“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - PlatoSeeking Truth in a World of Propaganda. Links do not necessarily indicate agreement with stories or perspectives.
In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced its findings that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is “probably carcinogenic” – in other words, likely to cause cancer in humans. Then, in late April 2016, an 87-page report by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) appeared on its website, claiming that the herbicide was “not likely to be carcinogenic.” It is interesting to note that the document was labeled “final report,” and was based on an assessment overseen by former EPA deputy director and chair of the CARC, Jess Rowland.
The report mysteriously vanished from the website on the 2nd of May, with the explanation that it had been leaked, and was not, in fact, the agency’s final word on the glyphosate issue.
And that’s where it gets really interesting, because just a few days later, Jess Rowland mysteriously retired.
Of course, the usual “nothing to see here” rhetoric came thick and fast, with condescending references to “conspiracy theories” thrown in the direction of anyone who dared to question the glaring coincidence.
The latest twist in this saga is even more disturbing: A group of cancer victims who are suing Monsanto in a California federal court, have accused Rowland of actively hiding evidence of the cancer-causing properties of glyphosate. And their accusations are obviously not far-fetched, since the judge presiding over the trial has referred to the relationship between Monsanto and Jess Rowland as “highly suspicious.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys have introduced into evidence a letter written to Rowland in March 2013, by Senior Toxicologist Marion Copley. Copley worked in the EPA’s Health Effects Division, had been with the agency for 30 years, and was the recipient of numerous awards.
In a sad and ironic twist, Copley herself was dying of cancer at the time she wrote the letter.
Copley started the letter by referencing her decades of pathology experience and expressed the hope that her insights would be valuable to the CARC in its investigation of glyphosate.
Having noted that glyphosate was originally created as a chelating agent – chelators are chemicals or chemical compounds that react with heavy metals, altering their chemical structure and improving both their stability and their ability to bond with other metals or substances – Copley went on to list 14 different mechanisms in glyphosate that could cause cancer:
–Chelators inhibit apoptosis, the process by which our bodies kill tumor cells
-Chelators are endocrine disruptors, involved in tumorigenesis
-Glyphosate induces lymphocyte proliferation
-Glyphosate induces free radical formation
-Chelators inhibit free radical scavenging enzymes requiring Zn, Mn or Cu for activity (i.e. SODs)
-Chelators bind zinc, necessary for immune system function
-Glyphosate is genotoxic, a key cancer mechanism
-Chelators inhibit DNA repair enzymes requiring metal cofactors
-Chelators bind Ca, Zn, Mg, etc to make foods deficient for these essential nutrients
-Chelators bind calcium necessary for calcineurin-mediated immune response
-Chelators often damage the kidneys or pancreas, as glyphosate does, a mechanism to tumor formation
-Kidney/pancreas damage can lead to clinical chemistry changes to favor tumor growth
-Glyphosate kills bacteria in the gut and the gastrointestinal system is 80% of the immune system
-Chelators suppress the immune system making the body susceptible to tumors
Copley then went on to make a truly shocking statement: She noted that while any one of the above mechanisms could, in fact, cause tumors, glyphosate causes all those mechanisms simultaneously.
Her chilling conclusion? “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.” [Emphasis added]
Copley went on to point out that Rowland’s credentials were outdated, and that the CARC’s science was at least a decade behind where it should have been. She begged him to put personal gain aside and do what he knew he needed to do in speaking out about the dangers of glyphosate.
She ended her letter, “I have done my duty.”
Jess Rowland, on the other hand, clearly did not do his duty.
Sources:
TROFire.com
DeltaFarmPress.com
Drive.Google.com[PDF]
NaturalNews.com[PDF]
TheEcologist.org
Missing and abducted children have been a big news topic lately, spurred by a host of high-profile conspiracy-theories and falsehoods that began slithering their way through social media. A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking we're in the midst of a child-abduction epidemic. But the truth is that American children today are no more likely to be kidnapped than they were decades ago, and much more likely to be returned safely when they are.
According to an estimate from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), there were just 105 "stereotypical kidnappings" in America between late 2010 and late 2011, the last period for which we have data. (For reference, there were about 73.9 million children in America that year.) Just 65 of these kidnappings were committed by strangers. Less than half involved the abduction of a child under age 12. Only 14 percent of cases were still open after one week, and 92 percent of victims were recovered or returned alive.
In the previous OJJDP survey, from the late 1900s, there had been an estimated 115 stereotypical kidnappings and just 60 percent of victims made it home.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) defines stereotypical kidnappings as those in which 1) the victim is under 18-years-old, 2) the kidnapper is either a stranger or a "slight acquaintance," 3) the abduction involves moving the victim at least 20 feet or detaining them for at least one hour, and 4) the victim is either held for ransom, transported at least 50 miles, detained overnight, held with an intent to keep permanently, or killed. In other words, these are "the most serious" sorts of child abductions, as DOJ puts it.
However, not all of the 105 cases in this category are quite as stereotypical or serious as the others. DOJ defines slight acquaintance as someone the child or their family have known for less than six months, someone they've known for longer than six months but see less than once per month, or someone who might be recognizable to a child or their parents but not known by name. In one "stereotypical kidnapping" case DOJ highlights, a 16-year-old girl ran away to live with an adult boyfriend, who is defined as a "slight acquaintance" because she had only been seeing him a few months. So the number of stereotypical kidnappings that the general public would consider stereotypical is actually lower than the feds' estimate.
Both the 2011 and the 1997 data come from the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). By surveying law-enforcement agencies in a representative sample of U.S. counties, OJJDP came up with estimates for the prevalence and characteristics of stereotypical kidnapping overall during the study periods. The latest NISMART survey covers incidents that occurred between October 1, 2010, and September 20, 2011. The previous survey covers incidents that occured in 1997. Here's an overview of what the federal surveys found.
Number of "stereotypical kidnappings" in America, October 2010 - September 2011: 105
Are stereotypical kidnappings up or down? Down, maybe—there were 115 incidents defined as stereotypical kidnappings in the '90s NISMART survey, compared to 105 in more recent research. But because these estimates are based in part on weighted data, the DOJ considers the two numbers "statistically equivalent." However, 2010-2011 victims were much more likely to make it home safely than their 1990s counterparts. In the 90s survey, only 60 percent of stereotypical kidnapping cases ended with the child being recovered alive. In the 2010-2011 survey, it was 92 percent.
Ages of victims: More than half of stereotypical kidnapping victims in 2010-2011 were ages 12 or above. In total, an estimated 61 victims were between 12- and 17-years-old. An estimated 19 victims were between 6- and 11-years-old, with 11 victims between ages three and five and around 14 that were two-years-old or younger.
Race, ethnicity, and gender of victims: Most of the stereotypical kidnapping victims from the more recent survey—approximately 81 percent—were female. Girls ages 12-17 accounted for about half of all victims, with girls age 11 or younger accounting for another 30 percent. About 12 percent of victims were boys age 11 or younger. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of victims from 2010-11 were white, 31 percent were black, and about 24 percent were (white or black) Hispanic. In the 1997 survey, 74 percent of stereotypical-kidnapping victims were white and 19 percent were black, with eight percent identified as Hispanic.
Race, ethnicity, and gender of perpetrators: Three quarters of perpetrators were male, and nearly three quarters were between 18- and 35-years-old. The remaining perpetrators were mostly between the ages of 36 and 45. Around 44 percent were white, 45 percent black, and 18 percent were Hispanic. Relatively few cases (17 percent) involved more than one kidnapper.
