Thursday, August 4, 2016

Dr. Tim Ball: How The World Was Deceived About Global Warming & Climate Change


Authored by Tim Ball, originally posted at The Rebel,

Current weather is normal; that is, it is well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. There are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

One phenomenon that creates the illusion weather is abnormal is the attention given by the media. We all experience being introduced to a person then seeing them pop up every time we turn around. It’s the same thing with cars after you buy one you see them everywhere. In both cases they were always there, but not part of your awareness. Weather and climate events seem to occur everyday, but it is because they became a media story. They always occurred. Now the story appears and is amplified by the sensationalism of the media with their "Extreme Weather Reports."


The entire objective of those pursuing the political agenda was to create the illusion that current weather is abnormal and therefore unnatural. They wanted to show that all this occurred in the last 100 years as a result of human industrial activity. The objective was to create false science, which was easy because few people know about weather and climate, a fact confirmed by a Yale University study that created a High School exam. Figure 1 shows the raw results with 52 percent getting an F and 25 percent a D for a total failure of 77 percent.

Figure 1

Promoters of the false story also knew people know even less about climate. Indeed, most don’t even know the difference between weather and climate. Weather is the atmospheric conditions you experience at any point in time. The climate is the average of those conditions in a region or over time.

A few years ago I wrote, but didn’t submit, a story for the Globe and Mail with the headline, “An Area of Arctic Ice Twice the Size of Vancouver Island Melted today.” The story then revealed that this was a normal amount of melt. Imagine my surprise when recently it appeared in reality! The headline I tongue-in-cheek considered writing was in a national newspaper:

Melting in the Arctic reached an all-time high in June: Ice has been disappearing at a rate of 29,000 square miles a day.

This is near the average daily rate of melt in the brief Arctic summer, but few people know this is natural. Approximately 10 million km2 of ice melts every summer in approximately 145 days, which is a melt rate of 68,965 km2 (26,627 square miles) per day. The amount mentioned is well within the wide variation in melt from year to year.

Figure 2 provides a brief context to show the wider natural range of temperature over the last 10,000 years. It shows the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere derived from Greenland ice cores.


Figure 2

The current temperature is on the right (red line). Some salient points that expose the lies and distortions;

* The world was warmer than today for 97 percent of the last 10,000 years, a period known variously as the Climatic Optimum, or more recently the Holocene Optimum. We have known about this warmer period for at least 75 years.


* The world was 2°C warmer than today 1000 years ago during the Medieval warming. Remember, you are told that the world is going to warm by 2°C, and that is catastrophic.


* The world was 4°C warmer than today during the Minoan warming.


* We are told the amount and rate of temperature increase in the last 100 years (shown in red) is abnormal. Compare the slope with any of the previous increases.


* The green line indicates the larger trend and shows that the Earth has cooled for approximately the last 7000 years.

The CO2 changes over this period, but those changes follow the temperature. The global warming proponents tell the public it is the opposite. As in all temperature changes, there is a logical explanation that does not include CO2. In this case the longer trend fits what is called the Milankovitch Effect (ME).  These are the collective changes caused by Sun/Earth relationships, including orbit, tilt, and precession of the Equinox (Figure 3).


Figure 3

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not include the ME in their computer models that are the source of predictions about future climate. No wonder they are always wrong.

The existence of the ME explains, beyond lack of knowledge, why the public is susceptible to the natural/unnatural ploy. Most people think the Earth’s orbit round the Sun is a small, unchanging ellipse. Science knew this was incorrect years ago. Joseph Adhémar (1797-1862) proposed that the likely cause of climate change in the earth’s solar orbit.

James Croll expanded the idea and calculated orbital eccentricity effects on solar radiation for different latitudes over 3 million years, and published the results in 1867. The primary cause of the orbital change is the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter. It is a significant change. (Figure 4).


Figure 4

The cycle is 100,000 years, but that is from minimum to maximum ellipse and back to the minimum. The solar energy currently received when the Earth is closest to the Sun (perihelion) varies from +3.5% to -3.5%. When furthest away (aphelion) 20,000 years ago the difference was +8.5% and -8.5%.

Today, 149 years later, this is little known to most. The main reason is that it contradicts the philosophical basis of Western science, uniformitarianism. This is the idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. A quick look at the geologic or any other natural record shows it is false. However, it means people are easily persuaded that a change, especially sudden change, is unnatural.

People were vulnerable and therefore easily fooled. Worse, the deceivers deliberately changed the record to enhance their deception. They created what is natural or normal. Watch the video by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) in which he demonstrates the changes made to the instrumental temperature record, all deliberately designed to enhance warming. These are the people who brand those who question the science as deniers and criminals. This is why it is the greatest deception, but worse, a deliberate deception.


Goldman Fined 0.1% Of Revenue For “Criminal Theft” Of Confidential Fed Information


Last October, we reported that “Wall Street Was Shocked As Feds Bring Criminal Case Against Goldman Banker Over Fed Leaks.” Briefly, because as we also reported several months later, nobody actually ended up going to prison for the infamous story of Goldman Sachs obtaining classified NY Fed documents as a result of the revolving, ended up with two workers getting slaps on the wrist in some modest penalties.





Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Obama Just Signed a GMO Labeling Law: Here’s What You’re Not Being Told


(ANTIMEDIA) Last week, President Barack Obama signed legislation requiring manufacturers of genetically modified (GM) food to provide labeling on their products. But there’s just one problem — err, a couple problems . . . actually a lot of problems. There are a lot of problems with this bill.

The new law originated in the Senate as S. 764, “A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.” Lawmakers commonly insert policies on controversial issues into other, more amenable bills to keep them hidden and ensure their passage.

Sure enough, the new GM labeling bill, focused around a college program, contains language that appears, on its face, to address the concerns of millions of Americans regarding GM foods. While establishment institutions and experts insist they are safe, others worry not enough research has been conducted to guarantee as much.

While the lawmakers who crafted the bill, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), argue it is an appropriate compromise in response to fears surrounding GM products, food advocacy groups found multiple holes in its wording prior to the bill’s passage.

The first — and most contentious — is S. 764’s decree that food companies are not necessarily required to label genetically modified products in text form. While doing so is an option, according to the new law, food manufacturers may also choose to denote GM ingredients with a symbol or a QRC (quick response code) that, when scanned by a smartphone,  will take the consumer to a website detailing further information about the product. The QRC method requires the consumer to have both a smartphone and access to the internet.

While the QRC option sounds high-tech, some lawmakers and activists have criticized its limitations. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) argued on the House floor that “It is an intentional measure to deny consumers information,” as reported by The Hill. “The reality is that not every American has access to a smartphone or the Internet.”

Another problem with the bill is its lax standards and broad definitions. For example, the bill stipulates that if a majority of a product contains meat, it need not be labeled as containing GM ingredients, even if other ingredients are genetically modified (in contrast, a pepperoni pizza would need to be labeled if the flour in the pizza came from GM grain). While genetically modified animal meat is only beginning to make its way into the food supply, the new labeling bill establishes a concerning exemption for the future. Eggs will also not be subject to GM labels.

