in all vehicles is a gross violation of property and privacy, and another way centralized government can micromanage the people and their finances.
Bulc said;
"It doesn't matter where you come from - everyone will only pay for the distance they have actually driven and it will be billed on a device throughout Europe. We're currently investigating just such an idea."
She continued:
"There are many options - a fee could be obligatory but it's also possible to make it optional i.e. that countries decide themselves whether and on which roads they want to levy a road use charge based on kilometres driven."
The built in pay-by-the-mile scheme was slammed by UKIP transport spokesman Jill Seymour MEP.
She said;
"It doesn't matter where you come from - everyone will only pay for the distance they have actually driven and it will be billed on a device throughout Europe. We're currently investigating just such an idea."
She continued:
"There are many options -- a fee could be obligatory but it's also possible to make it optional i.e. that countries decide themselves whether and on which roads they want to levy a road use charge based on kilometres driven."
"[L]ook how the EU overrides the democratic decision of the British people: an unelected Slovenian bureaucrat in Brussels announces in a German newspaper interview that she wants to force all British drivers to fit computers in their cars which will count every mile they drive."
She pointed out:
"Britain will be forced into an EU-wide scheme in which Commissioner Bulc will force all drivers to pay for using our own roads, and the money will go straight to Brussels."
She continued her argument:
"This would be outrageous on three counts. First, it would be the imposition of a tax on tens of millions of UK citizens without the consent or control of parliament.
Second, the money raised would not go to HM Treasury but to the bureaucrats in Brussels who would then undemocratically decide how the money would be spent on their own EU road schemes.
Third, the idea that every British car would be fitted with a high-tech computer tracking every trip a driver makes is an invasion of privacy which we cannot tolerate."
[And her final point is exactly why 'we the people' need to stand up and oppose these incremental, tyrannical "Legislative" additions / adjustments / advancements.
It is so obvious that we are, and have been continuously, over time been "Legislated" into a box of ever dimisnishing dimensions - where does it end and at what point will you realise that your freedom is the target of an extermination effort?]
The beguiling simplicity of the first sentence of an article in last week’s Dominion Post by Wratt, Reisinger & Renwick (WRR) about the IPCC’s view of climate change masks deep ambiguity and confusion about what precisely the dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) hypothesis is all about.
In that sentence WRR say that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and human influence on the climate system is clear.”
The statement that warming of the climate system is unequivocal; it depends entirely on the time period considered.
For instance, mild global warming occurred between the end of the Little Ice Age (say 1860) and now, and also between 1979 and 1997. However, it is also true that cooling of a degree or two has occurred since the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period (say 900 AD), and also since the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8000 years ago.
Planet Earth is therefore clearly on a long-term cooling trend within which the 20th century multi-decadal warmings that the IPCC focuses on represent weather variability and oceanographic-atmospheric oscillations more than they do long-term climate change.
It is also the case that no statistically significant warming has occurred since 1997, an 18 year-long period during which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 10%. That 10% increase represents fully 30% of all the human-related emissions since the start of the industrial revolution – all for no warming.
Which brings us back to the real hypothesis that we wish to test. It is not, as WRR seem to believe, that “warming of the climate system (is) happening” but specifically that “dangerous global warming will be caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”.
Science is about testing hypotheses, and the facts related above are a primary test of the DAGW hypothesis as just stated. The hypothesis fails that, and many other, empirical tests.
In addition, there is another primary hypothesis that WRR have failed to address, which is the simplest hypothesis that explains all the facts – called by scientists the null hypothesis. Given the highly variable nature of both weather and climate through time, the simplest hypothesis is that “observed modern changes in the climate system, or in plants and animals affected by it, are due to natural causes unless and until specific evidence indicates otherwise”.
Neither WRR nor their favoured IPCC scientific sources describe any evidence whatever that invalidates that hypothesis.
WRR’s innocuous first sentence continues “…. human influence on the climate system is clear”.
Well, of course, for we can’t imagine a single scientist who would dispute that statement.
For example, the building of towns and cities alike replaces natural vegetation and land surfaces with industrial materials, thus providing a heat trap for solar radiation and causing the local warming that is termed the urban heat island effect.
Similarly, in the countryside, farmers cut down dark-coloured native vegetation and replace it with light-coloured crops such as wheat. These fields now reflect more incoming solar radiation than did the native forest, which results in local, human-induced cooling.
Adding up the various human warming and cooling influences around the globe must result in a figure that represents the net human effect on global temperature. But the effect is so small that it has yet to be calculated accurately, let alone measured; indeed, we do not even know whether the net human effect worldwide is one of warming or cooling.
The issue then is not one of “is there human influence” on climate, but of “how great is the human influence and is it warming or cooling?”?
As summarised in the reports of both the IPCC and NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), thousands of scientists have expended hundreds of billions of dollars researching this question since 1988 (formation year of the IPCC) without any evidence emerging that the human effect exceeds the natural, random variations above and below the lineal trend-line employed to portray the global temperature signal, or that any of the manifold changes in the natural world around us today are being caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions.
Given that it has taken us 824 words to dissect and correct just the single opening sentence of the WRR article, readers will appreciate that it would take nearly a book to adequately discuss, and in many instances correct, the remainder of their tendentious article.
For interested readers, we have provided a point by point commentary on the eleven points enumerated by WRR at this web address - http://tinyurl.com/m8e5bag. Here, we conclude by offering just a brief summary statement of the remainder of the WRR article - which is this.
WRR (and the IPCC) present many statements of fact with which we, and many other scientists, agree. In interpreting those facts, however, WRR fail to use them to test the DAGW hypothesis, fail to disprove the null hypothesis, often treat evidence in an anecdotal way, and reveal a partiality for adopting alarmist environmental projections from deterministic computer models that have failed to make correct predictions.
Southern Lights: Amazing Pink Aurora Seen In Skies Above New Zealand March 20 2015 | From: Yahoo
A spectacular aurora australis, or southern lights — the southern hemisphere’s version of the northern lights — lit up the skies above New Zealand on Tuesday, as stargazers were treated to a dazzling bright-pink-and-green light show.
Several local photographers managed to capture incredible images. One of them, Paul Le Comte, a 46-year-old from Dunedin, New Zealand, captured the scene above from the Otago Peninsula in Dunedin shortly after 2 a.m. local time.
“The display was so massive that my widest angle lens couldn’t fit it all in,” Le Comte told Yahoo News. “[It looked like] the whole southern hemisphere was on fire.”
Analysis: The Questions The Government Must Answer About The Snowden Revelations March 19 2015 | From: NewZealandHerald
Wrong, says the Prime Minister of the surveillance stories. But John Key won't say why. Don't believe what you read in the newspaper, says the Foreign Minister of reports New Zealand was spying on the Solomon Islands government.
Can we tell the public what the British public now know to be true about their own security agencies? asks David Fisher?
However, there's no benefit in having discussions about it through the media, says Murray McCully.
And those doing the spying at the Government Communications Security Bureau won't assist, saying it doesn't comment on "operational" matters.
So, between the leaked top secret documents and the denials, how do we cut through to what's actually happening?
Broadly, the claim in relation to the GCSB is that it sucks up vast amounts of raw data from the Pacific which is then stored with the United States' National Security Agency.
The data taken from the Pacific can be searched using a computer system called XKeyscore which is operated from access points around the world including at Waihopei at the top of the South Island.
Is it true that there is bulk collection of people's data? And if so, is the information shared outside New Zealand?
The answer could be in the practices in some of the other countries with which we partner in the Five Eyes intelligence grouping of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Five Eyes is a surveillance network with its roots in World War II, bound by a formal agreement called the UKUSA agreement.
For almost 70 years since then, it has seen the five countries cooperate on intelligence gathering and sharing.