Where and how do stereotypical kidnappings occur? About 32 percent of those abducted were taken from a place where they were living or staying (their home, a relative's home, a homeless shelter, etc.). Another 32 percent were abducted at the kidnapper's home. The final 36 percent of victims were taken from a public place of some sort. Most cases featured only one victim (81 percent) and only 18 percent of cases involved a child taken from a group of two or more children. In nearly two-thirds of the abductions, the victims voluntarily went with kidnappers at first.
What happens to victims after they're abducted? In 66 percent of stereotypical kidnapping cases, a perpetrator used force or threats to detain their victim(s). About 37 cases involved physical abuse, 66 cases involved sexual abuse, and 25 cases involved neglect. Some 17 cases were suspected to be related to sex trafficking, but did not necessarily involve sex trafficking.
In more than one third of the stereotypical kidnapping cases, victims were found or returned within 24 hours. In another 31 percent of incidents, the victim was found or returned within one to three days. Only 15 total cases dragged on for more than one week.
For months we've been talking about the massive lending bubble propping up the U.S. auto market. Now, noting many of the same concerns that we've highlighted repeatedly, Morgan Stanley's auto team, led by Adam Jonas, has just issued a report detailing why they think used car prices could crash by up to 50% over the next 4-5 years.
Here's the summary (flood of supply, poor lending standards and desperate OEMs who need to keep new car sales elevated at all costs):
Off-lease supply: This has already more than doubled since 2012 and is set to rise another 25% over the next 2 years. Extended credit terms: Auto loans are at record lengths and lease assumptions (residuals, money factor) are at record levels of accommodation. Rising rates: Starting from record low levels in auto loans. Overdependency on auto ABS: The outstanding balance of auto securitizations has surpassed last cycle's peak. Record high deep subprime participation: 32% of subprime auto ABS deals were deep subprime (weighted average FICO < 550) in 2016 vs. 5% in 2010. Record high units of new car inventory: 2016YE unit inventory levels were near 10% higher than 2015YE, and are continuing to trend higher in 2017. OEM price competition: Car manufacturers have capacitized to a 19mm or 20mm SAAR. At this point in the cycle we start seeing more money 'on the hood' to move the metal. As new car prices fall, used prices look relatively more expensive, which necessitates a decline in used prices to equilibrate the supply/demand imbalance. Increased ADAS penetration: We expect auto firms to achieve nearly 100% active safety penetration by 2020, creating an unprecedented safety gap between new and used vehicles, accelerating obsolescence of the used stock. Rising insurance premiums on older cars could accelerate this shift. Trouble in the car rental market: Due to a number of secular shifts, including how consumers access transportation options (e.g. ride sharing), car rental firms are facing stagnant growth, weak pricing and over-fleeted conditions. As these cars hit the auction, the impact on prices could be significant.
All of which Morgan Stanley thinks could spark a 50% decline in used car prices over the next couple of years. So, for all of you pension funds out there scooping up all of the AAA-rated slugs of the latest auto ABS deals for the 'juicy yield', now might be a good time to review what happened to the investment grade tranches of MBS structures back in 2009 when home prices crashed by similar amounts.
And here are the stats...
Off-lease volumes have already doubled since 2012 and are only expected to get worse...meanwhile, lending standards have gradually gotten worse and worse...
...as further revealed by the growing share of 'deep subprime' loans in auto ABS deals.
Of course, so far negative equity hasn't been a problem for car buyers because lenders have been all too willing to roll those debt balances into new loans. And, courtesy of low rates and stretched out terms, consumers haven't really cared that their debt balances are ballooning so long as their monthly payments remain low.
Meanwhile, none of the warnings about a flood of used car volumes about to hit the market has impacted new car volumes being pushed on to dealer lots.
All of which results in this fairly brutal outlook for used car prices:
Dear OEMs, the first step is admitting you have a problem.
An oft-cited statistic of 5 million non-Jewish Holocaust deaths has no basis in fact, experts say, and may be contributing to denial efforts
In the annals of wrongful convictions, there is nothing that comes close in size to the epic drug-lab scandal that is entering its dramatic final act in Massachusetts. About 23,000 people convicted of low-level drug crimes are expected to have their cases wiped away next month en masse, the result of a five-year court fight over the work of a rogue chemist.
The public school system, the federal government, and even some state governments have recently been destroying parental sovereignty.
“When the government gets up in the middle of the night to clean up puke from a sick child, then they can call themselves a parent.” says my sister!
A mother was horrified after her 16-year-old daughter’s school provided a service that she claims violated her parental rights. The mom, Miracle Foster, became aware of what happened during a school trip when she noticed a mark on her daughter’s arm.
The mark appeared after Foster’s daughter listened to a sex education lecture at her school, Langston Hughes Academy in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Foster’s daughter and several other girls allegedly requested more information, so the school set up transportation for them to visit Youth Services of Tulsa during the school day.
The mother claims a three-year Norplant implant, a form of birth control, was inserted into her daughter’s arm while she was at the clinic. Foster is upset that this happened without her consent.
According to WFTV, school principal Rodney L. Clark said he called the mother for permission before her daughter went on the trip. Clark also released a statement to clarify the Youth Services trip:
“This was not a field trip. Youth Services of Tulsa does an annual in-service on Sex Education. They offer students an opportunity to contact them on their own for more information. The parent gave her child permission to leave the school. Under Title X once young people are at the clinic and are of reproductive age, they can make decisions on their own without parental consent. As you can understand this situation involves a minor and we do not release information about students. Nevertheless, the student was well within their rights of Title X which is a federal guideline that provides reduced cost family planning services to persons of all reproductive age.”
Fox23 reports that teens as young as 12 years old are allowed to receive contraceptives without a parent’s consent, according to Title X federal guidelines.Pure insanity.
The post Girl Gets Home From ‘Sex Education’ School Trip. Mom Notices Something IN Her Arm appeared first on I Have The Truth.
Due to the international media’s continued claims about the «annexation of Crimea», it’s been difficult for the citizens of the US and Europe to make sense of the details of the peninsula’s recent history. Exactly three years ago, on March …
By Dr. Mercola
Glyphosate — the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and other herbicides — is the most widely used agricultural chemical in the world, and testing suggests a large portion of the global population now has glyphosate in their system.
According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the "gold standard" in carcinogenicity research, glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" (Class 2A).1,2
Research scientist Anthony Samsel has also reported he has evidence showing Monsanto is well aware glyphosate promotes cancer, and that they've had this knowledge since 1981.
Publicly, the company has insisted glyphosate is harmless to both environment and human health, but recent revelations are beginning to unravel Monsanto's carefully orchestrated plot to deceive the public.
The evidence in question suggests the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in fact colluded with Monsanto to protect the company's interests by manipulating and preventing key investigations into glyphosate's cancer-causing potential.
What we have here is really the most dangerous situation possible. Taxpayers' money has essentially been used to help shield companies from liability and obstruct consumers' ability to prove damages.
But first, some background: Based on the IARC's classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) followed suit, declaring glyphosate a carcinogen under Proposition 65.
As a result, all glyphosate-containing products must carry a cancer warning. Monsanto attempted to overturn the OEHHA's decision, but Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan ruled against it.3,4,5 More than 60 plaintiffs are also suing Monsanto claiming Roundup caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
One of them is Yolanda Mendoza,6 who has battled stage 4 non-Hodgkin's for over a year. She believes her cancer was caused by Roundup, which she would spray on her lawn every weekend, using a backpack sprayer. She has lost sensation in her fingers and jaw due to nerve damage.