Further, the new law “prohibit[s] a food derived from an animal to be considered a bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered substance.” In other words, if an animal ate GM feed throughout its life, food companies would not need to inform the consumer.

Even the FDA, known for its collusion with various powerful industries, expressed concerns about the bill’s language. The agency stressed its opposition to labeling, maintaining GM foods are safe, but still pointed out confusion and conflicts within the bill.

The FDA noted the definition of “bioengineering” “will likely mean that many foods from GE sources will not be subject to this bill. For instance, oil made from GE soy would not have any genetic material in it. Likewise, starches and purified proteins would not be covered.

Though the language of the bill is vague, it explicitly nullifies the GM labeling law passed in Vermont last year. That bill, which industry lobbyists aggressively attacked, would be overruled by S. 764, which dictates that “state-imposed labeling requirements would be banned,” as noted by Bloomberg. Vermont’s bill only took effect on July 1 of this year.

Yet another issue with the bill stems from the powerful organizations that supported its passage. As Bloomberg reported, Monsanto, Walmart, and the National Corn Growers Association all pushed for the legislation to pass (currently, over 90% of all corn acreage in the United States is used to grow genetically modified crops).

Still another powerful industry lobbying group pushed for S.764’s passage. As Mother Jones reported earlier this year when the bill was still being negotiated, “Grocery Manufacturers Association [GMA], a deep-pocketed trade group funded by major food processors as well as agrichemical/GMO titans like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, praised [the proposed law] as the ‘commonsense solution for consumers, farmers and businesses.” The GMA also sued Vermont over its recent GM labeling bill.

While the Organic Trade Association (OTA) did endorse the bill, its support sparked division within the organic food industry. Shortly after the group announced its support, one of its member organizations, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Organization (OSGTO), responded by withdrawing its membership.

The OSGTO statement accused the OTA of “duplicity,” adding:

Recent revelations have made clear that the OTA has created numerous close partnerships with Monsanto including intensive lobbying efforts by the notorious biotech-linked lobbyist Podesta Group on behalf of the deal brokered by Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Roberts (R-KS).

The statement also accused the OTA of partnering with organic companies run by food conglomerates who lobby Congress for favorable legislation.

In fact, the two lawmakers who crafted the bill, Debbie Stabenow and Pat Roberts, are direct beneficiaries of lobbyists. Stabenow’s sixth largest donor in 2016 was Dow Chemical, which, coincidentally, lobbied for S. 764’s passage. (Stabenow’s other donors include Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co.) Stabenow accepted more money from agribusiness political action committees (PACs) in 2016 than from any other industry PACs.

Similarly, Roberts’ top PAC donations came from special interests. One of his top donors is DuPont, another chemical company that lobbied in favor of S. 764. Like Stabenow, he has received money from other powerful donors, including Goldman Sachs, Koch Industries, and Pfizer.

Congress follows a similar path to Stabenow and Roberts, evident in that lawmakers have attempted to push anti-labeling legislation — often dubbed Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) acts — through Congress before. “Big Agriculture” lobbied intensely for the latest version of S. 764 and contributes regularly to political campaigns.

Nevertheless, prior to the bill’s passage, White House spokesperson Katie Hill told Bloomberg, “While there is broad consensus that foods from genetically engineered crops are safe, we appreciate the bipartisan effort to address consumers’ interest in knowing more about their food, including whether it includes ingredients from genetically engineered crops.

But considering the numerous flaws in the bill, activist organizations remain steadfast in their opposition. As Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said:

This bill is a travesty, an undemocratic and discriminatory bill which preempts state laws, while offering no meaningful labeling for GMOs.”

Pursuant to the new law, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has two years to formulate specific standards for labeling, meaning the controversy surrounding the labeling of GM foods is far from over.

This article (Obama Just Signed a GMO Labeling Law: Here’s What You’re Not Being Told) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to


10 Facts the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You About the War in Syria


(ANTIMEDIA) Corporate media regularly attempts to present Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria as solely responsible for the ongoing conflict in the region. The media does report on events that contradict this narrative — albeit sparingly — but taken together, these underreported details shine a new light on the conflict.

10: Bashar al-Assad has a higher approval rating than Barack Obama

Despite Obama’s claims Assad is illegitimate and must step down, the fact remains that since the conflict erupted in 2011, Assad has held the majority support of his people. The elections in 2014 – which Assad won by a landslide with international observers claiming no violations – is a testament to the fact that although Assad has been accused of serious human rights violations, he continues to remain reasonably popular with the Syrian people.

Obama, on the other hand, won elections in 2012 with a voter turnout of a mere 53.6 percent of the American public; only 129.1 million total were votes cast. This means approximately 189.8 million American people did not vote for Obama. His current approval rating sits at about 50 percent.

9: The “moderate” opposition has been hijacked

There is no longer such a thing as “moderate” opposition in Syria – if there ever was. The so-called Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) has been dominated by extremists for years. The U.S. has known this yet has continued to support the Syrian opposition, despite the fact the New York Times reported in 2012 that the majority of weapons being sent to Syria have been ending up in the hands of jihadists. A classified DIA report predicted the rise of ISIS in 2012, stating:

“If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Further, an FSA commander went on record not only to admit his fighters regularly conduct joint operations with al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria), but also that he would like to see Syria ruled by Sharia law.

Apparently, moderate can also mean “al-Qaeda affiliated fanatic.”

8: Assad never used chemical weapons on his own people

A U.N. investigation into the first major chemical weapons attack committed in early 2013 — an atrocity the West immediately pinned on Assad — concluded the evidence suggested the attack was more likely committed by the Syrian opposition. A subsequent U.N. investigation into the August 2013 attack never laid blame on anyone, including Assad’s forces. In December 2013, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh released an article highlighting deficiencies in the way the situation was handled:

“In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports…citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.”

7: Toppling the Syrian regime was part of a plan adopted shortly after 9/11

According to a memo disclosed by 4-star General Wesley Clark, shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon adopted a plan to topple the governments of seven countries within five years. The countries were Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran.

As we know, Iraq was invaded in 2003. American ally Israel tried its hand at taking out Lebanon in 2006. Libya was destroyed in 2011. Prior to this intervention, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. In 2015, alone, it dropped 27 places on the U.N. Human Development Index rating. U.S. drones fly over Somalia, U.S. troops are stationed in South Sudan — Sudan was partitioned following a brutal civil war — and Syria has been the scene of a deadly war since 2011. This leaves only Iran, which is discussed below.

6: Iran and Syria have a mutual defense agreement

Since 2005, Iran and Syria have been bound by a mutual defense agreement. The Iranian government has shown they intend to fully honor this agreement and has provided the Syrian regime with all manner of support, including troops, a $1 billion credit line, training, and advisement. What makes this conflict even more dangerous, however, is the fact Russia and China have sided with Iran and Syria, stating openly they will not tolerate any attack on Iran. Russia’s military intervention in Syria in recent months proves these are not idle threats – they have put their money where their mouth is.