There are many close similarities in the way the various bodies operate. The nations are close - we send staff to work with them and likewise, their intelligence staff work out of New Zealand.
To operate effectively as a network, we have to cooperate effectively. Part of doing this is similar laws, methods and systems.
So, when the UK's Intelligence and Security Committee released its report into its surveillance practices last Friday, there was much in there which matches the allegations made here and gives credence to claims about how New Zealand operates.
The UK inquiry, a historic event, followed the leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. It paid tribute to the close links between the intelligence agencies and those abroad, stating:
"The (security) Agencies have long-standing intelligence-sharing agreements with many international partners."
It heard from the Government Communications Headquarters - it's partner to our GCSB - that "SIGINT (signals intelligence) partners can receive intercepted material directly from each other".
The committee's report quoted GCHQ as saying "our default position is to make all our reported intelligence sharable with our [Five-Eyes] partners".
Reported intelligence is that which has been developed beyond the raw feeds it has available but the report also covered the sharing of "raw intercept", confirming that GCHQ did seek and receive such information from the NSA. It did so legally, and did so without a warrant because on the occasions it did seek the raw data there was already a warrant in force.
On the issue of "raw intercept", the British committee signalled further safeguards would likely be needed.
The committee also found that metadata - what it called "who, when, where" information - was also provided by overseas partners. This type of information included communications by email, land and mobile phones, social media communications and other contacts between two or more points. In terms of value, this was considered greater than other means of interception.
It would seem our partner agencies do both of the activities the GCSB is said to have done. That is, they provide information between intelligence organisations, both fully formed "by default" and in its raw form. There is also metadata provided between Five Eyes members.
There is sharing, but what then of the scale of the interceptions?
"Bulk collection" does occur, the British committee confirmed. It says while GCHQ has the capacity to intercept the communications of individuals, it has to find those people first.
GCHQ needs to be able to conduct bulk collection "so that they can generate leads and obtain the information they need to then target those individuals".
Using keywords for searching, the British GCHQ hunts across the internet stream searching for a match. Its report used the analogy of hunting for a needle in a haystack with a magnet. The results are categorised, reduced again by algorithms and search tools before producing a manageable list of material from which selections can be made to access actual communications.
Bulk interception operates across a small percentage of those networks making up the internet, the committee was told. Even though it collects "vast numbers of communications", the total accessed on a global scale was "a very small percentage". It chose which to access based on the greatest likelihood of positive results. Yes, the tool could be turned inwards and search for British citizens but GCHQ first needed authorisation from the UK Secretary of State.
That came with a complication, the committee found. The nature of the internet was such that communications involving British people - protected as Kiwis are protected in relation to the GCSB - were often through offshore webservers and companies.
Those communications would also be swept up. It questioned whether the British distinction of "internal" versus "external" communications was still valid in the internet age.
The committee found bulk interception necessary, citing - as other US inquiries have been unable to - security threats which would otherwise have been unknown.
But it also made "substantial recommendations for immediate improvements to the existing system of authorisation and oversight". It also called for increased transparency, greater oversight and more protections for British citizens.
It seems then, that our partner agencies do engage in "bulk collection", of the sort described by former GCSB director Sir Bruce Ferguson in his Radio New Zealand interview.
"You cannot these days just individually select people... you put out a big net, catch stuff, you throw out the stuff you don't want ... and you keep the stuff you do want," he said.
The British committee also revealed for the first time by the committee that GCHQ and its sister agencies had acquired "bulk personal datasets" of individuals - huge amounts of personal details about people which were subject to no oversight. The report is silent on whether the datasets, gathered from commercial and government organisations, are shared with Five Eyes partners.
On the type of collection, methods and scale, it is extremely likely we are walking in step with partners with which we have shared intelligence aims and material for almost 70 years.
For us to do other than the British do - and the Americans - would create a level of dysfunction across a collaborative network.
The British report- from a society and a committee not known for its openness - detailed the methods its agencies used and gave the reasons why. It examined the safeguards and, in many areas, found they were lacking.
It also acknowledged there was "a legitimate public expectation of openness and transparency in today's society". Intelligence agencies need secrecy, it said, but "the Government must make every effort to ensure that as much information as possible is placed in the public domain".
New Zealand soon has its own review of the intelligence agencies, scheduled to begin before the middle of the year.
What a challenge for New Zealand. We, the smallest Five Eyes partner, have membership of the network through our history as a former colony of the United Kingdom.
Can we produce an inquiry report at least as detailed as that released in the United Kingdom last Friday?
Can we tell the public what the British public now know to be true about their own security agencies?
And if not, why?
"Colossal Defeat" For Obama As Australia Joins China's Regional Bank March 18 2015 | From: ZeroHedge
As The Australian reports, "make no mistake," the decision by Australia's Abbott government to sign on for negotiations to join China’s regional bank, foreshadowed by Tony Abbott at the weekend, "represents a colossal defeat for the Obama administration’s incompetent, distracted, ham-fisted diplomacy in Asia."
As The Australian's Greg Sheridan writes Op-Ed:
The decision by the Abbott government to sign on for negotiations to join China’s regional bank, foreshadowed by Tony Abbott at the weekend, represents another defeat for Barack Obama’s diplomacy in Asia.
The Abbott government is right to make this decision. It had well-founded concerns about the vague and unsatisfactory governance arrangements of the institution when Beijing first invited Canberra to join.
Those arrangements have improved since then and Australia is only signing on to negotiate terms of accession.
If the terms are no good, Australia will ultimately walk away.
Canberra’s move follows similar decisions by Britain, Singapore, India and New Zealand.
Make no mistake — all this represents a colossal defeat for the Obama administration’s incompetent, distracted, ham-fisted diplomacy in Asia.
The Obama administration didn’t want Australia to sign up for the China-led AIIB. The Abbott government rightly feels that it owes Obama nothing.
Obama went out of his way to embarrass the Prime Minister politically on climate change with a rogue speech at the G20 summit in Brisbane.
The speech had been billed as dealing with American leadership in Asia and instead was full of material designed to embarrass Abbott.
Since then, the Abbott government has felt absolutely zero subjective good will for Obama.
This is an outlook shared by many American allies.
It’s important to get all the distinctions right here.
The Abbott government operates foreign policy in Australia’s national interest.
That includes full fidelity to the American alliance and to supporting US strategic leadership.
But the Obama administration has neither the continuous presence, nor the tactical wherewithal nor the store of goodwill or personal relationships to carry Canberra, or other allies, on non-essential matters.
The Obama administration has tried to convince both its friends and allies not to join the China Bank.
This was probably a bad call in itself, but, as so often with the Obama administration, it was a bad call badly implemented.
The characteristically bad implementation has helped shred Obama’s diplomatic credibility.
The Chinese have been the US’s best friends in Asia, diplomatically. Their territorial aggressiveness in the East and South China Seas has driven Asia to embrace America’s security role more tightly than ever.
The American military are now the best American diplomats in Asia by far.
Such prestige as the US enjoys in Asia these days rests disproportionately on the shoulders of the US military.
Obama has neglected and mistreated allies and as a result Washington has much less influence than previously.
The saga of the China Bank is almost a textbook case of the failure of Obama’s foreign policy.
* * *
As we have detailed recently, Australia is in trouble economically and its pivot to China makes perfect self-preservation sense... as Sheridan notes:
Obama treats allies shabbily and as a result he loses influence with them and then seems perpetually surprised at this outcome.
The Asian professionals in Washington regard the Obama administration as particularly ineffective in Asia.
The consensus is that the Obama White House is insular, isolated, inward-looking, focused on the President’s personal image and ineffective in foreign policy.
Britain and Australia might be too polite to tell the US straight up – “Look, you have $18.1 trillion in official debt, you have $42 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and you’re kind of a dick. I’m dumping you.”
So instead they’re going with the “it’s not you, it’s me” approach.