Monsanto has defended Roundup's safety in court by leaning on a 2016 EPA report that found glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic" to humans.7 At the time, Jess Rowland was the associate director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division,8 and Rowland was a key author of that report.
The EPA's conclusion, which runs counter to the IARC's determination, met with severe criticism — so much so, a scientific advisory panel was recently convened to evaluate the strength of the EPA's decision.
According to some of the members on this panel, the EPA indeed appears to have violated its own guidelines by discounting and downplaying data from studies linking glyphosate to cancer.9
Next, attorneys for plaintiffs suing Monsanto found email correspondence between EPA toxicologist Marion Copley and Rowland suggesting Rowland may have colluded with Monsanto to find glyphosate non-carcinogenic.10,11
In one email Copley cites evidence showing glyphosate is toxic to animals, adding "It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer." She directly accuses Rowland of playing "political conniving games with the science" to help Monsanto and other pesticide manufacturers.
According to court records, Rowland also warned Monsanto of the IARC's determination months before it was made public,12 giving the company time to plan its defense strategy.
Then came the next bombshell. Email correspondence showed Rowland helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto's behalf.
In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he'd had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, "If I can kill this I should get a medal,"13,14 referring to the ATSDR investigation.
Jenkins also noted that Rowland was planning to retire in a few months and "could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense."15 This is about as damaging as it gets.
By colluding with Monsanto to declare glyphosate safe and stopping toxicology evaluations by other federal offices, the EPA has used taxpayers' money to hide the truth about a dangerous toxin and prevent consumers harmed by the chemical from being able to effectively prove their case in court.
Without the EPA, Monsanto would have a tougher time arguing Roundup is harmless, and the company has gone to great lengths to get the court to discount the IARC's determination that glyphosate is carcinogenic, insisting the EPA is a far superior agency, referring to the IARC as an "unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body."
Instead of protecting public health, the EPA basically gave the finger to all those who may have been harmed or killed by Roundup by providing Monsanto with the "evidence of innocence" they so desperately need to defend themselves. But now the truth is bubbling out. As reported by Bloomberg:16
"The plaintiffs' lawyers say Rowland's communications with Monsanto employees show the regulator who was supposed to be policing the company was actually working on its behalf.
The unsealing of the court documents 'represents a huge development in public health,' said Tim Litzenburg, one of the lawyers suing Monsanto.
Regulatory agencies, scientists, consumers and physicians 'can see some of what Monsanto was actually engaging in behind the scenes, and how they have manipulated the scientific literature to date. That's important to their decision-making, not just our lawsuits."
Jenkins went on to write, "I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this, but it's nice to know they're going to actually make the effort." His pessimism was overblown.
Another Monsanto memorandum notes the ATSDR "agreed, for now, to take direction from EPA," showing Rowland did in fact succeed in his mission to thwart the ATSDR's glyphosate investigation. Whether Monsanto fashioned him a medal for his feat remains unknown. How Rowland sleeps at night is yet another mystery.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs also claim Monsanto employees ghostwrote EPA reports on glyphosate,17,18,19,20 which were then included in the evidence base the EPA relied on to conclude glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic to humans. Monsanto denies the allegations,21 yet some of the correspondence seems incriminating enough. Bloomberg recounts a 2015 email by Monsanto toxicologist Bill Heydens:22
"'A less expensive/more palatable approach' is to rely on experts only for some areas of contention, while 'we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections,' Heydens wrote to a colleague. The names of outside scientists could be listed on the publication, 'but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,' according to the email, which goes on to say that's how Monsanto handled the 2000 study."
Other emails suggest Monsanto colluded with Syngenta and Dow to publish favorable studies on glyphosate. Monsanto argues that plaintiffs are "cherry-picking" emails among some 10 million pages of documents. But if a killer writes a million emails in his lifetime and admits his crime in one, that singular instance could hardly be written off as cherry-picked evidence. As noted by The New York Times:23
"The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a consulting firm.
Email traffic made public shows that Monsanto officials discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the project. 'I think it's important that people hold Monsanto accountable when they say one thing and it's completely contradicted by very frank internal documents,' said Timothy Litzenburg of the Miller Firm, one of the law firms handling the litigation."
Adding fuel to charges of malfeasance at the EPA is an internal memo by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) dated December 14, 2015, which makes it clear the ORD disagrees with the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs' (OPP) determination that glyphosate is "unlikely to be carcinogenic." The OPP's opinion was originally published in April 2016. This, according to the OPP, was done in error since the report was not yet finalized, and it was promptly taken down.
However, this did not stop Monsanto from using the report to defend glyphosate's safety. The ORD memo reveals the department is closely aligned with the IARC's view on glyphosate, and that ORD scientists raised strong objections against the OPP's findings, noting the OPP did not follow established international conventions when reviewing glyphosate. As reported by GM Watch:24
"'Frameworks for data analysis and determination of causality [between exposure to a substance and cancer] that are currently in effect at the EPA and in the risk assessment community include gradations,' wrote the ORD in its memo. 'The preliminary opinion of the OPP appears not to follow this approach,' adds the latter …
[T]he OPP appears to have abandoned the rules for the evaluation of the dangers of a substance to 'use a yes/no approach which could only lead to describe the substances only as 'carcinogenic' or 'unlikely to be carcinogenic' for humans. The criticism is very technical, but nonetheless crucial. The EPA classification actually includes, in theory, five different grades:
• Carcinogenic • Probably carcinogenic • Showing suggestive signs of carcinogenicity • Insufficiently documented for carcinogenicity analysis • Unlikely to be carcinogenic
• Carcinogenic
• Probably carcinogenic
• Showing suggestive signs of carcinogenicity
• Insufficiently documented for carcinogenicity analysis
• Unlikely to be carcinogenic
Thus there are many nuances that, according to the memorandum of the ORD, disappeared from the preliminary analysis conducted by the OPP."
The ORD memo admits the evidence of cancer in humans is limited, but stress that animal studies show strong correlation between exposure and cancer, noting that "glyphosate has been tested in several two-year studies in rats or mice. A wide range of tumors have been observed in these studies. Tumors have been observed in the thyroid, liver, skin, pancreas, lymph, testis, mammary gland, kidneys and lung."
That said, depending on the statistical methods used, the incidence of cancer may be significant or insignificant, and this is a main point of contention. The OPP claims they did not find statistically significant evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, but they didn't specify which statistical method they used to reach their conclusion. According to the ORD's memo:
"[T]he category ''unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans' can without doubt be thrown out. We can discuss whether the level of evidence is sufficiently high for the category 'probable carcinogen' … But this classification cannot be rejected."
As noted by GM Watch:
"Several questions remain: how will the ORD memo … be taken into account in the EPA's final opinion? Why was the OPP's preliminary notice published on the agency's website before being removed a few hours later?
The EPA states that a discussion paper jointly drafted by the two departments was forwarded in September 2016 to a third group of federal experts, whose opinion is expected to be published on 16 March. This new opinion will in turn be revised prior to publication of the EPA's final official notice."
Turns out this third group of federal experts —the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) — remain equally split over the issue. On March 16, the report from the SAP meeting was published25 showing a wide range of opinions within the panel. Some feel the "not likely to be carcinogenic" designation should be changed to "suggestive signs of carcinogenicity," while others argue there's "no credible evidence of carcinogenicity."