Iran has been in the crosshairs of the U.S. foreign policy establishment for some time now. George W. Bush failed to generate the support needed to attack Iran during his time in office — though not for lack of trying — and since 2012, sanctions have been the go-to mantra. By attacking and destabilizing Iran’s most important ally in the region, the powers that be can undermine Iranian attempts to spread its influence in the region, ultimately further weakening Iran.

5: Former Apple CEO is the son of a Syrian refugee

The late Steve Jobs, founder of Apple, was the son of a Syrian who moved to the United States in the 1950s. This is particularly amusing given the amount of xenophobia, Islamophobia, racism and hatred refugees and migrants seem to have inspired — even from aspiring presidents. Will a President Donald Trump create the conditions in which future technological pioneers may never reach the United States? His rhetoric seems to indicate as much.

4: ISIS arose out of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, not the Syrian conflict

ISIS was formerly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, which rose to prominence following the U.S.-U.K. led invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is well-known that there was no tangible al-Qaeda presence in Iraq until after the invasion, and there is a reason for this. When Paul Bremer was given the role of Presidential Envoy to Iraq in May 2003, he dissolved the police and military. Bremer fired close to 400,000 former servicemen, including high-ranking military officials who fought in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. These generals now hold senior ranking positions within ISIS. If it weren’t for the United States’ actions, ISIS likely wouldn’t exist.

ISIS was previously known by the U.S. security establishment as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but these fighters ultimately became central to Western regime change agendas in Libya and Syria. When the various Iraqi and Syrian al-Qaeda-affiliated groups merged on the Syrian border in 2014, we were left with the fully-fledged terror group we face today.

3: Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia wanted to build a pipeline through Syria, but Assad rejected it

In 2009, Qatar proposed a pipeline to run through Syria and Turkey to export Saudi gas. Assad rejected the proposal and instead formed an agreement with Iran and Iraq to construct a pipeline to the European market that would cut Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar out of the route entirely. Since, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have been staunch backers of the opposition seeking to topple Assad. Collectively, they have invested billions of dollars, lent weapons, encouraged the spread of fanatical ideology, and helped smuggle fighters across their borders.

The Iran-Iraq pipeline will strengthen Iranian influence in the region and undermine their rival, Saudi Arabia — the other main OPEC producer. Given the ability to transport gas to Europe without going through Washington’s allies, Iran will hold the upper-hand and will be able to negotiate agreements that exclude the U.S. dollar completely.

2: Leaked phone calls show Turkey provides ISIS fighters with expensive medical care

Turkey’s support for hardline Islamists fighting the Syrian regime is extensive. In fact, jihadists regularly refer to the Turkish border as the “gateway to Jihad.” In May 2016, reports started emerging of Turkey going so far as to provide ISIS fighters with expensive medical treatment.

Turkey is a member of NATO. Let that sink in for a moment.

1: Western media’s main source for the conflict is a T-shirt shop in Coventry, England

This is not a joke. If you follow the news, you most probably have heard the mainstream media quote an entity grandiosely called the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” (SOHR). This so-called “observatory” is run by one man in his home in Coventry, England — thousands of miles away from the Syrian conflict — yet is quoted by most respected Western media outlets (BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, and International Business Times, for example). His credentials include his ownership of a T-shirt shop just down the road, as well as being a notorious dissident against the current Syrian president.


Despite the fact much of the information in this article comes from mainstream outlets, those circulating it refuse to put all of the storylines together to give the public an accurate picture of what is going on in Syria.

Assad may be brutal — and should face trial for allegations of widespread human rights abuses — but this fact alone does not make the other circumstances untrue or irrelevant. People have the right to be properly informed before they allow themselves to be led down the road of more war in the Middle East, and consequently, more terror attacks and potential conflicts with Russia and China.

This article (10 Facts the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You About the War in Syria) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to


At People’s Tribunal, Brazilian Grassroots Groups Leery Of US Role In Rousseff Impeachment



Even though a federal prosecutor assigned to investigate the case concluded Brazilian leader Dilma Rousseff committed no crime, the right-wing opposition led by interim president Michel Temer remains committed to impeaching Rousseff.

On July 19, grassroots organizations in Brazil, including the Landless Workers’ Movement, held a People’s Tribunal to call attention to the democracy crisis facing Brazilians. The tribunal involved witnesses and oral arguments by prosecution and defense on the impeachment process. It also featured jurors, who spoke about their votes, and a verdict on the process.

The tribunal aimed to show how a fair and just process would treat Rousseff and contrasted with the anti-democratic actions taken by members of the Brazilian government with the support of the United States government.

“In today’s world, a democratic rupture occurring in a country like Brazil is not limited to its domestic effects,” organizers declared. “Rather, the impeachment process also produces effects throughout the Latin American continent and also in other countries with which we maintain close diplomatic relations.”

“In order to make transparent to the world the debate on this process of impeachment, which is not based on the demonstration of the occurrence of a crime committed by the President and is characterized instead as a new type of coup, the Brazilian social movements decided to establish in Rio de Janeiro an International Tribunal for Democracy in Brazil,” the organizers stated.

The jury for the tribunal featured representatives from Mexico, Italy, France, Spain, Colombia, Costa Rica, Argentina, and the United States.

Azadeh N. Shahshani, a member of the National Lawyers Guild, participated as a representative of the United States. She told Shadowproof the tribunal “really meant a lot to the social justice movement in Brazil.” Some members of Rousseff’s party even appeared to speak to those in attendance.

A verdict in full support of Rousseff and against the impeachment process was handed down by the academics and civil society leaders from the global progressive community, who participated.

“Impeachment should only be reserved for a serious crime, and based on the evidence that has been out in the open,” Rousseff committed no crime, Shahshahani said.

Shahshahani was particularly struck by the testimony of one professor, who addressed from a feminist perspective how the right-wing is attacking Rousseff for being a woman. The professor said the opposition has promoted crude sexual jokes about her time as a left-wing guerrilla, particularly when she was tortured and raped.

In April, as the Brazilian congress voted on impeachment, The Guardian reported, “Jair Bolsonaro, the far-right deputy from Rio de Janeiro, dedicated his yes vote to Carlos Brilhante Ustra, the colonel who headed the Doi-Codi torture unit during the dictatorship era.”

Shahshahani said those in attendance see this coup unfolding before their eyes and believe it poses a threat to “gains of social justice.” The “social safety net” will “deteriorate if this coup is allowed to proceed.”

“Everyone in Latin America is keeping a close eye on what is happening in Brazil,” Shahshahani added. “What happens there could potentially have a big impact on the rest of Latin America as well. All the gains that we saw in the past decade with all the leftist leaders in Latin America could potentially come under attack.”

“If Dilma Rousseff is to go, there is one less leader that those of us in the global progressive community can count on,” Shahshahani stated.