But to anyone paying attention, it’s pretty obvious where this trend is going.
It won’t be long before other western nations jump on the anti-dollar bandwagon with action and not just words.
* * *
Bottom line: this isn’t theory or conjecture anymore. Every shred of objective evidence suggests that the dollar’s dominance is coming to an end.
Prime Minister's Response To TPPA Protests 'Ignorant And Arrogant' March 17 2015 | From: Yahoo
"The Prime Minister’s response to yesterday’s [March 7] mass protests against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) across 23 towns and cities was both ignorant and arrogant", says Edward Miller, who coordinated the protests for It’s Our Future network.
"First, Key says people are being misled over a deal, but he insists the details must remain secret. Then he says people can trust him not to do anything bad for New Zealand, even though he won’t tell them what he’s doing."
Miller says:
"The Prime Minister is insulting ordinary Kiwis in communities across New Zealand. People instinctively distrust secret deals. If the TPPA’s really so good for us the Prime Minister needs to release the text now. He won’t because it isn’t."
The evidence shows that Key is misleading people about what the deal means for New Zealand, according to Miller.
"There is nothing to suggest there will be real economic benefits to the country. But the leaked texts show that there are real costs. More expensive medicines, special rights for foreign investors to sue the government, limits on Internet freedom are all there",says Miller.
"Despite some truly horrendous weather in certain parts of the country, more than 10,000 people attended yesterday’s rallies around the country. New towns came on board and groups like Doctors for Healthy Trade and medical students associations had a strong presence nationwide. That demonstrates how incensed Kiwis are that these negotiations that affect their lives are continuing behind closed doors."
The [Cabal Controlled] American Empire Is A Threat To Every Nation’s Security March 16 2015 | From: EmpireExposed
President Obama just declared Venezuela a threat to US national security, which is code word for any smaller, less powerful nation possessing balls enough to thumb its nose at the Empire bully America. The lie of accusing another sovereign nation as a threat to US national security like clockwork is the first step toward levying economic sanctions. Cuba, Iran, Syria and Russia come readily to mind.
This petty, tit for tat politics game comes only a week after Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro announced a drastic downsizing of US Embassy employees and that tourist visas for any Americans traveling to his country would be required, not exactly actions posing much of a “threat" to America. In fact Maduro is exercising remarkable restraint considering that Canada and the US attempted to overthrow the Venezuelan president on Valentine’s Day last month. But with rejuvenated resolve and concerted focus the United States is once again intent on bringing Maduro down.
Obama has been hypocritically playing the ethics card again, accusing the Maduro government of being corrupt and guilty of egregious human rights violations, everything that the US is guilty of in spades. Again Obama can hardly take any higher moral ground on human rights issues when he leads the nation that imprisons one quarter of the world’s prison population despite comprising only 5% of the total global population.
Civil liberties are fast disappearing in the prison-industrial complex of America amidst an increasing hostile police state where US law enforcement’s been steadily arming and militarizing to make war against its own citizens who risk death from police bullets at a rate 55 times greater than from any so called terrorist and 100 times more likely to be killed by police than citizens from any other industrialized nation.
Where half the current prison population is of the same race he is, Obama should be the last one to criticize any nation for its human rights record when a stronger case can be argued that it’s the United States that is the worst human rights violator on the planet. No other nation on earth has violated and destroyed more human lives and nations than US Empire’s killing machine.
According to a study nearly a decade ago, the USA has accounted for an estimated 30 million deaths around the globe just since World War II. With thousands more US inflicted casualties since that statistic was released, the murder capital of the world with all its exceptionalism just keeps on killing. And no other nation on earth even remotely comes close to the dubious distinction of being at war 93% of its time in existence.
Every single country in this world that in any way resists the Empire’s relentless onslaught to make it another indebted globalist puppet state is targeted in its crosshairs.
While the neocon overthrow in Ukraine was unfolding last year, the double hat trick in-the-making to also remove from power Venezuela’s Maduro was barely being thwarted but successfully averted.
All the same subversive US tactics were being simultaneously deployed in both countries with different outcomes - pouring unlimited cash into the nations (per Victoria Neuland $5 billion in Ukraine alone) through CIA and State Department NGO’s, inside false flag snipers murdering street protesters in order to blame government security forces, a steady feed of social media lies and propaganda, and monetary manipulation through high inflation while creating acute food supply shortages.
It was close to a coup in Caracas but no cigar for the US neocon criminals last month or last year.
Similar to Syria’s Bashir al Assad, Nicolas Maduro’s post- Chavez government has remained in power much to Empire’s chagrin despite being permanently targeted for regime change. All the more reason a year later to hone in on twisting the screws a little tighter on Venezuela.
With civil liberties and human rights declining across the boards globally, Venezuela has been the only nation close to democracy with its own nationalized oil company. Up until his death two years ago, during his 14 years as head of state despite a couple unsuccessful US sponsored coup attempts, Hugo Chavez brought significant economic and social progress to his country.
Containing the world’s largest reserves of crude oil and owning the US company Citgo as its subsidiary, the big boys like Exxon and Shell have been locked out of the richest oil nation on earth and for that reason alone, Chavez and Maduro’s Venezuela has long been the biggest hemispheric thorn in America’s side. Under Hugo Chavez, oil profits went to the people of Venezuela to build schools and hospitals and improve their quality of life rather than filling the filthy rich pockets of Big Oil or OPEC allies that finance and sponsor terrorism.
And that made war criminals George W. and his pal Dick Cheney hopping mad, especially after Hugo addressing the United Nations General Assembly nearly a decade ago brazenly yet accurately “outed” Bush as “the devil.” And ever since Chavez’ successor replaced him, the United States has been gunning to overthrow Nicolas Maduro.
Be it Syria, Iran, Russia (though Putin has proven both smarter and stronger than US ever estimated), North Korea or Cuba, all of these nations have shown far more resilience, self-sufficiency and defiant independence than the United States would ever care to admit.
Rarely has such open defiance against Empire imperialism survived. Look what happened to onetime US allies Iraq and Libya. After dumping the US petrodollar, both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi quickly fell victim to Empire wrath that has willfully destroyed those two once stable, prosperous, oil producing giants. Crime partnering with the likes of Israel, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda-ISIS, the globalist Empire wrecking crew has chewed up and spit out Iraq and Libya onto the heap of its growing failed state graveyard.
The formidable economic alliance of the emerging powerhouse BRICS nations coalescing behind the renewed partnership strength of Russia and China are leading the way toward global independence from the Western central banking cabal’s US dollar chokehold as standard international currency, and as a result, the global balance of power is dramatically shifting.
Upon high command order from western oligarchs, the US Empire is desperately lashing out as it rapidly freefalls towards impending economic collapse.
With counterterrorism measures in the name of national security exponentially taking tyrannical hold throughout the Western bloc - in North America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Europe, globalized NWO totalitarianism is moving in for its kill.
With a big bang the United States and Europe as the WWIII warfront appear to be going down as the Western ruling elite’s sacrificial lambs. The Middle Eastern front of course is Iran and Syria where their alliance with Russia and China will bring them into world war in the Gulf.
The sad but very sobering fact that if any sovereign nation on this planet dares to refuse to play this predatory internationalist game bent on obliterating its autonomy actively opposing forced acquisition into Empire fiefdom, then bar none that nation becomes a so called “threat to US national security,” now synonymous with New World Order.
That’s how Empiric imperialism operates as the big fish gobbles up the little fish in the increasingly toxic global pond cesspool.
The might makes right, “my dick’s bigger than yours” syndrome that’s always characterized violence in human history is nothing but political, economic and military Darwinism at its lowest and most base.
In the modern tradition of the British and American Empires, even the propaganda whitewash brainwash that always perfumed the stench of murderous bullies spreading their lies of freedom and democracy no longer can possibly cover up the sheer ugliness and brutality of globalized exploitation, mass genocide and world order slavery that currently has the planet suffocating from a tightening NWO death grip.