It still remains to be seen what the EPA's final and official decision on glyphosate will be, but evidence clearly shows serious collusion between EPA officials and Monsanto has occurred, thereby tainting the entire process and making any determination in glyphosate's favor highly suspect.
The EPA carries a tremendous burden. According to two recent reports,26 pesticides like Roundup are taking a major toll on health and life across the globe, and by colluding with pesticide makers to shield them from that liability, the EPA has committed a serious crime against humanity.
According to a recent United Nations (UN) report, pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, and chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.27
The report specifically highlights the pesticide industry's "systematic denial of harms" and "aggressive, unethical marketing tactics," noting the industry is spending massive amounts of money to influence policymakers and contest scientific evidence showing their products do in fact cause great harm to human and environmental health.
The report also firmly denies the idea that pesticides are essential to ensure sufficient amounts of food for a growing world population, calling the notion "a myth,"28 while highlighting developments in sustainable and regenerative farming showing biology can completely replace chemicals, delivering high yields of nutritious food without detriment to the environment.
The second report, this one by the World Health Organization (WHO), notes environmental pollution — which includes but is not limited to pesticides — kills 1.7 million children each year. A full quarter of all children's deaths and diseases could be prevented by reducing environmental risks!
Both of these reports offer the same recommendations in regard to agricultural chemicals — reduce or get rid of them altogether. In fact, the UN report goes so far as to propose a global treaty to phase out toxic pesticides and transition to a more sustainable agricultural system.
During this annual GMO Awareness Week, I strongly encourage you to give the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) your financial support. We are making great headway in promoting organics and fighting for a cleaner, safer food supply, but we cannot do it without your help. This week, you can seriously maximize the impact of your generosity, because I will match each and every dollar you donate to the OCA with $3, up to $250,000.
>>>>> Donate Today <<<<<
As noted by OCA in an article commenting on the latest evidence showing what appears to be serious betrayal of consumer trust on behalf of the EPA:29
"Please help keep the pressure on corporations like Monsanto that poison with impunity. We need to raise $200,000 by midnight, March 31, to meet our quarterly online fundraising goal … According to the NYT, while farmers and children exposed to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide were dying from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a high-level EPA official was colluding with Monsanto behind the scenes to hide the truth. And he actually bragged about it …
The only way we will stop Monsanto, and other corporations, from this kind of ruthless disregard for public health is to keep the pressure on — through boycotts, through relentless demands for accountability, and through the courts. We may have lost the battle to label GMOs. But make no mistake — the years of educating consumers about the risks of GMO foods, and the poisons used to grow them, are paying off …
Just this week, a California judge ruled that the state can require Monsanto to label Roundup sold in retail stores as a "possible carcinogen" … OCA, along with another organization, will soon file our own lawsuit against Monsanto — details to be made public soon …"
by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:
I am fortunate in having readers who look after me. Some have offered me refuge in their countries and their homes from what they expect otherwise will inevitably be the midnight knock on my door. Others correct my mistakes from typos to content. As I have never considered myself infallible, I carefully read what they have to say.
Usually those who want to straighten me out on a subject are polite and respectful. However, among those corrections brought in by my reporting on the dangers implied by the warming of the poles and melting of the ice were a few not merely ignorant and uninformed, but also condescending and rude. One even accused me of selling out to the climate change hoax in order to buy my way off the lists of Russian agents and fake news purveyors.
I thought this was a bit much. Of course, the reader could have been a polluting industry troll. I also detected in the comments of some a good brainwashing by carbon industry-funded climate science.
It is difficult for those of us who are not climate scientists to form an opinion with confidence. Even climate scientists have honest disagreements. However, as far as I can tell, it is the carbon industry-funded scientists and think tanks that deny global warming, and it is independent scientists who say it is occurring and who are concerned with the implications.
I always ask the Roman question, who benefits? Some libertarians and free market advocates explain what they dismiss as the “global warming hoax” as a plot against capitalsim by left-wing climate scientists. So where are the right-wing or conservative or merely honest climate scientists? Are all or most independent climate scientists left-wing? Do all honest ones work for the carbon industry?
I find it difficult to believe that the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency, The University of Bremen’s Institute of Physical Analysis, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Danish National Space Center, The Russian Academy of Sciences, the UK Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Accademia dei Lincei of Italy, the French Academie des Sciences, the Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Canada’s Royal Society, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Indian National Science Academy are in a conspiracy against capitalism. “Climate change is real” declares the Joint Science Academies’ statement. http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Climate change deniers make much of a Russian scientist’s claim that we are all about to freeze to death, but the Russian Academy of Sciences agrees with all the other countries’ academies of science that global warming is real.
Now, compare this impressive group with the Koch and carbon industry funded climate change deniers. What interest do scientific organizations all over the world have in orchestrating a false issue? There is no obvious answer to this. However, the interest of polluters is obvious. To avert potentially cataclysmic consequences of global warming implies a reduction in the use of carbon-based energy. This reduction adversely affects the profits of carbon-based energy producers.
My article, which is mainly about the road we are on to thermo-nuclear war, reports as a second cataclysmic or apocalyptic event, the sudden release of massive methane locked in Arctic ice and permafrost. That such a thing could happen seems not to be controversial. The corrections I received from my readers focused on the melting Arctic ice. There is nothing unusual, I am assured, about the ice melt in summer. It always melts and then it refreezes.
Yes, of course, this is true. But what those setting me straight seem not to know is that each year more of the ice melts, but less refreezes and is much thinner. Moreover, the former impenetrable Arctic Northwest Passage has now thawed so much that the passage is open to cruise ships and freighter traffic.
So, if there is no global warming, why is the Arctic ice cap receding, which it most definitely is doing? Indeed, unambigious evidence shows that both North and South poles are losing ice. Apparently, in the Arctic this is because as the ice, which reflects the sunlight, recedes, the darker areas of the sea, which hold the sun’s heat, take its place. In the Anarctic, the ice appears to be melting because warmer water is melting the ice from below. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stable-antarctic-ice-is-suddenly-melting-fast/
Below is a sample of various real news reports on the shrinkage of Arctic ice in the 21st century. The shrinkage is unprecedented in recorded history.
For what appears to be the first time in recorded history, a direct seagoing route from Europe to Asia, around the north side of Canada, is ice free.
The opening of the Northwest Passage is among the most conspicuous results of global warming and average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere.
Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable.
The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet. The extent of Arctic sea ice, which melts to its low each September, has steadily declined over the past three decades, as the chart below illustrates. The years 2007–2012 saw the six lowest levels since satellite imaging began in 1979. The trend is likely unmatched in recent human history, reported a UN panel on climate change in 2013.
We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million sq km which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100 000 sq km per year on average, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is extreme.
Beyond surface area, recent data indicate that Arctic sea ice is also younger and thinner, and hence more inclined to melt. Less white ice and more dark sea means that more solar radiation is absorbed, accelerating the thaw.
Of course, we could dismiss these facts, as a few of my readers do, on the basis of faith that it will all turn around. But we should at least have a basis for our faith.
The thawing of the Northwest Passage was predicted in 2002. No doubt the scientists who predicted the thawing were ridiculed for their fake news and plot against capitalism. The thawing actually occurred three years before the predicted date.
Whereas I am proud that my readers show their willingness to protect me from threats and error, I am saddened to learn that a few of them read me in order to have their prior beliefs confirmed and that when my columns do not confirm their prior beliefs, they kiss me good-bye with rude, aggressive, and condescending words.
The reason to read me is to learn to notice and think for yourself. If you read me, or anyone, for confirmation of your prior beliefs, you are not doing yourself a favor. Uninformed prior beliefs are part of The Matrix. So is carbon industry brainwashing.
Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org
by Derrick Broze, Activist Post:
A representative of the FBI was grilled by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding the agency’s growing biometric database.
Washington D.C. – On Wednesday the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform questioned Kimberly Del Greco, Deputy Assistant Director at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, about why the bureau broke the law by failing to file a privacy impact statement acknowledging the collection of millions of Americans’ faces for the agency’s new biometric identification system. The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) system is made up of fingerprints, iris scans, faceprints, and other facial recognition data. The NGI organizes Americans’ biometric data into a single file that includes personal and biographic data like name, home address, ID number, immigration status, age, race, etc.
The Committee reports that nearly half of all adult Americans’ photographs are in the database. The 2013 U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there are over 242 million adults living in the U.S. If the Committee’s numbers are correct, over 121 million adults are in the FBI’s database. Other revelations include that 18 states have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the FBI to share photos with the federal government, including from state departments of motor vehicles (DMV). According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center:
With NGI, the FBI will expand the number of uploaded photographs and provide investigators with ‘automated facial recognition search capability.’ The FBI intends to do this by eliminating restrictions on the number of submitted photographs (including photographs that are not accompanied by tenprint fingerprints) and allowing the submission of non-facial photographs (e.g. scars or tattoos). The FBI also widely disseminates this NGI data. According to the FBI’s latest NGI fact sheet, 24,510 local, state, tribal, federal and international partners submitted queries to NGI in September 2016.
With NGI, the FBI will expand the number of uploaded photographs and provide investigators with ‘automated facial recognition search capability.’ The FBI intends to do this by eliminating restrictions on the number of submitted photographs (including photographs that are not accompanied by tenprint fingerprints) and allowing the submission of non-facial photographs (e.g. scars or tattoos).
The FBI also widely disseminates this NGI data. According to the FBI’s latest NGI fact sheet, 24,510 local, state, tribal, federal and international partners submitted queries to NGI in September 2016.
Committee Chairman Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- Utah) scolded Ms. Del Greco for the FBI’s failures. “The failure here is years after you were supposed to make it public,” Chaffetz stated. “You were using it in real world circumstances, you were actually using it and didn’t issue the statement.” Chaffetz also asked Del Greco whether the FBI had plans to gather faceprints via social media. “Are you collecting that information that is available on social media?,” the chairman demanded. “We do not have any other photos in our repository.”
Alvaro Bedoya, Executive Director, Center on Privacy and Technology Georgetown Law, questioned the FBI’s claim, stating that the bureau has access to driver’s license photos. “We have access to that data but we do not use it,” Del Greco answered. Jennifer Lynch, Senior Staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation also stated that the FBI has access to “civil photos” in the NGI database.
Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI) also questioned Del Greco regarding the FBI’s activities. “I think the issue goes beyond the First Amendment concerns that were expressed. . .and is broader,” Mitchell stated during the panel. “I don’t want to just protect someone if they’re in a political protest from being identified, the reality is we should protect everybody unless there is a valid documented criminal justice action. Why should my photo. . .be subject because I get a driver’s license, to access?” Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) expressed similar fear regarding the possibility that the expectation of privacy is quickly fading. Duncan worried that Americans looking at the information, “would wonder if were ending up in a federal police state that’s gotten totally out of control, and has far too much power.”
Duncan is not far off. The databases include photos those of people who aren’t suspected of any criminal activity that come from driver’s license and passport and visa photos. Other issues with the FBI database include misidentifying females and blacks at a higher rate. The FBI is currently facing a lawsuit from EPIC regarding the database. EPIC is asking a judge to force the FBI to release records about its plan to share the biometric data with the U.S. Department of Defense. EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request in 2015, but the FBI has so far refused to release the 35 pages of responsive records.
Read More @ ActivistPost.com
Authored by Chris Menahan via InformationLiberation.com,
NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on "all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House."
Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.
"They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said. "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it."
"They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said.
"That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it."
"Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House," Binney said. "And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it actually happens," he said.
"Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House," Binney said.
"And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it actually happens," he said.
"I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded.
Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult.
"This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said. "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."
"This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said.
"Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."
Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state...
"They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..."
Who's going to stop them?
Thousands of US retail stores are set to close across the country in the next two months.
More than 3,500 shops are expected to shut down due to the rise in online shopping, in what is becoming one of the biggest retail closures in decades.
Chains like Abercrombie & Fitch, American Apparel and Guess are shutting down branches, as well as major department stores like Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, and Kmart.
The rusty-patched Bumble bee (Bombus affinis) has become the first bee species to be officially placed on the endangered species list (Photo: Dan Mullen/Flickr)
MINNEAPOLIS – While proposals to place honeybees on the endangered species list have been in speculation for months, some have argued that the population of the world’s most important pollinator could still make a comeback. However, that has proven not to be the case, as the first bee species has now been officially placed on the endangered species list by the United States Department of the Interior.
The rusty patched bumblebee, once one of the most prominent insects in the Midwest, has officially been recognized as endangered by the federal government, owing to a 90-percent decrease in its population in just the past few years. This rapid decline has sparked concern over the potential collapse of the entire national bee population – a collapse that would have drastic implications for both the U.S. economy and environment.
The decline has indeed been rapid, as well as drastic, with 40 to 60 percent of the U.S. honeybee population disappearing just in 2015. The situation has since worsened, with more than half of all bee species in decline and 347 species “spiraling toward extinction,” according to a recent report released by the Center for Biological Diversity.
But like all major environmental crises facing the U.S., there is plenty of disagreement as to what is responsible for the massive decrease in the bee population, which has an estimated economic value of 3.5 billion dollars. However, several studies has shown that the large-scale use of pesticides in the agricultural industry has played a major role in the pollinator’s worrisome decline.
Beginning in 2012, major studies began to reveal a link between certain classes of pesticides – neonicotinoids, specifically – and colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon in which bees abandon their hives and die as a result. These findings prompted the European Food Safety Authority to deem neonicotinoid use an “unacceptable” danger to bee populations.
Subsequent studies, including one conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2014, replicated these results. A year later, researchers at the University of St. Andrews found that neonicotinoids directly impair bee brain function, resulting in the poor performance of bee colonies. Last year, a study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B found that neonicotinoids reduced male bee sperm counts by up to 40 percent.
Despite the growing scientific consensus linking the declining bee population to pesticide use, industry-funded scientists and agrochemical producers are evidently intent on defending the safety and usefulness of their products. It is in their economic interest to do so, as neonicotinoids represent 40 percent of the entire insecticide market, generating billions in global sales annually.
These same corporations and interest groups have strongly criticized the government’s decision to place the rusty patched bumblebee on the endangered species list, calling it a “hasty listing decision” with consequences that “are difficult to overstate.”
One group opposing the decision is the American Petroleum Institute, which is likely interested in the issue because petroleum derivatives are key ingredients in pesticides. The National Cotton Council in America has also voiced opposition – likely because the cotton industry accounts for 24 percent of global insecticide sales.
While defending their products may be in the short-term interest of pesticide companies and other industry beneficiaries, the disappearance of the bee population is a concern for the long-term survival of not just the agricultural industry, but entire ecosystems. It remains to be seen if official recognition of the dwindling bee population will be enough to override industry lobbying efforts among scientists and politicians.