Grassroots organizations are very aware the U.S. has sought to establish relations with the new right-wing leaders installed by Temer, and they understand the U.S. history of supporting dictators and overthrowing democratically-elected leftist leaders.

Both Honduras and Paraguay stand as recent examples, where the U.S. supported the right-wing opposition as supposed technicalities in laws were seized upon to justify the removal of elected leaders.

In each of those cases, bombs and tanks may not have been involved, but they still had hallmarks of past coups in Latin America.

The 2016 Olympics kick off in Rio de Janeiro on August 5. How the right-wing opposition may take advantage of the prestigious event to conceal government corruption and paper over rampant class conflict did not come up at the tribunal.

The post At People’s Tribunal, Brazilian Grassroots Groups Leery Of US Role In Rousseff Impeachment appeared first on Shadowproof.


The FDA's Foolish War on Salt

The 'voluntary' crackdown lacks scientific support. 

Chemtrails are Greatest Threat to Life on Earth-Dane Wigington



By Greg Hunter’s Last month, CIA Director John Brennan admitted Chemtrails, or as he put it, “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection,” is established geoengineering science used to fight global warming. Geoengineering researcher Dane Wigington says if the government is admitting it, the negative effects of spraying are too big to hide much longer. Wigington explains, “When […]


Which is worse: the NSA or the FDA?

American-Flag-Prescription-Pills-Drugs-D (NaturalNews) As my readers know, I've reported on a number of scandals concerning the toxicity of medical drugs, including shocking death numbers in the US.(Article by Jon Rappoport, republished from scandals are leaks from inside the National...


China dumps $30M into weather modification program, seeding clouds with chemicals to create rainfall

Autism-Link-Rainy-Climates-Points-Square (NaturalNews) China's Ministry of Finance recently announced that it has allocated 199 million yuan ($29.8 million) to be spent on cloud seeding weather modification projects being implemented throughout the country.The Chinese government is hoping that the cloud seeding operations...


Utopian off-grid Regen Village produces all of its own food and energy

ReGen-Village.jpg (NaturalNews) James Ehrlich, founder of ReGen Villages, commissioned Danish architectural firm EFFEKT to envision a future where self-sustaining communities could grow their own food and produce their own energy. ReGen Villages are planned off-grid communities that address issues...


Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Something Strange Emerges When Looking At A Congresswoman's Daytrading Records


While we have often heard that members of Congress, who are not only exempt from insider trading oversight, are also ardent daytraders we had never seen it in action.

Until now.

The following publicly filed monthly Periodic Transaction Report by Democrat Congresswoman, Judy Chu, shows us just how pervasive daytrading is not only for algos, but for those who supposedly are paid to serve their constituents. What is interesting is the size of the trades - between $1,000 and $15,000 each, this is not some novice, penny pincher; what is even more interesting are the underlying securities of choice: volatile, and levered, calls and puts on not only the S&P500, but also on some of the most volatile securities out there, such as the VIX.

Here are some examples of the trades in question (the latest full report can be found here):




There are more of these. Much more: some 9 pages worth just for June. The full breakdown is at the bottom of the post (link here).

* * *

While we would be the last to begrudge Ms. Chu her daytrading largesse, whether or not in possession of material, non-public inside info at time of trading - after all, if it is legal, by all means trade on inside information - something did catch our interest.

According to her public profile, the Democrat representing the 27th Congressional District, taught psychology for 20 years in an East LA Community College system, from 1981 to 2001, and reported a pension worth between $100,001 and $250,000 for those years of work. She also draws a smaller pension from serving on the Monterey Park City Council. She became a member of Congress in 2009.

In other words, a community college psychology teacher who daytrades S&P calls and puts in size up to $15,000?  Maybe she is merely "piggybacking" on her husband's net worth? Then again, maybe not. Her husband, former Assemblyman Mike Eng, is a senior partner at an immigration law firm in Los Angeles valued between $250,001 and $500,000.

* * *

And then we look at her net worth, which is where things get interesting, because this career psych professor, currently has an average net worth of $3.5 million, which according to InsideGov makes her the 103rd richest member of the House.  Chu's net worth was 3.2 times more than the average member of Congress and 4 times more than the average representative. When compared to the California Congressional Delegation, Chu had a net worth that was 3.6 times more than the average.

But most interesting is the history of Rep. Judy Chu's net worth over a short 6 year period, as shown in the chart below.


To summarize: a former East LA psychology professor (with an annual pension) started off her Congressional career with virtually nothing in the bank, and over the next 5 years, built up a net worth of over $3 million. We are curious how: it wasn't with the modest salary that members of the house collect; it wasn't from outside activities, it wasn't from her husband.

Which leaves just one possibility: her phenomenal daytrading skills, which are made even more phenomenal since her trades are exempt from regulatory oversight.

We are curious: why does Ms. Chu waste her amazing trading talent in D.C. when she could be working for Steve Cohen, or better yet, run her own hedge fund, making billions. Because if she can recreate her phenomenal 6 year return with outside capital, we would be the first in line to let her manage our money... assuming of course she can repeat her trading performance when the SEC at least pretend to care.



Judy's June trading disclosure is below


13-Year-Old Strip Searched Then Thrown in Jail for Burping in Class


(ANTIMEDIA) Albuquerque, NM  In Soviet America, burping in class is a serious crime. Need proof? Just look at the story of this 13-year-old from Albuquerque, New Mexico’s Cleveland Middle School.

According to George Washington University law professor, Jonathan Turley, the boy was acting like a class clown, doing what many class clowns do: disrupting class. Because of his loud burps, his teacher, Margaret Mines-Hornbeck, reported the boy to Officer Arthur Acosta. The seventh grader was then taken to an administrative office after being searched for drugs, as the assistant principal accused the 13-year-old of participating in a marijuana transaction.

During the search, the boy was asked to remove his jeans and shoes, then flip the waistband of the shorts he had been wearing underneath. This was all in vain considering no drugs were found.

After the traumatizing experience, the boy was suspended for the remainder of the year, all because he burped too loud. But sure enough, that wasn’t the end of it.

Instead of letting this matter go after such a harsh punishment, Cleveland Middle School decided to charge him criminally using a provision that says “[n]o person shall willfully interfere with the educational process of any public or private school by committing, threatening to commit or inciting others to commit any act which would disrupt, impair, interfere with or obstruct the lawful mission, processes, procedures or functions of a public or private school.”

Making matters even worse, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided to uphold the Albuquerque school officials’ action by claiming police and school leadership were justified in sending the 13-year-old to juvenile jail.

That’s right. The courts ruled it’s okay to send a child to jail for being a class clown.

According to Reason Magazine’s Nick Gillespie, this type of overreaction helps explain why Americans are losing confidence in major institutions “of political, commercial, and civic life.” Instead of believing in their enforcement methods, these authorities act as if they have no “belief in themselves and the things they run,” proving this is a “society in decline … that no longer feels as if it can exercise power at any level except via banishment and extreme action.”