With repeated calls for yet more oppression in the name of national security, Obama never fails to justify all his actions by trumpeting America’s exceptionalism. The world’s only superpower is free to commit murder, war crimes, regime changes, invasions, occupations and wars at will simply because it can get away with it.
Empire exceptionalism permits it to stand alone in violation of every known international law, treaty, UN Charter and Geneva Convention rule in total defiance of every world court and tribunal only because it can. Obama’s incessantly citing US exceptionalism is always accompanied by his worn-out rhetoric and jingoistic masturbation touting the greatness of America and its blessed people.
He never fails to emphasize the urgent need for the United States to take the lead in imparting its brand of democracy to the waiting rest of the world.
Of course he must always also pay tribute to our brave young men and women in uniform loyally defending our coveted freedom that the so called terrorists are always so jealous of.
This hubris of deception and hypocrisy behind his ad nauseam lies spewing forth is wearing ever so thin to the fast growing crowd of outraged Americans joining the rest of the planet that for a long time have painfully known that it’s the United States of America that’s the real threat to every nation’s security on this earth and that it’s the current criminal syndicate of US Empire posing as the rogue globalist government that urgently needs a complete “regime change” overhaul.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com.
Global Terror: The British Connection March 15 2015 | From: HumansAreFree
"There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.” – Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II speaking to Paul Burrell, former butler to the late Princess Diana
On July 7, 2005 bombings on the London subway system and a bus killed 52 people and injured 700. As the list of unanswered questions and inconsistencies about the attacks continued to grow, blame was quickly laid on ‘al Qaeda’.
The effects of the London bombings were immediate: There was a renewed commitment by Western leaders to the ‘war on terror’. Most other stories and scandals were wiped off newspaper front pages, including UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s plummeting popularity.
The bombings occurred while the G8 Summit was going on in nearby Gleneagles, Scotland. It was here the topic of terrorism was beginning to seem tired amid broadening demands for debt cancellation for impoverished countries.
US President George Bush’s priority – the ‘war on terror’ – was moving out of the limelight.
Afterwards, with London smoking and bleeding, Bush and Blair were able to stand up tall and look strong as they declared the ‘war on terror’ would be won: “we will prevail and they will not,” and, “we alone are fighting” to defend “the values of Western civilisation.”
Terror returned to front and centre and further debt cancellation was forgotten.The bombings were the green light for Tony Blair to introduce draconian anti-terrorism legislation which had previously been thwarted by judicial rulings designed to protect human rights.
Blair said he plans policies for deportation of people who “foster hatred.” Parliament will also be asked to pass a law against “condoning” or “glorifying terrorism” anywhere in the world, and giving the government the power to close places of worship. Lists are to be drawn up of ‘extremist’ websites, bookshops and centres.
A clampdown on words or actions likely to be seen as ‘glorifying terrorism’ could affect groups and individuals unconnected to ‘Islamic extremism’ – animal rights activists, for example, may have to change much of what they write if they are not to fall foul of the legislation.
British MP George Galloway, a vocal supporter of the Iraqi resistance movement, could be charged under the new law because the government has demonised the resistance as ‘terrorists’.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard also announced a similar review to ‘tighten up’ anti-terrorism legislation.
Who was ultimately responsible for the July 7 bombings remains a mystery. But authorities seemed to know who was behind it soon after the attack. London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair had already made up his mind when he said the investigation into the bombs will uncover a “clear al Qaeda link.”
Responding to news of the July 7 bombings, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who heads Iran’s top legislative watchdog the Guardian Council, said the British had themselves to blame.
“One possible set of culprits is al Qaeda. But al Qaeda is Bush and Blair. Who launched al Qaeda? You must be tried, you who are the mothers of al Qaeda,”he told worshippers at Friday prayers in Tehran.
“The other likelihood is that the British regime may have carried out the attack itself… because it benefits most… They want to justify their presence in Iraq and Afghanistan,”he added.
"You Shouldn't Worry If You've Got Nothing To Hide” is one of the mantras trotted out when New Zealanders complain about the GCSB having access to their private communications.
There is some speculation that the 'Fonterra 1080 poisoning threat' debacle is in fact a false flag cook-up to distract the mainstream media from the ongoing NSA / GCSB / FVEY spying evidence that is braising the Prime Ministers goose somewhat publicly.
Let’s turn that mantra around as ask those running the GCSB why the feel they have to hide from public everything they do. Is it because, as recent revelations show, the agency is more about serving the interests of the US government than that of New Zealanders?
No Public Accountability for the GCSB
March 9 2015 | EveningReport
When I [Keith Locke] was an MP I ran up against a brick wall when I asked any questions about the GCSB, the Waihopai spy station or the Five Eyes. “We don’t comment on matters of national security” was the routine reply from the Prime Minister (Helen Clark followed by John Key).
The PM’s stonewalling has become even more absurd now that the Snowden documents have shown that the GCSB is intercepting and collecting virtually all the communications in Pacific Island states.
When asked whether former GCSB head Bruce Ferguson was right that the agency does engage in mass communications data collection, the PM said he didn’t know what Ferguson meant? He also said there was no obligation on the GCSB to inform any New Zealander that details about their private communications were being collected.
Everything the GCSB does is lawful, Key, claimed, forgetting the Privacy Act and forgetting his previous assurance that the GCSB Act does not allow for mass surveillance of New Zealanders
To me there doesn’t seem any question that the GCSB is illegally engaged in the wholesale collection of the communications of any New Zealander visiting or living in a Pacific Island, or any New Zealander emailing or phoning someone in the Pacific).
The targeting of Pacific Island government communications (as mentioned in one NSA document) is also contrary to the Vienna convention, and not what a good neighbour should do. The rejoinder of Key apologists, that “all nations do it” is simply not true, and we would rightly be outraged if a foreign government was intercepting all of our government communications.
Parliamentary oversight of the GCSB is a joke. There is an Intelligence and Security Committee, which operates in secret and is now limited to National and Labour politicians. They are told very little as evidenced by the comments of a former Intelligence and Security Committee member, Peter Dunne, who has expressed surprise that the GCSB is collecting communications data wholesale and passing it on to the NSA.
Let’s not accept the PM’s obfuscations. Let’s demand enough information to allow us to have a proper debate about what GCSB is doing in our name. And let us have better parliamentary oversight of the agency through an all-party select committee whose hearings are where possible in public, like other parliamentary committees.
Prime Minister Goes Back On His Word: Statement #1:
Key: I'll resign if GCSB conducts mass surveillance
10:51 AM Tuesday Aug 20, 2013 | New Zealand Herald
Prime Minister John Key says he and the head of GCSB would resign if the spy agency were found to have conducted mass surveillance.
He made the comment to reporters at Parliament in the light of assurances that the changes to the GCSB Act 2003 would not mean mass surveillance of New Zealanders. Asked if he and GCSB chief Ian Fletcher would resign if there were mass surveillance, he said yes.
"But the facts of life are it won't happen."
For that to happen, the GCSB would have to undertake illegal activity.
He clarified later saying "both" would resign if there was mass surveillance.
"If I wholesale blatantly flout the law as Prime Minister I'm never going to survive anyway."
The Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill will be debated in Parliament this afternoon.
Labour plans to move an amendment to try to get written into the law a policy statement by Mr Key last week in which he said he said he would not grant warrants to the GCSB to look at the content of New Zealanders communications under the cyber security function in the first instance, but if the agency detected a serious cyber intrusion, it would have to come back to him for a second warrant.
Labour would require the leave of the House to introduce such an amendment because the part it relates to has already been dealt with. Mr Key indicated that National would oppose leave for Labour to do that, saying it was not necessary.