The post Despite Ag Industry Efforts, First Bee Species Listed As Endangered appeared first on MintPress News.
from ZeroHedge:
A new WikiLeaks Vault 7 leak titled “Dark Matter” claims that the Central Intelligence Agency has been bugging “factory fresh” iPhones since at least 2008 through suppliers. The documents are expected to be released after a 10 a.m. EDT “press briefing” that WikiLeaks promoted on its Twitter.
RELEASE: CIA #Vault7 "Dark Matter" https://t.co/pgnfeODXVB pic.twitter.com/vkI16f3vMD — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 23, 2017
RELEASE: CIA #Vault7 "Dark Matter" https://t.co/pgnfeODXVB pic.twitter.com/vkI16f3vMD
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 23, 2017
Here is a live stream of the pending press briefing with Julian Assange:
LIVE: WikiLeaks press briefing in some minutes: CIA #Vault7 "darkmatter" ask questions with #AskWL https://t.co/ldG78exSsu — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 23, 2017
LIVE: WikiLeaks press briefing in some minutes: CIA #Vault7 "darkmatter" ask questions with #AskWL https://t.co/ldG78exSsu
And here is the full press release from WikiLeaks:
Today, March 23rd 2017, WikiLeaks releases Vault 7 “Dark Matter”, which contains documentation for several CIA projects that infect Apple Mac Computer firmware (meaning the infection persists even if the operating system is re-installed) developed by the CIA’s Embedded Development Branch (EDB). These documents explain the techniques used by CIA to gain ‘persistence’ on Apple Mac devices, including Macs and iPhones and demonstrate their use of EFI/UEFI and firmware malware. Among others, these documents reveal the “Sonic Screwdriver” project which, as explained by the CIA, is a “mechanism for executing code on peripheral devices while a Mac laptop or desktop is booting” allowing an attacker to boot its attack software for example from a USB stick “even when a firmware password is enabled”. The CIA’s “Sonic Screwdriver” infector is stored on the modified firmware of an Apple Thunderbolt-to-Ethernet adapter. “DarkSeaSkies” is “an implant that persists in the EFI firmware of an Apple MacBook Air computer” and consists of “DarkMatter”, “SeaPea” and “NightSkies”, respectively EFI, kernel-space and user-space implants. Documents on the “Triton” MacOSX malware, its infector “Dark Mallet” and its EFI-persistent version “DerStake” are also included in this release. While the DerStake1.4 manual released today dates to 2013, other Vault 7 documents show that as of 2016 the CIA continues to rely on and update these systems and is working on the production of DerStarke2.0. Also included in this release is the manual for the CIA’s “NightSkies 1.2” a “beacon/loader/implant tool” for the Apple iPhone. Noteworthy is that NightSkies had reached 1.2 by 2008, and is expressly designed to be physically installed onto factory fresh iPhones. i.e the CIA has been infecting the iPhone supply chain of its targets since at least 2008. While CIA assets are sometimes used to physically infect systems in the custody of a target it is likely that many CIA physical access attacks have infected the targeted organization’s supply chain including by interdicting mail orders and other shipments (opening, infecting, and resending) leaving the United States or otherwise.
Today, March 23rd 2017, WikiLeaks releases Vault 7 “Dark Matter”, which contains documentation for several CIA projects that infect Apple Mac Computer firmware (meaning the infection persists even if the operating system is re-installed) developed by the CIA’s Embedded Development Branch (EDB). These documents explain the techniques used by CIA to gain ‘persistence’ on Apple Mac devices, including Macs and iPhones and demonstrate their use of EFI/UEFI and firmware malware.
Among others, these documents reveal the “Sonic Screwdriver” project which, as explained by the CIA, is a “mechanism for executing code on peripheral devices while a Mac laptop or desktop is booting” allowing an attacker to boot its attack software for example from a USB stick “even when a firmware password is enabled”. The CIA’s “Sonic Screwdriver” infector is stored on the modified firmware of an Apple Thunderbolt-to-Ethernet adapter.
“DarkSeaSkies” is “an implant that persists in the EFI firmware of an Apple MacBook Air computer” and consists of “DarkMatter”, “SeaPea” and “NightSkies”, respectively EFI, kernel-space and user-space implants.
Documents on the “Triton” MacOSX malware, its infector “Dark Mallet” and its EFI-persistent version “DerStake” are also included in this release. While the DerStake1.4 manual released today dates to 2013, other Vault 7 documents show that as of 2016 the CIA continues to rely on and update these systems and is working on the production of DerStarke2.0.
Also included in this release is the manual for the CIA’s “NightSkies 1.2” a “beacon/loader/implant tool” for the Apple iPhone. Noteworthy is that NightSkies had reached 1.2 by 2008, and is expressly designed to be physically installed onto factory fresh iPhones. i.e the CIA has been infecting the iPhone supply chain of its targets since at least 2008.
While CIA assets are sometimes used to physically infect systems in the custody of a target it is likely that many CIA physical access attacks have infected the targeted organization’s supply chain including by interdicting mail orders and other shipments (opening, infecting, and resending) leaving the United States or otherwise.
Read More @ ZeroHedge.com
by Katherine Frisk, The International Reporter:
There is something seriously wrong with the world:
When a country, a government as well as individuals from that country fund, arm and train terrorists who have murdered thousands, tortured them, rounded up women and children and sold them on sex slave markets or used their bodies to harvest organs and yet the king of that same country flies all over the world in a disgusting display of wealth and opulence and gets to ride on golden escalators.
Those who pander to Saudi Arabia, bow and scrap before them and their arrogant princes, accept millions into their private bank accounts and ensure a steady stream of military hardware to this country, are the same people who demand that a duly elected President by the people of that country, not someone who considers himself the ultimate, infallible and unquestionable ruler due to his birth, must go.
Assad throughout the last six years has stood by Syria and the people of Syria in their time of desperate need. Although he is not a Christian he has shown support for Christians and even attended their church services. Unlike Saudi Arabia where Christians are not allowed to set foot in that country. Assad, like everyone else in Syria is fully aware that at anytime he might lose his life. And yet he has not fled to another country and taken his wealth with him as so many so-called world leaders do after they have lined their own pockets and the going has got too rough for them.
When thousands of people die, their families are broken up and their lives ruined due to heroin addiction and yet Afghanistan which is the world’s largest producer of opium is guarded by American military and uses NATO bases to fly out their very lucrative cargo of illegal narcotics. There is no war on drugs, it is a war for drugs.
The same can be said for the CIA who for many years now has been neck-deep in shipping cocaine out of South American countries and has infested the whole of American society to the point where cocaine usage is now considered the norm as opposed to the exception. Between heroin and cocaine it is no wonder that Western Nations have completely lost their minds, their moral compass and any semblance of integrity and real justice has been replaced by mafia criminal gangs, going by the names of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Council On Foreign Relations, Open Society Foundations, Davos, the Bilderberg Group, the P2 lodge and so many others that now control every sector of society.
There is something very wrong with the world:
When a proper investigation is done into the political situation in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza strip and the person who presents this report to the United Nations is forced to resign and the investigation is suppressed as opposed to being presented to the so-called world leaders whose job it is to prevent wars, human rights abuses and promote just and equitable political governance in all countries.
This, while at the same time condemning Russia, falsely accusing it of invading Eastern Ukraine and declaring the internationally observed referendum in Crimea to be null and void even though the large majority of people living in Crimea no longer wanted to be part of Ukraine, which they never were in the first place until only very recently in their history, and that decision was not of their choosing in the first place.