He might be right since this isn’t the first time children have been harshly punished for acting like kids.

Last year, Ahmed Mohamed was arrested after his MacArthur High School teacher called officials over a clock he had assembled at home. Officials at the time alleged that the boy had attempted to cause a bomb scare, but the case was later dropped.

More recently, Professor Turley reports, a series of students have been suspended or expelled over comments they made on social media websites, making us wonder why “[t]eachers and administrators have been criminalizing juvenile conduct rather than dealing with such issues with the students and their teachers.”

Could this be the new norm?

This article (13-Year-Old Strip Searched Then Thrown in Jail for Burping in Class) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alice Salles and theAntiMedia.orgAnti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to


The hypocrisy of American Exceptionalism: Missing the big picture of the DNC’s alleged election meddling


Chile Coup, 1973

Anti-Marxist women wave white handkerchiefs in Santiago, Chile, Sept. 5, 1973, as they demand the resignation of President Salvador Allende. (Credit: AP)

American Exceptionalism is a belief which is sustained by several ideas. The United States is uncommon among nations because of its democratic founding and the particular character of its people. The history of the United States developed in a unique way because unlike European nations it does not have a history of feudalism. Americans are an “inherently good” and “decent” people. God preordained the United States and its people for a special place among nations. Of course, the United States is an “indispensable force for good” in the world.

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties repeat these platitudes. They are taught in the country’s schools. These beliefs are reinforced and circulated by American popular culture. In total, American Exceptionalism is a cornerstone of civil religion in the United States. It provides comfort to a people. However, a belief in American Exceptionalism also interferes with asking necessary and difficult questions about United States foreign policy and the country’s behavior abroad.

In a story where the facts are very much still in dispute, hackers associated with Russian intelligence agencies supposedly stole files from the Democratic National Committee with the goal of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Headlines in the United States described this happening as “worse than Watergate,” a “frightening” event, pondered if it constitutes an “act of war,” and discussed it as a type of “intervention” in American domestic politics.

As more information is gathered, these headlines may prove to be accurate, and their warnings about the consequences of the data theft from the Democratic National Committee to be true. But curiously absent from these notes of panic and alarm is any substantial mention or consideration of how the United States routinely interferes with domestic politics and elections in other countries.

Since 1953, the United States has directly or indirectly supported coup d’états (or in more polite and sterile language “regime change”) in at least 80 countries. This number does not include instances where United States’ involvement is suspected but remains unproven.

These countries are not all “dictatorships” or “repressive” regimes. They include democratically elected governments which American elites decided were “threats” to “national security.”

For example, in 1973, the United States government attempted to assassinate Salvador Allende. When that was not successful, the United States finally used the Chilean military to depose him. Thousands of people would be killed and “disappeared” under Augusto Pinochet’s military regime. In 1953, the democratically elected leader of Iran Mohammed Mossadegh was removed by the CIA and the Shah of Iran put in his place. Likewise, Indonesia’s democratically elected Sukarno was overthrown in 1965 by the CIA and replaced with a military dictatorship which is estimated to have killed as many as one million people. And in 1965, the CIA conspired with the Belgian government to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected leader of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Ultimately, throughout the Cold War, the United States government removed democratically elected leaders and suppressed populist movements across Latin and South America, Africa, and Asia.

Yes, the individuals who stole the files from the Democratic National Committee’s computer systems should be punished if possible. Of course, the state actors who were involved in this act of political espionage should be retaliated against. Donald Trump’s connections—if any—to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his country’s spying apparatus need to be exposed. But, the American people need to be more mature about the role of their nation in the world, and to be especially mindful of the dangers that come with a type of hypocrisy that deems the actions taken by the United States as always appropriate and right by definition and the same actions to be wrong and suspect when committed by another country.


Homeschoolers Aren’t Waiting on Politicians’ Promises of School Choice


Donald Trump managed to sound at least one encouraging note at a Republican convention focused more on fueling fears then empowering individuals. "We will rescue kids from failing schools by helping their parents send them to a safe school of their choice," he boasted in his acceptance speech.

Well, OK. The reference to "safe school" does put the emphasis on danger rather than education, but at least Trump called for parental choice. And Donald Trump Jr. compared public schools to "Soviet Era department stores that are run for the benefit of the clerks and not the customers, for the teachers and the administrators and not the students." He went on to call for choice and competition.

That sounds great for those of us who like options, especially with a new school year looming. And Americans have been embracing education choices—we've seen high-profile growth in the number of children attending privately-managed, publicly-funded charter schools, from 800,000 kids in 2003-2004 to 2.5 million, or 5.1 percent of total public school enrollment, in 2013-2014. That's sparked a lot of debate about the effectiveness of charter schools and the desirability (yes, really) of letting motivated families flee faltering public institutions.

More quietly, though, many American families have opted out of institutional education of any sort, taking on the responsibility of teaching their own children. From 1.1 million kids in 2003, the ranks of the homeschooled increased to 1.8 million in 2012—and an estimated 2.3 million this year, catching up quickly with the charter population. Homeschooled children outnumbered those enrolled in North Carolina's private schools as of 2014 after a whopping 27 percent increase in just two years.

My son is part of the surge in the number of children learning at home. The reason for our choice is ably captured in a point made by John Taylor Gatto, a former New York State Teacher of the Year who became a critic of government-controlled education. In his 2008 book, Weapons of Mass Instruction, Gatto wrote about the difference between schooling and education. "Education is a matter of self-mastery, first; then self-enlargement, even self-transcendance—as all possibilities of the human spirit open themselves into zones for exploration and understanding. There are points where the two conditions inform one another, but in schooling, somebody else's agenda is always uppermost."

You could say the same of any institution—that its interests overwhelm the individual concerns of the people within it. But that's why it's always a good idea to have alternatives and an exit strategy for when "somebody else's agenda" is incompatible with your own.

Such incompatibility has become a serious concern even with popular charter schools. Aside from the fact that there's always a potential mismatch between a family's priorities and a school's, even in an independently operated institution, charter schools face growing regulatory burdens that push them to consolidate and homogenize. Controversial national education standards have added to that burden, since they fall on charter schools as well as traditional public schools. "Some 2 million families have decided that charter schools are the best place for their children," the Goldwater Institute's Jonathan Butcher warned. "But under Common Core, these schools' options for differentiating themselves could be limited."

As of yet, homeschoolers face no comparable regulatory threats. Opposition to Common Core was part of the inspiration for the surge in homeschooling in North Carolina, according to the Charlotte Observer, and the same phenomenon is at work across the country. Rather than expend their time and energy battling to change a stubborn institution (North Carolina officials spent a year investigating a replacement for Common Core before deciding to keep the standards in place), parents walked out the doors and took on the task of education themselves.