Meanwhile, [now Ex] Justice Minister Judith Collins has confirmed that the police in the past have used the GCSB's specialist capability to intercept the communications of paedophiles.
Such assistance to other agencies has been on hold since September last year, pending the current bill passing which will unequivocally give the GCSB the legal power to spy on New Zealanders in certain circumstances.
Prime Minister Goes Back On His Word: Statement #2:
Key says he won't quit if mass collection of Kiwis' communications proved
17:27 Mon, 9 Mar 2015 | Television New Zealand
Prime Minister John Key says he would not resign if it is proved that the GCSB carries out mass collection of New Zealanders' communications.
Mr Key has always insisted he would quit if it was proved that New Zealanders were subject to mass surveillance. He insists the GCSB has told him that it is not capable of doing mass surveillance and is not legally allowed to do it.
Late last week former GCSB boss Sir Bruce Ferguson told Radio New Zealand that there was mass collection of New Zealanders' data as part of spying operations in the Pacific.
Sir Bruce also maintained however that it was legal as it was collected inadvertently and that the information on Kiwis was not used. When asked today about whether there was a difference between the terms "collection" and "surveillance", Mr Key responded by saying he was "sure the lawyers would tell you there is a difference".
When pressed further, he refused to comment, saying he wasn't going to go into the GCSB's operational details.
Only the minister responsible for the GCSB would know for sure if that agency is conducting illegal mass surveillance. John Key is the minister responsible for the GCSB.
Documents Shine Light on Shadowy New Zealand Surveillance Base
March 8 2015 | TheIntercept
Near the heartland of New Zealand’s renowned wine country, there is a place that visitors are not allowed to go. The peculiar large white domes that protrude from the earth in the Waihopai Valley are surrounded by razor wire and shrouded in secrecy.
But now, newly revealed documents from the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden shine a light on what is behind the security perimeter. The buildings there are crammed with sophisticated NSA spying technology, used by New Zealand to sweep up text messages, emails, phone calls, and other communications in bulk across the Asia-Pacific.
The documents, revealed Saturday by the Sunday Star-Times in collaboration with The Intercept, show how closely New Zealand has worked with the NSA to maintain surveillance coverage of the region. The files also offer an unprecedented insight into the Waihopai base, exposing how it’s been integrated into a global eavesdropping network.
The spying station intercepts data from satellites, and is operated by Government Communications Security Bureau, or GCSB, New Zealand’s equivalent of the NSA. Waihopai is part of a group of surveillance stations used by the so-called Five Eyes, an alliance that New Zealand is part of alongside the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
The Snowden documents show that Waihopai relies heavily on NSA technology to conduct electronic eavesdropping. The NSA tools and systems at the base include LATENTTHREAT, which breaks the intercepted satellite signals down into individual communications; LEGALREPTILE, which collects text message and call metadata, showing who is contacting whom and when; SEMITONE, which monitors fax and voice messages; FALLOWHAUNT, which targets communications sent over small “VSAT” satellites; JUGGERNAUT, which processes intercepted calls from mobile phone networks (including voice, fax, data and text messages); LOPERS and SURFBOARD, both used to snoop on phone calls; and XKEYSCORE, a system used to gather intercepted Internet data, such as emails and details about people’s online browsing habits.
According to the NSA documents, the Waihopai station is codenamed IRONSAND. Its primary targets are large international telecommunications satellites that provide communications to and from all of New Zealand’s Pacific Island neighbors and other Asia-Pacific nations.
Waihopai’s principal target in 2005, a secret GCSB report from three years ago shows, was a satellite positioned high above the Kiribati islands. This satellite was damaged and stopped operating after a power failure in mid-January 2005. Its work was transferred to another satellite, named IS-701, and later to IS-18, which is now Waihopai’s main target.
GCSB is legally barred from spying on New Zealand citizens except under a warrant. But there is a secret exception that allows the agency to spy on the governments of islands populated by New Zealand citizens.
“Note: The governments of Cook Islands and Niue may be targeted, but not their citizens since they are entitled to hold New Zealand passports,”
In practice, this means politicians and public servants can be targeted for surveillance on the islands even if they are New Zealand citizens.
Cook Island opposition leader William Heather told the Sunday Star-Times he was shocked to learn that the GCSB had spied on the island’s residents.
“We are only a small dot in the Pacific,” he said, questioning why New Zealand would “spy on the family.”
On Wednesday, The Intercept and the New Zealand Herald revealed how the Waihopai base was being used to spy on communications across the Pacific Islands and share intercepted data in bulk with the NSA and the other Five Eyes.
Following the story, the Tongan prime minister said the spying was “a breach of trust,” the New Zealand Labour party leader Andrew Little called the spying a “mass invasion of privacy,” and the Greens filed a legal complaint against the surveillance, which the party’s co-leader Russel Norman said amounted to “crimes under New Zealand law against entire countries.”
New Zealand’s prime minister John Key insisted that the revelations were wrong, but then refused to explain why, telling a press conference he had:
“no intention of telling you about how we do things.”
Meanwhile, former GCSB chief Sir Bruce Ferguson admitted that “mass collection” of data was indeed being undertaken in the Pacific, and said it was “mission impossible” to eliminate New Zealanders’ communications from the data being swept up.
Responding to the latest revelations on Saturday, GCSB declined to comment. In a statement issued to The Intercept and the Sunday-Star Times, the agency’s acting director, Una Jagose, said:
“We do not comment on operational matters. Everything we do is authorized under legislation and subject to independent oversight.”
NSA spokeswoman Vanee’ Vines said in a statement that the agency would not comment “on specific, alleged foreign intelligence activities.”
Vines added: “The National Security Agency works with foreign partners to address a wide array of serious threats, including terrorist plots, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and foreign aggression.
NSA’s activities with foreign partners comply with U.S. laws and the applicable laws under which our partners operate.”
10 George Orwell Quotes That Predicted The World Today March 13 2015 | From: InfoWars
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.”
George Orwell, author of 1984, had tremendous insight on how the global elite would dominate society, and he predicted the current political climate in America today as you’ll see from this list by Justin King of the Anti-Media:
George Orwell ranks among the most profound social critics of the modern era.
Some of his quotations, more than a half a century old, show the depth of understanding an enlightened mind can have about the future.
1) “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”
Though many in the modern age have the will to bury their head in the sand when it comes to political matters, nobody can only concern themselves with the proverbial pebble in their shoe. If one is successful in avoiding politics, at some point the effects of the political decisions they abstained from participating in will reach their front door. More often than not, by that time the person has already lost whatever whisper of a voice the government has allowed them.
2) “All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
Examining the nightly news in the run up to almost any military intervention will find scores of talking heads crying for blood to flow in the streets of some city the name of which they just learned to pronounce. Once the bullets start flying, those that clamored for war will still be safely on set bringing you up-to-the-minute coverage of the carnage while their stock in Raytheon climbs.
3) “War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.”
It’s pretty self-explanatory and while it may be hard to swallow, it’s certainly true. All it takes is a quick look at who benefited from the recent wars waged by the United States to see Orwell’s quip take life.
4) “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.”
My most prized books are a collection of history books from around the world. I have an Iraqi book that recounts the glory of Saddam Hussein’s victory over the United States in 1991. I have books from three different nations claiming that one of their citizens was the first to fly. As some of the most powerful nations in the world agree to let certain facts be “forgotten,” the trend will only get worse. History is written by the victor, and the victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
5) “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Even without commentary, the reader is probably picturing Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning. The revolutions of the future will not be fought with bullets and explosives, but with little bits of data traveling around the world destroying the false narratives with which governments shackle their citizens.
6) “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
Make no mistake about it; if an article does not anger someone, it is nothing more than a public relations piece. Most of what passes for news today is little more than an official sounding advertisement for a product, service, or belief.