Glaringly obvious is the lack of reporting in Western media about the over 1 million people from Eastern Ukraine who have fled to Russia since the start of the civil war in 2014. Or that it is Russia who has continuously supplied humanitarian aid to the traumatized, starving and penniless people in the Donbass region ever since the Kiev Nazi junta has taken it upon themselves to constantly grad rocket the whole region, this because the people of Donetsk and Lughansk both voted in internationally observed referendums for independence from Ukraine and a government whose policies they neither voted for nor support thanks the coup in Ukraine engineered and directed by Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and George Soros’s “colour revolution” courtesy of yet another one of his Open Society foundations.
Read More @ Theinternationalreporter.org
The same day House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes gave a press conference disclosing that President Trump had been under "incidental surveillance," Attorney and FreedomWatch Chairman, Larry Klayman, sent a letter to the House Committee on Intelligence imploring them to pursue the claims and evidence presented under oath at a Washington DC FBI Field Office by his client - CIA / NSA Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery - who Klayman claims "holds the keys to disproving the false claims... ...that there is no evidence that the president and his men were wiretapped"
When Montgomery attempted to deliver this information through the appropriate channels two years ago, the former CIA and NSA contractor wasn't given the time of day:
[W]hen Montgomery came forward as a whistleblower to congressional intelligence committees and various other congressmen and senators, including Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, like Comey, once had a reputation for integrity, he was “blown off;” no one wanted to even hear what he had to say.
As a result, Montgomery went to attorney and FreedomWatch founder Larry Klayman - who then approached the FBI:
Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia. There he laid out how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration.
Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed “up close and personal” this “Orwellian Big Brother” intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes. He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.
Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed “up close and personal” this “Orwellian Big Brother” intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.
He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.
Given the fact that the FBI had Montgomery's testimony and evidence for over two years, Klayman traveled to Washington DC last Thursday to meet with Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask FBI Director Comey why the FBI hadn't pursued Montgomery's evidence. When Klayman arrived to speak with Nunes, he was "blown off" and instead shared his information with committee attorney Allen R. Souza - who Klayman requested in turn brief Nunes on the situation.
During my meeting with House Intelligence Committee counsel Allen R. Sousa I politely warned him that if Chairman Nunes, who himself had that same day undercut President Trump by also claiming that there is no evidence of surveillance by the Obama administration, I would go public with what would appear to be the House Intelligence Committee’s complicity in keeping the truth from the American people and allowing the FBI to continue its apparent cover-up of the Montgomery “investigation.” And, that is where it stands today. The big question: will House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes do his job and hold FBI Director Comey’s feet to the fire about the Montgomery investigation?
During my meeting with House Intelligence Committee counsel Allen R. Sousa I politely warned him that if Chairman Nunes, who himself had that same day undercut President Trump by also claiming that there is no evidence of surveillance by the Obama administration, I would go public with what would appear to be the House Intelligence Committee’s complicity in keeping the truth from the American people and allowing the FBI to continue its apparent cover-up of the Montgomery “investigation.”
And, that is where it stands today. The big question: will House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes do his job and hold FBI Director Comey’s feet to the fire about the Montgomery investigation?
Klayman has detailed all of this in a NewsMax article, followed up with an official letter to Chairman Nunes today, requesting that he question Comey on Montgomery's evidence. Perhaps this explains Nunes' impromptu press conference today admitting that Trump's team was under "Incidental Surveillance" before making his way to the White House to discuss with the President.
So - we know that evidence exists from a CIA / NSA contractor turned whistleblower, detailing a massive spy operation on 156 judges, the Supreme Court, and high profile Americans including Donald Trump. See the letter below:
Freedom Watch bombshell letter to Rep. Devin Nunes1/4 https://t.co/CZ4haCVauK pic.twitter.com/NnKogSytSC — ZeroPointNow(@ZeroPointNow) March 23, 2017
Freedom Watch bombshell letter to Rep. Devin Nunes1/4 https://t.co/CZ4haCVauK pic.twitter.com/NnKogSytSC
— ZeroPointNow(@ZeroPointNow) March 23, 2017
Freedom Watch bombshell letter to Rep. Devin Nunes2/4 https://t.co/CZ4haCVauK pic.twitter.com/6Ls9a9kXAQ — ZeroPointNow(@ZeroPointNow) March 23, 2017
Freedom Watch bombshell letter to Rep. Devin Nunes2/4 https://t.co/CZ4haCVauK pic.twitter.com/6Ls9a9kXAQ
Freedom Watch bombshell letter to Rep. Devin Nunes3/4 https://t.co/CZ4haCVauK pic.twitter.com/90KUdW9eH1 — ZeroPointNow(@ZeroPointNow) March 23, 2017
Freedom Watch bombshell letter to Rep. Devin Nunes3/4 https://t.co/CZ4haCVauK pic.twitter.com/90KUdW9eH1
Freedom Watch bombshell letter to Rep. Devin Nunes 4/4 https://t.co/CZ4haCVauK pic.twitter.com/l29p9JzBsU — ZeroPointNow (@ZeroPointNow) March 23, 2017
Freedom Watch bombshell letter to Rep. Devin Nunes 4/4 https://t.co/CZ4haCVauK pic.twitter.com/l29p9JzBsU
— ZeroPointNow (@ZeroPointNow) March 23, 2017
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow
Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,
I loved Michael Lewis’ book – The Big Short – about the 2008 Wall Street created global financial catastrophe, that is still impacting the little guys on Main Street eight years after it was supposedly resolved by Paulson, Bernanke and Obama. I even wrote an article about it called The Big Short: How Wall Street Destroyed Main Street. I also loved one of the main characters in the book – Frontpoint Partners hedge fund manager Steve Eisman – a foul mouthed, highly skeptical, open minded guy who figured out the fraudulent subprime mortgage scheme and shorted the crap out of the derivatives backing the fraud, making hundreds of millions in the process.
I had the opportunity to attend a 90 minute talk by Steve Eisman last night where he discussed the financial crisis, the response by the Fed and government, and the future for the financial industry. My perception of him, based on the book and movie, was he was a cantankerous asshole who didn’t care what anyone thought about him. My perception matched what I experienced. He was dropping f-bombs, insulting the institution hosting his talk, making fun of business school students (he graduated with a liberal arts degree) and dismissing any question he found to be stupid.
He was very funny. You could tell immediately he was smart and very opinionated. He was confident in his area of expertise. His diagnosis of what happened leading up to the financial implosion was dead on. He correctly tied the entire debacle to ridiculous levels of leverage taken on by Wall Street banks, warped incentives for financial industry employees and rating agencies, and Federal Reserve regulators asleep at the wheel, convinced Wall Street could regulate itself. I think he was too easy on the people who knowingly committed fraud to buy houses they knew they couldn’t afford. He said they were lured into the fraud by the unscrupulous mortgage industry. It takes two to tango.
He described how the credit standards continued to descend as the Wall Street doomsday machine needed more product to convert into toxic derivative products, rated AAA by the greedy worthless rating agencies, so they could sell the weapons of mass destruction to unsuspecting pension funds, mutual funds, and little old ladies. He openly despised Alan Greenspan as the worst Fed Chairman in history and blames him for the lack of regulation leading up to the crisis.
The slimy mortgage originators offered teaser rates of 3% to migrant workers so they could purchase a $700,000 home with nothing down and no proof of income. After three years the rate would adjust to 9%. The underwriters rated the loans based on the 3%, not the 9%. The home occupier had to pay 4 or 5 basis up front to get the loan. Since they could never afford the 9%, they had to refinance and pay another 4 or 5 basis points. The same loan would get repackaged twice into derivatives, while the shysters made out like bandits.