Not that homeschooling parents all have the same motivation. As befits a DIY movement encompassing millions of Americans, people have different reasons for taking on the responsibility and different ways of getting it done. Once known as a domain for the religious (and a few hippies), the number of homeschoolers reporting "a desire to provide religious instruction" as a motivating reason dropped from 83 percent in 2006-2007 to 64 percent in 2011-2012. "[T]he face of home schooling is changing, not because of faith, but because of what parents see as shortcomings in public and private schools," USA Today reported in 2012. "[T]he movement is deepening its mainstream roots," Reuters agreed, and that mainstreaming is likely to continue since most homeschooled adults appear to be happy with their experience. "About three-quarters of a sample of home-educated students who are now adults raising their own children are opting to home school."

That satisfaction may be derived in part from the academic success achieved by many homechooled students who "score, on average, at the 84th to 89th percentile" on tests. That's pretty impressive when you consider that a good many homeschoolers deemphasize grades and standardized testing, which are most useful for assessing masses of students within institutions, not individual learners.

Old concerns that homeschooled kids are locked away from interaction with the rest of the world—probably derived from the days when the practice was illegal and had to be done in secret—have faded as kids taught by their families have become more common and recognized as obviously normal (as "normal" as anybody else that is). "Research shows that in terms of self-concept, self-esteem and the ability to get along in groups, homeschoolers do just as well as their public school peers," according to Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute.

And maybe homeschooling—DIY education—is the right movement for an increasingly diverse country suspicious of large institutions. In an America of proliferating news sources, gigs replacing jobs, fragmenting political parties, and myriad religious beliefs, why wouldn't people see teaching their own kids as one more thing they can do better than the powers-that-be?

So let's hope that Donald Trump means what he says about educational choice if he takes up residence in the White House next year. It would be nice to think that there's one area where he'll actually expand our liberty. But millions of Americans aren't waiting on politicians to offer them a few more options for teaching their children—they're doing it themselves.


Monday, August 1, 2016

DNC Achieved Unity Through Forced Conformity And Manufactured Consent



After returning home from the Democratic convention, I was shocked to learn that friends and family who followed the extravaganza had no idea that there were protests on the inside.

How was this possible? I was there. I witnessed the tension. Each day of the convention was marred by protests, with hundreds of Sanders delegates chanting, booing, walking out, and waving signs in defiance of Hillary Clinton’s coronation.

I reviewed the media coverage I missed while I was in the convention bubble.

After “a bruising primary season,” the Clinton and Sanders camps “pulled together and orchestrated a week relatively free of public controversy,” reported the Washington Post.

“It looks like a mess, but the Democratic Party is more unified than it seems,” blared Vox.

“[W]hat had been a raging boil on Monday was by Thursday morning just a simmer,” observed Politico, marveling at the DNC for “creating opportunities to publicly make peace between the party’s rival factions.”

The corporate media’s adulatory coverage of the carefully choreographed pageantry at the Democratic convention couldn’t be further from the truth.

There was no unity, only the illusion of it made possible by manufactured consent, forced conformity, and exhaustion on the part of Sanders delegates.

The DNC, with help and approval from both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns, confiscated signs, drowned out protest chants with counter-chants, locked down the arena during certain speeches to deter walkouts, and stationed party-appointed whips in the aisles to monitor rowdy Sanders delegates and signal to Clinton supporters when to chant and hold up pro-Clinton signs.

In other words, if the protests seemed non-existent to television audiences, it was because the DNC suppressed them and the media played along with the suppression.

Angered by the dirty tactics employed by the Clinton campaign and the DNC throughout the primary process, many Sanders delegates doubled down on their refusal to support Clinton. They declared their intention to throw their weight behind Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who has received unprecedented interest in her campaign following Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton.

The DNC’s authoritarian conduct toward Sanders delegates at the convention chased some lifelong Democrats, who would have held their noses and voted for Clinton, out of the party.

The Washington state delegation is a case-in-point.

With 76 delegates for Sanders compared to just 24 for Clinton, the Washington delegation was a hotbed for Sanders support. Yet during the roll call vote, Sanders delegates found themselves pushed to the back of the delegation, tucked behind a giant “Hillary for America” banner unfurled just in time for the cameras to zoom in on their state. It was then that Majid Al-Bahadli, chair of the Sanders delegation, held up an “I support Palestinian human rights” sign, which was quickly yanked out of his hand by Washington superdelegate Lona Wilbur.

Al-Bahadli told me that Wilbur initially denied snatching his sign, only to be contradicted by video evidence the next day. “She’s been to my house,” said Al-Bahadli. “I’ve known her for years. I feel like she stabbed me in the back.”

Al-Bahadli, who campaigned for Obama in both 2008 and 2012, will likely leave the Democratic Party, which he feels doesn’t represent him.

As of this writing, Wilbur has not returned a request for comment.

DNC compliance director Alan Reed, who appears in the DNC emails leaked to WikiLeaks, declined to comment on the conduct of the DNC. Reed played a role in “vetting” Sanders supporters when they sought to attend Democratic Party events during the primary.

Convention personnel went beyond snatching signs from delegates and stripped Sanders delegates of credentials for merely holding up signs that expressed opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.

I ran into one Sanders delegate, 61-year-old Frank Klein, at a bar in Center city during Clinton’s acceptance speech on Thursday night. Asked why he wasn’t at the convention, Klein explained the DNC had refused to issue him credentials that morning because he held up an anti-TPP sign during Barack Obama’s speech the night before.

Klein drove 22 hours to get to Philly. He also raised money so he could afford the trip. None of that mattered to the DNC.

Bernie delegate drove 22 hrs to be here. DNC denied him credentials this morning bc he held anti-TPP sign yesterday

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) July 29, 2016

Despite there being no known provisions that prohibit delegates from holding up signs or that empower party leaders to strip delegates of their credentials, the state party’s attorney Chris Burks insisted that Klein violated the convention rules.

Most of the Sanders delegates I spoke with were ordinary working people who, like Klein, had taken time off work, unpaid, and raised money to travel to Philadelphia to represent their state. Meanwhile, the party’s corporate donors were wined and dined in executive suites across the city, making the convention a giant contradiction.

There was no better example of the illusion of unity than the story of North Carolina delegate Nida Allam.

Earlier in the week, the Clinton campaign tweeted out a photo of Allam weeping at the moment Bernie Sanders conceded. The photo misrepresented Allam as a Clinton supporter, excited to tears for the first female nominee of a major party.

Clinton's campaign account tweeted photo of this woman misrepresenting her as a Hillary supporter #DemConvention

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) July 27, 2016

Despite apologizing for the mix-up, the Clinton campaign refused to delete the tweet.

We're sorry for the mixup. Thanks for everything you did to make history, too.

— Hillary for America (@HFA) July 27, 2016

We made history.

— Hillary for America (@HFA) July 26, 2016

“It would not have affected me so negatively if [Clinton] actually stood up for what the majority of Muslim Americans want,” said Allam, pointing to overwhelming Muslim support for Palestinian rights, to which Clinton is fanatically opposed.

“Right now Muslim Americans are going to be voting for her out of fear for Donald Trump, not out of support for her,” she said, adding, Clinton “hasn’t earned our vote, she’s just lucky [to be running against Trump].”