7) “In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer…”
In every conflict, it is not the side that can inflict the most damage, but the side that can sustain the most damage that ultimately prevails. History is full of situations in which a military “won the battles but lost the war.”
8) “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”
Haditha. Panjwai. Maywand District. Mahmudiyah. These names probably don’t ring a bell, but it is almost a certainty that the reader is aware of the brutality that occurred in Benghazi. The main difference is that in the first four incidents, those committing the acts of brutality were wearing an American flag on their shoulder.
9) “Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”
Everyday there is a new form of censorship or a new method of forcing people into self-censorship, and the people shrug it off because it only relates to a small minority. By the time the people realize their ability to express disapproval has been completely restricted, it may be too late. That brings us to Orwell’s most haunting quote.
10) “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
Once the people are indoctrinated with nationalistic beliefs, and the infrastructure to protect them from some constantly-changing and ever-expanding definition of an enemy is in place, there is no ability for the people to regain liberty. By the time all of the pieces are in place, not only is opportunity to regain freedom lost, but the will to achieve freedom has also evaporated. The reader will truly love Big Brother.
Healing From Vaccine Injuries Through Homeopathy March 11 2015 | From: GreenMedInfo
While there is much information in terms of the dangers of vaccines, there exists precious little information in terms of how we may be healed of their side effects. Too many give up hope because all they know is the allopathic system; which denies their injuries, not realising that there is hope to be administered by way of homeopathic treatments.
There are treatments that can heal vaccine damage, but few physicians in the conventional medical care system know about them, since vaccine injuries are usually denied as the cause of any illness. Some parents with autistic children report that homeopathy has completely reversed their children's autism and healed other serious health conditions caused by vaccines. This article explains how homeopathic remedies can bring about healing for many types of vaccine injuries.
Homeopathy is not the only treatment that has helped children and adults recover from vaccine damage, but it is the one that is the focus of this article. I will describe how homeopathy can bring about a true cure for the harm that vaccines have caused to children and adults.
“Every vaccine recommended for use by government and doctors has been associated with hospitalisations, injuries and deaths. There is no guarantee that a particular vaccine will be safe to give to a particular individual and will not result in permanent injury or death."
Vaccine Damage Takes Many Forms
It is a tragedy when a normal young child suddenly starts losing the ability to speak sentences or even to speak words after receiving vaccines. The ability to have positive social interactions with other children or adults can disappear in a matter of days after vaccines have been given to children.
Intellectual development can be lost and even successful potty training skills can disappear. The ability to sit quietly, listen to a story being read, accine Damage Takes Many Formsnd the ability to learn can suddenly be replaced with hand flapping, body spinning, head banging, food allergies, asthma, agitation, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, chronic colds and fevers, constant stomach pain, constipation, and a general failure to grow and thrive.
There are also serious consequences for adults who use vaccines. Formerly productive adults can lose their independence and become paralyzed, infertile, chronically ill, and even die, because of vaccine damage. It happens every day, yet few people make the connection between their illnesses and vaccine use.
Please see the previous article on identifying vaccine damage for additional information:
Hope for Recovery from Vaccineve vaccines completely deny any relationship between vaccines and the negative health effects that people observe. Most physicians will insist that vaccine damage is extremely rare and will insist that the changes are just coincidence. [2] Faced with this denial, it often takes years for people to put all the pieces together.
By the time parents fully awaken to the harm that has occurred to their children, many have already resigned themselves to a lifetime of caretaking their disabled children.
Some parents will even receive counsel from their physicians to give up their children to the care of the state, because they have no treatments to offer and can offer no hope of recovery. Some physicians will try to convince parents that this is a genetic problem that might be cured someday, but not in the near future.
The conventional medical care system leaves parents feeling like helpless victims without any good options.
The truth is there are good options for restoring health after vaccine damage, and homeopathy is one of them!
Key Must Explain How GCSB Spying On Citizens Is Lawful
+ Pacific Action Needed Against Spy Net March 10 2015 | From: Pacific Freedom Forum / Green Party
John Key needs to come clean with New Zealanders and explain how it is lawful for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) to spy, without a warrant, on New Zealand citizens who are part of the governments of the Cook Islands and Niue, said the Green Party today.
Documentation revealed today by the Sunday Star Times show that the GCSB’s targeting rules include New Zealand citizens are part of the governments of the Cook Islands and Niue.
Key must explain how GCSB spying on citizens is lawful
“The documents show the GCSB knew spying on New Zealanders from the Cook Island and Niue was illegal, but they decided to ignore this anyway,” said Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman.
“What was the justification for spying on people when the GCSB knew it was illegal?"
“Is John Key saying that New Zealanders in the Cook Islands and Niue are second class citizens who do not deserve the protection of our spy laws?"
“The facts show that there has been mass illegal spying on New Zealanders in the Pacific and John Key needs to explain why it was done."
“This spying agenda accelerated under his leadership, and he needs to tell the public if New Zealand, why he allowed something so blatantly illegal to occur."
“It is not good enough to refuse to engage with the issue as John Key has been doing."
“Every other world leader has fronted and offered an explanation; John Key, on the other hand, thinks he is above explaining this mess to New Zealanders."
“The Green Party hopes the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security will be able to provide some answers to this debacle following our request to her to start an inquiry into the matter,” said Dr Norman."
Pacific Action Needed Against Spy Net - PFF
Pacific leaders need to take action against wholesale spying by foreign powers, warns the Pacific Freedom Forum.
"Freedom of speech includes secure, private communications," says PFF Chair Titi Gabi.
"This is true for not just journalists and their sources, but also for political leaders, community leaders, activists and advocates."
This week's news about the "full take" spying delivers details promised last year by investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald, based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.
Ten Pacific countries are listed in media reports as being targets of spying by New Zealand's GCSB, which gives the NSA full access - and control - over the data.
The countries are given as Tuvalu, Nauru, Kiribati and Samoa, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga and French Polynesia.
However another investigative journalist, Nick Hager, was quoted as saying the spying basically involves "all" Pacific Island countries.
PFF co-Chair Monica Miller said that concerns about mass surveillance must now extend to the highest levels of power in the Pacific.
"We are all familiar with concerns about the chilling effects on freedoms of speech of laws and threats from various governments.
But now its the turn of the public to be concerned about those effects on their own governments."
PFF notes questions of outright illegality under New Zealand law given the fact that Niue and the Cook Islands people are New Zealand citizens by birthright.
New Zealand got support from the entire Pacific in its campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, campaigning with the slogan "New Zealand stands up for small states".
PFF says the spying highlights the need for more regional awareness and action on cyber security.
NZ First Pulls Reins On TPP ‘Trojan Horse’ Nightmare March 9 2015 | From: New ZealandFirst
New Zealand First is taking emergency measures to axe the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement’s (TPPA) ‘Trojan Horse’ provisions, which will allow foreign corporations to sue the New Zealand government for billions of dollars.
“New Zealand First is bringing forward the Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill to ban our government from signing any treaty, which gives foreign corporates the right to seek compensation if they believe our laws affect their business,” says Fletcher Tabuteau, New Zealand First Spokesperson for Commerce and Trade.
“Leaks from the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations show it’s full of nasty details. One of the nastier provisions puts the interests of foreign corporates ahead of the New Zealand public.
It is not just the TPPA but the National government signed us all up to the New Zealand-Korea Free Trade Agreement which has ‘an investor clause.’
This is wrong. New Zealanders must rule our country, not foreign businesses. New Zealand absolutely relies on our exports so trade is essential but the price of trade agreements shouldn’t mean selling our soul.
New Zealand First’s Bill will stop provisions known as investor-state dispute settlements.
It is wrong that the National government maintains a shroud of secrecy around TPPA negotiations, especially when they go well beyond being just a trade agreement. National must do right by New Zealanders and let them know just what this government is prepared to give away to overseas corporates.