“In Bakersfield, California, a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $724,000.” ? Michael Lewis, The Big Short
This subprime slime was the fuse destined to blow up the system, but it was the Wall Street leverage which created the nuclear bomb attached to the fuse. He described how the Wall Street banks were leveraged 10 to 1 in 2000. By 2007 they were leveraged 33 to 1. And most of the assets on their balance sheet were toxic debt slime. Eisman was a Wall Street guy and understood their mindset. When he would point out how stupid these decisions were, the Wall Street big swinging dicks would respond they made $50 million last year and he didn’t. They were smart because they were rich.
The arrogant pricks who ran Wall Street firms mistook their self pronounced brilliant results for leverage propelled fake profits. Levering up your firm with toxic un-payable debt made you look brilliant in the short term, but created a debt bomb destined to blow up the world. Greed, hubris, ignorance of the products they were creating, complete lack of risk management, and the immoral culture of Wall Street led to the worst financial crisis in world history. Eisman’s diagnosis of the causes was perfect.
In my opinion, his positive response to how Paulson, Bernanke and the Obama administration “solved” the crisis was disingenuous, proof he’s a Wall Street guy at heart, and not the defender of the little guy as described by Steve Carrell, who portrayed him in the movie:
“I think he [Eisman] seems himself as a defender of justice and righteousness, while at the same time being conflicted.”
In the movie he was portrayed as the moral compass. After hearing his praise for the awesome job Paulson did by saving the criminal Wall Street banks with taxpayer money, I think the justice and righteousness stuff is overdone. Earlier in his talk he said banks existed to “fuck you” – his exact words. Then later he says we had to save them or the world would have ended. He spun the same old narrative that if you didn’t save AIG, Goldman, GE, and the rest of the corrupt Wall Street cabal, unemployment would have been 30% instead of the 10% it eventually reached. I guess he believes the BLS bullshit that unemployment is currently 4.7%.
Other smart people, not beholden to Wall Street (he works for Neuberger Berman), argue that we could have had an orderly liquidation of the Wall Street banks that took too much risk and levered themselves 33 to 1. The people on Main Street didn’t lever themselves 33 to 1, but we got to bail them out. Rewarding failure encourages more failure. There were over 8,000 banks in the US and it was only 10 or 20 who almost destroyed the world. They should have paid the price for their criminality and recklessness. Their executives should have gone to jail. Not one did.
I began to realize Eisman is a liberal Democrat when he enthusiastically praised Elizabeth Warren as a champion of the people and how Dodd Frank has completely reined in the Wall Street banks. He positively gushed about his friend Daniel Tarullo, the Fed’s chairman of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. He expounded on how tough he has been on the Wall Street banks and his gotten them under control. Meanwhile, they continue to pay billions in fines for their criminal acts and Michael Lewis’ other bestseller – Flashboys – documents the continued rigging of markets and criminality on Wall Street.
His defense of Wall Street as it’s constituted today reminded me of the Upton Sinclair quote:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
He is a creature of Wall Street who depends on their good graces for his continued income. He wouldn’t even name Bill Miller as the idiot mutual fund manger who bought Bear Stearns as it was about to go under, because his compliance manager said he shouldn’t do so. It was at this point I realized he wasn’t some prescient sage who understands the markets better than the average schmuck. He got lucky. It wasn’t even his idea to short the subprime market derivatives. Greg Lippman from Deutsche Bank sold the idea to him in February 2006. He just acted on the advice.
His dismissal of overturning the Glass Steagall Act as a cause, Fannie & Freddie’s role in the crisis, and the fact this was a calculated control fraud deserving of prison sentences for hundreds of Wall Street executives, changed my view of the man in a matter of minutes. I find liberal minded people like himself are sometimes excellent at diagnosing problems, but their solutions either exacerbate the problem or ignore the real problem.
He said nothing about how Bernanke & Geithner’s threats to the FASB, resulting in the suspension of mark to market accounting, marked the exact bottom of the market. From that point onward, the Wall Street banks, along with Fannie and Freddie, could value their assets at whatever they wanted – mark to fantasy. Amazingly, the banks and the insolvent mortgage companies immediately started reporting billions of fake profits. Loan loss reserves were relieved, while Fannie & Freddie made billions in fake payments to the Treasury, artificially decreasing annual deficits.
Eisman, the man of the people, said nothing about how real median household income is lower today than it was at the height of the crisis, while Wall Street bonus pools are at record highs. He said nothing about senior citizens who used to count on 5% money market returns to scrape by now getting .25% because the Fed used ZIRP to save the Wall Street banks. Eisman is an extremely rich Wall Streeter. He wouldn’t know how to find Main Street, even with a GPS. He was surely blindsided by the deplorables, outside his NYC bubble, electing Trump as a reaction to the screwjob they received from Wall Street, the Fed and the Obama administration.
His laid back view of the Wall Street banks and how great their balance sheets are, with leverage of only 11 to 1, completely ignores the fact the Fed bought $3.6 trillion of their toxic debt at one hundred cents on the dollar, and the Obama administration took on $10 trillion of national debt to give the economy the appearance of recovery – while the majority are still experiencing a recession, except for Eisman’s Wall Street cronies. He had no problem with Wall Street hedge funds buying up all the foreclosed homes, driving prices higher to fix Wall Street balance sheets, and renting them back to the poor people he pretends to care about.
No mention from Steve about why the economy requires emergency level interest rates, nine years after the crisis. He seems sanguine about a $20 trillion national debt, where normalization of interest rates would blow up the world again. He thinks the US banking industry is the safest it has ever been in history. Isn’t it funny that he did an interview a few weeks ago revealing he is long the banking industry? He is just talking his book, just like every other Wall Street chameleon.
Even though stock valuations are at highs only seen in 1929, 2000, and 2007, Eisman sees no stock market bubble. He expects stocks to go higher due to Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation plans. Even though home prices are nearing 2005 levels again, he sees no real estate bubble. He sees no subprime auto loan bubble. He sees no student loan bubble – he said it’s the government’s problem, as if the government gets their money from someone other than the people. He doesn’t care about the debt bubble, because he’s an equity guy. This type of vision might explain why his hedge fund venture after Frontpoint – Emrys Partners – went under in two years.
My experience of seeing Steve Eisman in person was a letdown. I expected some sort of visionary superhero and I got an abrasive, myopic, captured Wall Street guy, parroting the Wall Street line that all is well, the future is bright, debt doesn’t matter, and stocks always go higher. I left the venue wondering whether I have the bad case of cognitive dissonance and can’t see how great things are, or whether Steve has the bad case of cognitive dissonance. I guess time will tell.
There are two things I learned.
“What are the odds that people will make smart decisions about money if they don’t need to make smart decisions–if they can get rich making dumb decisions? The incentives on Wall Street were all wrong; they’re still all wrong.” ? Michael Lewis, The Big Short
I am fortunate in having readers who look after me. Some have offered me refuge in their countries and their homes from what they expect otherwise will inevitably be the midnight knock on my door. Others correct my mistakes from typos to content. As I have never considered myself infallible, I carefully read what they have to say.
A representative of the FBI was grilled by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding the agency’s growing biometric database.
A new WikiLeaks Vault 7 leak titled “Dark Matter” claims that the Central Intelligence Agency has been bugging “factory fresh” iPhones since at least 2008 through suppliers. The documents are expected to be released after a 10 a.m. EDT “press briefing” that WikiLeaks promoted on its Twitter.
There is something seriously wrong with the world: 