Allam got the word out about the Clinton campaign’s tweet during a press conference for Ohio state senator Nina Turner, one of Sanders’ most powerful surrogates. Sanders’ A-list supporters turned up for the presser to condemn the DNC for barring Turner from speaking during Ohio’s roll call vote.

Sanders, for his part, all but disappeared as the patience of his delegates was exhausted by the DNC’s draconian antics.

By the time Clinton gave her acceptance speech on Thursday, Sanders delegates were either purged from the convention, coerced into silence, or drowned out by awkwardly timed chants of “Hillary, Hillary!” at the command of party whips.

Meanwhile, seat-fillers helped occupy empty chairs left by Sanders supporters who weren’t present. I met one named Ryan Frank, who identified himself as an alternate delegate from Iowa.

“Alternate delegate means if a delegate couldn’t make it then I would be stepping in. I was called to come,” said Frank.

Asked why he wasn’t sitting with the California delegation, which had been a major source of protests and walkouts, Frank responded combatively: “Iowa was filled up by the time I got here. We just found seats where we could and tried to make friends.”

Frank did not have delegate credentials. His convention pass simply said “guest.” Meanwhile, a young woman sitting three seats down from him confirmed that she was indeed a seat-filler, though she declined to give her name or speak with reporters.

The end of the convention went smoothly because of well-practiced censorship, suppression, and genuine fear of Trump on the part of Sanders delegates—even as dozens of Sanders delegates joined Jill Stein outside the convention, chanting “Jill not Hill.”

Establishment press, which displayed contempt for Sanders and his supporters throughout the primary, mocked delegates at their evening parties. They had no interest in understanding their outrage and were perfectly okay with the party’s authoritarian attempts to make Democrats stronger together.

The false narrative of unity that emanated from the convention’s scripted theatrics has not changed the fact that the Democratic Party faces a significant ideological fracture. No matter who wins in November, that division will not go away.

The post DNC Achieved Unity Through Forced Conformity And Manufactured Consent appeared first on Shadowproof.


Who Runs America? The Truth About The Secret Government & Why Your Vote Doesn’t Matter


As a world, are we thriving at our best? The question may seem comical. Of course it depends how you look at it. There is our day-to-day happiness, living in the moment, and feeling fulfilled by our home, our job, our loved ones, our environment. Then there is the deep-rooted issue of feeling like we are not thriving as a world, because there are obstacles we simply cannot overcome.

I was sitting on the beach the other day, staring out at the vast ocean, and asked myself, do I feel free? At first I thought, well, yes. Despite government control, in my own little world, I am happy, and do not feel chained to an idea, a person, and so on. But then I wondered if perhaps I am just brainwashed.

Foster Gamble of Thrive answers in a way that both alarms me and causes me to open my eyes:

“…my research revealed that a small group of financial elite have gained control over key areas of our lives – energy, food, health care, education and more – and are the single greatest threat to humanity’s ability to thrive.”

The financial elite who govern us do so out of greed, not for a better world, a better America, but for heavy pockets and incredible power. A study conducted by two political science professors suggests ordinary Americans have virtually no impact on the making of national policy. So who runs America? Rich individuals and business-controlled interest groups.

In the throes of political upheaval, there is so much discussion about what should have been, could have been, and what will be. It is a confusing and controversial time in the U.S. When voters put Barack Obama in office, they anticipated big changes. Obama sought to defend civil liberties and privacy, yet many question how Obama’s version of national security is that much different than the one he inherited. 

“His 2007 speech has become a cautionary tale of the gulf between powerful campaign rhetoric and reality,” noted CNN. So while the president lets down the country, and we are left to believe in his wrongdoings, the reality is, he couldn’t have pulled through in the first place.

“Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons,”  notes a 2014 article from The Boston Globe.

This isn’t really a discussion about what was accomplished or not with Obama in office, however. That’s just a small part of a much bigger issue. Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon backs up this idea that Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried. As Americans, we are told we can steer our own government by electing new officials, but the truth of the matter is we are victims of a “double government.” There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, in which a disturbing amount of policy goes unchecked.

For instance, Glennon points outs out Obama and his team’s shock and dismay upon discovering that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan once he arrived in office: The United States could add more troops, or they could add a lot more troops. So while Obama fans became angered to find that he had opted for adding 30,000 more troops, the reality is, he had no choice.

It’s hard to swallow the pill that a “secret government” truly governs us, making us mere puppets in their play, but there are far too many examples of such a theory for it to be overlooked.

Take a look at the National Security Agency (NSA) for instance. Founded in 1952, its existence was kept secret from the public until the mid 1960s. And even more disturbing is the National Reconnaissance Office. Founded in 1960, it remained a secret for 30 years before it was officially revealed by Edward Snowden a few years ago.

There are a plethora of political individuals who have discussed this secrecy as well. John F. Hylan, for example, was Mayor of New York City from 1918-1925, and has been famously quoted as saying:

“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation … The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties … [and] control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

And in times like today, with WikiLeaks blowing the lid on the many lies within the U.S. government, it’s hard not to feel even more tricked, even more out of control of our lives than ever before. Bernie Sanders said from the beginning that he was essentially being bullied by the DNC, yet it wasn’t until the first “Hillary Leaks” that we have come to find out just how real and serious, and, more than anything, how rigged the political game really is. It’s not about fairness. It’s about money, and so a hidden agenda sweeps us all off our feet and continues to take control.

So the question remains, and is more pertinent now than ever before: How can we truly believe we are living in a “democracy” when presidents don’t even have enough power to significantly change anything?

Are we really free? Or have we been conditioned to believe we are? Corporations and mainstream media have us glued to our TV screens, searching for answers, searching for promises that can never be kept. Living as the puppets we are, we’ve become distracted from the truth, our attention diverted to what we want to hear as opposed to what we need to hear.

Go ahead and argue over who should be president, and go ahead and be angry or excited over the president that does get elected. But just know that you are wasting your breath on this very surface idea.

If we want real change, we have to look within, we have to look to ourselves. We can’t keep putting our faith and tasking our ‘leaders’ with the task of changing this world. The first step is awareness, and it’s happening faster and faster. More people are starting to become aware of what’s really happening on our planet. The next step is action, and we are just starting as a collective to take various action steps. The future really is brighter than ever, it’s always darkest before the dawn.

Related CE Articles:

10 Presidents & Politicians Who Told Us That A Secret Government Controls The World & What They Said

More On The Secret Government & Snowden’s Black Budget Leaks







The Looming Financial Crisis Nobody Is Talking About, but Should Be


(ANTIMEDIAThe world has been captivated by a continuous stream of disturbing and shocking headlines. Seemingly every other day, different terrorist attacks, police assassinations or political stunts ignite the public into an emotional frenzy. But as fear shuts down critical thinking, banks that control Europe’s financial system are entering a death spiral. Despite what establishment media narratives push, the most dangerous threat to our way of life isn’t a religious ideology or political divide.