New Zealand First’s Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill will mitigate the worst of these new age trade deals,”Mr Tabuteau said.
GAME OVER: GMO Science Fraud Shattered By Stunning Investigative Book Worthy Of Nobel Prize - Altered Genes, Twisted Truth March 8 2015 | From: NaturalNews
The science fraud game is over for the biotech mafia. After years of running its corporate con that pushed dangerous poisons into the food supply and the fragile environment, the biotech industry's lies are now exposed and meticulously deconstructed in an exhaustively researched new book launching March 20.
The Foreword of the book was authored by one of the most celebrated living scientists in the world: Jane Goodall, PhD, DBE and UN Messenger of Peace. The derogatory "anti-science" slur used by biotech operatives (such as discredited biotech shill Jon Entine) against other scientists won't work against Jane Goodall. Her legacy of science is irrefutably extraordinary, and she has received more science awards and accolades than almost any other scientist living today.
What does Jane Goodall have to say about the total science fraud of GMOs and the corrupt biotech industry?
In her own words, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is "...without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years."
She goes on to reveal the stunning truth about the outright corruption, fraud and disinformation that now characterizes the biotech industry and the collusion of the FDA:
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is the most chilling thing I've ever read. It's about the huge conspiracy by the big companies who do genetic modification to keep the public from knowing the truth, to subvert the course of justice.
[GMOs are a] shocking corruption of the life forms of the planet.
...the huge conspiracy by the big companies who do genetic modification to keep the public from knowing the truth, to subvert the course of justice.
...the general public and government decision makers have been hoodwinked by the clever and methodical twisting of the facts and the propagation of many myths.
...a number of respected scientific institutions, as well as many eminent scientists, were complicit in this relentless spreading of disinformation.
Steven Druker is a hero. He deserves at least a Nobel Prize.
...the commercialization of GE foods occurred through the unbelievably poor judgment -- if not downright corruption -- of the US Food and Drug Administration (the FDA)... it apparently ignored (and covered up) the concerns of its own scientists and then violated a federal statute and its own regulations by permitting GE foods to be marketed without any testing whatsoever.
The evidence further shows how the agency assured consumers that GE foods are just as safe as naturally produced ones -- and that their safety has been confirmed by solid scientific evidence -- despite the fact it knew that no such evidence existed.
...it was this fraud that truly enabled the GE food venture to take off. And he asserts that the fraud continues to deceive the public and Congress, despite the fact that the lawsuit he initiated thoroughly exposed it.
...the mainstream media have been highly selective in what they report -- and have consistently failed to convey information that would cause concern about these engineered products. Moreover, Druker demonstrates that the policies imposed by the media magnates have been, in his words, 'not merely selective, but suppressive.'
...he relates several dramatic incidents in which journalists who tried to bring unsettling facts to light had their stories altered or totally quashed by higher level executives.
...it appears that such publications are downright deceptive, not only portraying genetic engineering in a misleading manner, but even misrepresenting some basic features of biology.
...even if these products did not entail higher risks, it's doubtful they could significantly reduce malnutrition or solve any major problems of agriculture.
I want Natural News readers to help make this book a national bestseller
Additional quotes about the book from other scientists
"Steven Druker has written one of the few books I have encountered, in my many years of public interest work, with the capacity to drive major change in a major issue. What Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed was to the auto industry and what Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was to synthetic pesticides, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will be to genetically engineered food. It is profoundly penetrating, illuminating, and compelling, and it could stimulate a monumental and beneficial shift in our system of food production." -- Joan Levin, JD, MPH
"Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is a remarkable work that may well change the public conversation on one of the most important issues of our day. If the numerous revelations it contains become widely known, the arguments being used to defend genetically engineered foods will be untenable." -- Frederick Kirschenmann, Phd Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience
"Druker's brilliant exposé catches the promoters of GE food red-handed: falsifying data, corrupting regulators, lying to Congress. He thoroughly demonstrates how distortions and deceptions have been piled one on top of another, year after year, producing a global industry that teeters on a foundation of fraud and denial. This book is sure to send shock waves around the world." -- Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception & Genetic Roulette
"Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is very readable, thorough, logical and thought-provoking. Steven Druker exposes shenanigans employed to promote genetic engineering that will surprise even those who have followed the ag-biotech industry closely for years. I strongly recommend his book." -- Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods
"Altered Genes, Twisted Truth reveals how the inception of molecular biotechnology ignited a battle between those committed to scientific accuracy and the public interest and those who saw genetic engineering's commercial potential. Steven Druker's meticulously researched book pieces together the deeply disturbing and tremendously important history of the intertwined science and politics of GMOs. Understanding this ongoing struggle is a key to understanding science in the modern world." -- Allison Wilson, PhD molecular geneticist, Science Director, The Bioscience Resource Project
Steven Druker's investigation into the history of fraud and deceipt that ushered in the era of GMOs deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply." -- Pat Thomas of Beyond GM
Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don't entail abnormal risk." --David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
"As a former New York City prosecutor, I was shocked to discover how the FDA illegally exempted GE foods from the rigorous testing mandated by federal statute. And as the mother of three young kids, I was outraged to learn how America's children are being callously exposed to experimental foods that were deemed abnormally risky by the FDA's own experts." -- Tara-Cook Littman, J.D.
"The evidence is comprehensive, clear, and compelling; and its credibility is irrefutable. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded." -- John Ikerd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri -- Columbia
"Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course." -- Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario
"Steven Druker's meticulously documented, well-crafted, and spellbinding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us. In particular, his chapter detailing the deadly epidemic of 1989-90 that was linked with a genetically engineered food supplement is especially significant. I and my Mayo Clinic colleagues were active participants in the attempt to identify the cause of this epidemic. Druker provides a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence and also presents new findings from our work. Overall his discussion of this tragic event, as well as its ominous implications, is the most comprehensive, evenly balanced and accurate account that I have read." -- Stephen Naylor, PhD CEO and Chairman of MaiHealth Inc., Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, & Pharmacology Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)
"Based on over 30 years of teaching computer science at universities and on extensive experience as a programmer in private industry, I can state that Steven Druker has done an excellent job of demonstrating the recklessness of the current practices of genetic engineering in comparison to the established practices of software engineering. His book presents a striking contrast between the two fields, showing how software engineers progressively developed greater awareness of the inherent risks of altering complex information systems – and accordingly developed more rigorous procedures for managing them – while genetic technicians have largely failed to do either, despite the fact that the information systems they alter are far more complex, and far less comprehended, than any human-made system." -- Ralph Bunker, Phd
Publisher's description
This book uncovers the biggest scientific fraud of our age. It tells the fascinating and frequently astounding story of how the massive enterprise to restructure the genetic core of the world's food supply came into being, how it advanced by consistently violating the protocols of science, and how for more than three decades, hundreds of eminent biologists and esteemed institutions have systematically contorted the truth in order to conceal the unique risks of its products–and get them onto our dinner plates.
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth provides a graphic account of how this elaborate fraud was crafted and how it not only deceived the general public, but Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Barack Obama and a host of other astute and influential individuals as well. The book also exposes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was induced to become a key accomplice -- and how it has broken the law and repeatedly lied in order to usher genetically engineered foods onto the market without the safety testing that's required by federal statute. As a result, for fifteen years America's families have been regularly ingesting a group of novel products that the FDA's own scientific staff had previously determined to be unduly hazardous to human health.
By the time this gripping story comes to a close, it will be clear that the degradation of science it documents has not only been unsavory but unprecedented--and that in no other instance have so many scientists so seriously subverted the standards they were trained to uphold, misled so many people, and imposed such magnitude of risk on both human health and the health of the environment.