The real risk is a contagion that is undermining the core of the financial system, and the interconnectedness of the globalized economy we live in makes containing the problem nearly impossible. Concerns that used to be isolated to the failing state of Greece have now engulfed the rest of the PIIGS nations. If these dominos continue to fall in Europe, the momentum could carry the destruction to every corner of the globe.

Italian banks are the latest on the chopping block in the wake of Brexit. For years, they have been acknowledged as a weak link in the economic chain, but they now face stress tests that could expose the scope of their internal problems. The oldest bank in the world, Monte Dei Paschi, is at the center of the controversy, with an expected shortfall of over 3 billion euros.

Other big names, like UniCredit, are in equally bad shape. Wells Fargo recently found that nearly 15% of all loans held by Italian banks could be at risk of default, a staggering figure to attempt to unwind. Further, England’s departure from the E.U. has sparked questions over the future of the euro — and Italy could be the catalyst for an all out breakdown of confidence. If panic begins to grip the Italian people, things could escalate quickly, potentially triggering bank runs.

Mihir Kapadia of Sun Global Investments explained the current situation in a recent article:

A perfect storm of slow or zero Italian economic growth, low interest rates and politically connected, often corrupt, lending have combined to create a situation where the Italian financial system is in need of a large rescue.

The head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, wasted no time reassuring the markets and downplaying the significance of the hurdles ahead. Draghi is a former governor to the Bank of Italy, and he recently came out in full support of a ‘public backstop’ for the toxic loans. The public backstop suggested is the political term for shafting the taxpayer. Governments and banks alike have no problem shifting the responsibility of the debt onto the citizens, all while chastising them about how excessive their entitlement programs are and framing the greed of everyday people as the root of the issue. For the elites, it is much easier to use austerity measures, inflation, and shaming of the public to deflect blame from themselves than it is to take ownership for their own corrupt actions.

New regulations passed by the E.U. prevent bailout-style action similar to what the U.S. implemented during the 2008 crisis, meaning the only other option on the table is to use customer accounts to re-capitalize, otherwise known as a bail-ins. We saw a test run of this a few years ago in Cyprus, which led to the confiscation of all personal funds exceeding 100,000 euros. In this trial, the seizures only affected the very wealthy, so there was little major outrage; most accounts over the threshold were also held by foreigners, particularly from Russia.

But in such a future scenario, private savings accounts, retirement funds, and IRAs of average citizens could be stolen by the banks — without compensation — to cover their bad investments. Although it would be devastating for Italy to have to implement these tactics to save their failing institutions, the real fireworks would be the effects such a move could have on other key banks and foreign nations.

As time passes, red flags continue to emerge that point to a terminal diagnosis for the system as a whole.Deutsche bank is by far the most crucial in the E.U., as it supports the union’s powerhouse economy of Germany. In the last year alone, however, their stock price has plummeted more than 60%, bringing the total decline to 90% since its peak in 2007. The bank also just announced its plan to close over 188 branches and cut 3,000 jobs in the coming months. The rebound in the American financial sector over the last seven years never manifested in Europe; instead, the value of their banks continued to grind lower, perpetuated by political ineptitude and central bank manipulation. Germany is the last strong economy left to prop up the crumbling trade bloc in Europe, and without its stability, this grand experiment is doomed to fall apart at the seams.


If those signs aren’t bad enough, Deutsche has also become the poster child for the ominous derivatives bubble. It, alone, has amassed an exposure of over $75 trillion dollars in these risky devices, which is almost equal to theannual GDP of the world. This problem is by no means isolated to the European markets; the U.S. banks also drank the kool-aid, and believe it or not, helped create a quadrillion dollar mess.

The empty promises made by financial managers are only as good as the public’s confidence in them. Before the subprime mortgage crisis, it seemed like there wasn’t a care in the world — until everyone got spooked and headed for the exits at once. If a similar stampede occurred today, the implications would be far worse. The amount of money needed to pay out on the outstanding derivative contracts doesn’t even exist, and the CIA’s factbook states that broad money, including all paper currency, coins, checking, savings, and money market accounts, equals just over 80 trillion dollars — a mere fraction of the what it would take to cover the exposure of the banks.

Warren Buffet famously referred to these instruments as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” He reiterated his perspective in a more recent interview:

“I regard very large derivative positions as dangerous. We inherited a modest sized position at [Berkshire’s reinsurance vehicle] Gen Re in a benign market and we lost about $400m just trying to unwind it with no pressure on us whatsoever. So I think it does continue to be a danger to the system.”

The derivative market is one of the most obscure in all of finance. Instead of buying a share of a company, or a commodity like oil or corn at a future price, a derivative has no value on its own. Its entire worth is derived from the performance of other parts of the market. It is essentially a side bet on the price movements of real assets. If the major banks, like Deutsche, were to go under, all of those derivatives would be wiped out and could light the fuse on this economic time bomb.

Even George Soros has commented on the ongoing crisis in the E.U., saying:

“Europe’s leaders must recognize that the EU is on the verge of collapse. Instead of blaming one another, they should pull together and adopt exceptional measures.”

The Italian banking crisis and the ballooning derivative market may seem like a trivial issue that is out of sight and out of mind, but the black hole it could open up would destroy our way of life. Thinking about these possibilities can be terrifying, but there are steps that can be taken to ensure individuals at least have an insurance plan in place. Becoming educated on the financial system we’re living in is paramount to having the foresight needed to take action.

Developing technologies like Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have created an entirely new monetary system that isn’t subject to the corruption of the broken centralized model. These peer-to-peer networks can secure wealth while allowing unprecedented mobility and anonymity. Other forms of stable money, like gold or silver, also play a key role in financial independence. There are few assets with zero counter-party risks, and precious metals allow each individual to become their own central bank.

Being self-reliant is also a powerful tool; not being dependent on someone else in a worst-case scenario is crucial to thinking clearly when financial panic breaks out. There is no antidote for the potential chaos bearing down on us, but building strong relationships, obtaining basic skills, and stockpiling the necessities of daily lifecan provide peace of mind and preparedness.

A chain of events has been set in motion that will expose the massive fraud world banks and governments have perpetuated on their citizens. When fear porn is being promoted on the major networks, keep in mind the real threats to freedom and security will not be openly announced. The focus on the lone nutjob that kills 20 or the spread of deadly pandemics, for example, is nothing but propaganda aimed at shifting attention to things that are uncontrollable. Ensuring the masses feel helpless and in need of the government’s protection is priority number one for the ruling class. Talking heads and hedge fund managers will be eternally optimistic on the outlook for the future, even as the collapse becomes undeniably obvious. Problems for the European Union will continue to build, and the risk of the disease spreading to other economies increases by the day. Unfortunately, this Ponzi scheme system we built our societies on has left us vulnerable to any well-timed black swan event.

This article (The Looming Financial Crisis Nobody Is Talking About, but Should Be) by Shaun Bradley is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Shaun Bradley and Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to