Snowden Documents Show Extent Of NZ Spying On South Pacific Nations March 7 2015 | From: NBR
Note: After publishing this article it would appear that the National Business Review has been leaned upon by the Prime Ministers Office in a lame attempt to whitewash this story - As may be seen in the revised link above. The oringinal NBR article is referenced below.
The article is now entitled "John Key Rejects Snowden Docs As 'Outdated'". The cabal is in a failing backslide and their inept minions cannot thwart exposures prior to media release now.
Documents released to media today by the US National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden show New Zealand signals intelligence agencies spy on South Pacific nations.
The documents, dated at July 2009 and entitled “GCSB SIGINT Development Quarterly Report” are a series of official reports disseminated among the so-called Five Eyes countries.
They show New Zealand has been spying on the digital communications of various South Pacific nations. The communications collected reportedly include digital, email, telephone metadata, landline and mobile conversations and other forms.
Prime Minister John Key stated yesterday that he believed the information expected for release would be “wrong.”
However, the reports are all stamped with the logo of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) with a redacted address, presumably that of the director of the GCSB.
The internal report states that the GCSB in 2009 was facing a “rapid pace” of technological change throughout the South Pacific as newer cable communications began to supersede older methods such as satellite communications.
Targets for the GCSB include Fiji, Samoa, New Caledonia and Vanuatu.
The collection site is listed as the GCSB’s signals intelligence station at Waihopai in Marlborough.
Other documents from Mr Snowden are expected to be released over the coming days.
The Foul Stench Of Desperation +
Whatever Became Of Economists And The American [Cabal Driven Global] Economy? March 6 2015 | From: InvestmentResearchDynamics / PaulCraigRoberts
Something is really wrong behind the scenes. The insiders are exhibiting an extreme degree of desperation to keep the price of gold and silver from trading freely and to keep the stock market from plunging.
Every time the S&P 500/Dow are in a free-fall, one of the big HFT electronic commications networks (ECNs) mysteriously “breaks”.
Today the S&P 500 was down 16 points and falling quickly. Then the BATS ECN announced that it had to suspend trading in all of its trade routing systems to the NYSE.
It just so happens that BATS is one of the largest, if not the largest, electronic communication networks in the world.
This happens every time the stock market goes into cliff-dive mode. How come it NEVER happens when the S&P 500 is going parabolic to the upside?
The economy is starting to fall apart. The plunging price of oil is just one indicator.
Retail sales down nearly 1% two months in a row with one of the months being December, which is historically the best month of the year for retail sales.
DOWN 1%.
Declines in retail sales are not very common – especially back-to-back monthly declines just under 1%.
It means that consumers are not buying. They are not buying because they have run out of money.
Revolving credit balances have been rising steadily now since 2011. The rise has begun to accelerate:
Contrary to popular Wall Street myth, consumers don’t take out an increasing amount of high-cost credit card debt when they feel “good” about the economy.
Since the mid-2000’s people have been using credit card debt increasingly to pay for necessities: food, gasoline, etc. Many will even put their monthly mortgage payment on their credit card.
This is part of the dynamic that lead to the credit market collapse in 2008. Banks are all too willing to issue them to everyone with less than stellar credit ratings because they can charge 15% (current average APR) on money for which they are borrowing from depositors for almost 0%.
How do we know that consumers don’t “feel good” about the economy? Because if you review all of recent macro economic surveys, you’ll find that they all have sub-indices which measure “sentiment” or “expectations.” Those sub-indices in particular are plunging.
I don’t know how much longer “they” can keep up this absurd charade, but I know when that when they lose control the collapse will be spectacular.
Whatever Became of Economists and the American [Cabal Driven Global] Economy?
According to the official economic fairy tale, the US economy has been in recovery since June 2009.
This fairy tale supports America’s image as the safe haven, an image that keeps the dollar up, the stock market up, and interest rates down. It is an image that causes the massive numbers of unemployed [not just] Americans to blame themselves and not the mishandled economy.
This fairy tale survives despite the fact that there is no economic information whatsoever that supports it.
Real median household income has not grown for years and is below the levels of the early 1970s. There has been no growth in real retail sales for six years. How does an economy dependent on consumer demand grow when real consumer incomes and real retail sales do not grow?
Not from business investment. Why invest when there is no sales growth? Industrial production, properly deflated, remains well below the pre-recession level.
Not from construction. The real value of total construction put in place declined sharply from 2006 through 2011 and has bounced around the 2011 bottom for the past three years. How does an economy grow when the labor force is shrinking? The labor force participation rate has declined since 2007 as has the civilian employment to population ratio.
How can there be a recovery when nothing has recovered?
Do economists believe that the entire corpus of macroeconomics taught since the 1940s is simply incorrect? If not, how can economists possibly support the recovery fairy tale?
We see the same absence of economics in the policy response to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. First of all, the only reason that there is a crisis is because instead of writing off that part of the debt that cannot be paid, as in the past, so that the rest of the debt could be paid, creditors have demanded the impossible – that all the debt be paid.
In an attempt to achieve the impossible, heavily indebted countries, such as Greece, have been forced to reduce old age pensions, fire government employees, reduce social services such as health care and education, reduce wages, and sell-off public property such as ports, municipal water companies, and the state lottery.
These austerity packages deprive the government of revenues and the population of spending power. Consequently, consumption, investment, and government spending all fall, and the economy sinks lower. As the economy sinks, the existing debt becomes a larger percentage of the GDP and becomes even more unserviceable.
Economists have known this ever since John Maynard Keynes taught it to them in the 1930s. Yet there is no sign of this foundational economics in the policy approach to the sovereign debt crisis.
Economists it appears have simply vanished from the earth. Or, if some are still present, they have lost their voices and do not speak.
Consider “globalism.” Every country has been convinced that globalism is imperative and that not to be part of the “global economy” means economic death.
In fact, to be part of the global economy means death.
Understand the economic destruction that globalism has wreaked on the United States. Millions of middle class factory jobs and professional skill jobs such as software engineering and Information Technology have been taken away from the American middle class and given to people in Asia.
In the short-run this drops labor costs and benefits the profits of the US corporations that offshore the jobs, but the consequence is to destroy the domestic consumer market as jobs that permit the formation of households are replaced with lowly paid part-time jobs that do not.
If households cannot form, the demand for housing, home appliances and furnishings declines. College graduates return home to live with their parents.
Part-time jobs hurt the ability to save. People are only able to purchase cars because they can get 100 percent financing, and more in order to pay off an existing car loan that exceeds the vehicle’s trade-in value, in a six-year loan. These loans are possible, because those who make the loans sell them.
The loans are then securitized and sold as investments to those desperate for yield in a zero interest rate world.
Derivatives are spun off these “investments,” and a new bubble is put in place.
When manufacturing jobs are offshored, the US plants are closed, and the tax base of state and local governments declines. When the governments have trouble servicing their accumulated debt, the tendency is not to meet their pension obligations. This reduces retiree incomes, incomes already reduced by zero or negative interest rates.
This unraveling of consumer demand, the basis for our economy, was entirely obvious at the very beginning.
Yet junk economists or hired corporate mouthpieces promised Americans a “New Economy” that would provide them with better, higher paying, cleaner jobs to take the place of the jobs moved abroad. As I have pointed out for more than a decade, there is no sign of these jobs anywhere in the economy.
Why did economists make no protest as the US economy was shipped abroad and deep-sixed at home?
Globalism also devastates “emerging economies.” Self-sufficient agricultural communities are destroyed by the introduction of large-scale monoculture agriculture. The uprooted peoples relocate to cities where they become a drain on social services and a source of political instability.
Globalism, like neoliberal economics, is an instrument of economic imperialism. Labor is exploited, while peoples, cultures, and environments are destroyed. Yet the propaganda is so powerful that people partake of their own destruction.
News Archives
This website is optimised for viewing in Mozilla Firefox
CURRENT AFFAIRS
Your email ended up in their spam folder
Ned Colt
