Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Internal Anger At The FBI Over Clinton Investigation Continues To Grow

ORIGINAL LINK

Submitted by Michael Krieger via Liberty Blitzbrieg blog,

This is a story that refuses to go away. Recall the post from earlier this month, Backlash Grows Months After the FBI’s Sham Investigation Into Hillary Clinton, in which we learned:

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

 

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

 

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.

 

Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

 

What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

 

Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

 

Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

 

“The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation,” one agent in the Washington field office said. “There’s a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country.”

While the above article focused on the opinions of retired agents, today’s article zeros in on the growing frustrations of current agency employees.

The Daily Caller reports:

FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.

 

According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey’s leadership.

 

“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”

 

Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey’s saying: “we” and “I’ve been an investigator.”

 

After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey’s career moved through the U.S. Attorney’s Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.

 

After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller.

 

“Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in ‘collective we’ statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute,” the second agent said. “All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way.”

Indeed, there were many red flags surrounding Comey from the beginning. So much so that I wrote an article in 2013 titled, So Who is James Comey, Obama’s Nominee to Head the FBI?

In light of the latest revelations that the NSA is spying on the communications of millions of Verizon customers courtesy of information provided by the FBI, it probably makes sense to know a little more about Obama’s nominee to head that Bureau.  That man is James Comey, and he was a top Department of Justice attorney under John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush Administration (since then he has worked at Lockheed Martin and at the enormous Connecticut hedge fund Bridgewater Associates).  This guy defines the revolving door cancer ruining these United States.

Now back to The Daily Caller.

According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.

 

DiGenova told WMAL radio’s Drive at Five last week, “People are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away.”

 

He explained, “It’s not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess.”

 

He added, “The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk.”

Corruption in the USA has now reached the level where it starts destroying the entire fabric of society itself. This is a very dangerous moment.



via IFTTT

DOJ Uses Vague Court Request to Try to Demand People Unlock Any Fingerprint-Locked Phones

ORIGINAL LINK

FingerprintFun fact about fingerprint lock "Touch ID" system on iPhones or iPads: If its owner hasn't unlocked his or her device in the past 48 hours, it reverts back to a passcode system. This means if a phone gets, for example, seized by authorities of some sort and locked away, there's a window through which they can physically make its owner unlock it before they have to get a numerical passcode.

That may explain why, in a federal warrant uncovered by Forbes' Thomas Fox-Brewster, the Department of Justice attempted to get a judge's permission to attempt to force people to unlock any Touch ID-locked phones at the scene of the search itself.

This was a search of a home in Lancaster, California, last May, and while Fox-Brewster wasn't able to get his hands on the warrant itself, he was able to track down a very particular and concerning request. The Department of Justice wanted:

"authorization to depress the fingerprints and thumbprints of every person who is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES during the execution of the search and who is reasonably believed by law enforcement to be the user of a fingerprint sensor-enabled device that is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES and falls within the scope of the warrant."

To simplify, the Department of Justice wanted to force anybody on scene with a fingerprint-locked phone or tablet to open it then and right there so they could review the contents.

There's two issues here: One, can authorities force somebody to provide a thumbprint to unlock a phone; two, even if they can, can the authorities just demand access to every device connected to a search scene without any proof it's connected to any crime?

For the first question, so far judges have been inclined to allow authorities to provide a thumbprint and do not believe this violates Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. At least that's how things stand so far.

As for the second question, based on the vagueness of the memo, legal scholars were not impressed:

"They want the ability to get a warrant on the assumption that they will learn more after they have a warrant," said Marina Medvin of Medvin Law. "Essentially, they are seeking to have the ability to convince people to comply by providing their fingerprints to law enforcement under the color of law – because of the fact that they already have a warrant. They want to leverage this warrant to induce compliance by people they decide are suspects later on. This would be an unbelievably audacious abuse of power if it were permitted."

Jennifer Lynch, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), added: "It's not enough for a government to just say we have a warrant to search this house and therefore this person should unlock their phone. The government needs to say specifically what information they expect to find on the phone, how that relates to criminal activity and I would argue they need to set up a way to access only the information that is relevant to the investigation.

But we don't know exactly what was in the warrant so we don't know how specific the request was. Forbes tracked down the recipients of the warrant to determine that it was indeed served, but they wouldn't say much other than to say that nobody there had been accused of involvement in a crime.

Assuming they're telling the truth, the Justice Department's behavior is even more of a concern, because they used the vaguest possible justifications to try to access private data on devices that may have had absolutely no connection with any sort of crime. And we don't know how many times the Department of Justice (or another law enforcement agency) has attempted this method. Or even whether they succeeded. But it does make it clear that the federal government is going to quietly do whatever they can to get around private data security unless they're told otherwise by judges.

Read the memo over at Forbes here.



via IFTTT

Massive Voter Fraud Exposed In Project Veritas Part 2: "We've Been Bussing People Around For 50 Years"

ORIGINAL LINK

Update 1:  Just shortly after posting video #2 earlier this afternoon, Project Veritas has claimed its second victim as Bob Creamer has announced he will be "stepping back from my responsibilities working the [Hillary] campaign."

 

BREAKING: BOB CREAMER FIRED pic.twitter.com/akCloCv7pd

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 18, 2016

 

Ironically, the mainstream media is still refusing to play the Project Veritas videos claiming that their authenticity needs to first be verified.  Perhaps we could suggest that two people being fired from their respective employers is sufficient evidence to suggest that, at least in the minds of the people closest to the situation, the videos are, in fact, legitimate...just a thought.

Below is what we wrote earlier today:

* * *

Yesterday we noted the release of Part 1 of a multi-part video series created by Project Veritas revealing some of the dirty, behind-the-scenes secrets of the democratic party.  Part 1 was dedicated to uncovering plots by democratic operatives to incite violence at Trump rallies, a strategy they referred to as "bird dogging" (we provided a full summary here:  "Undercover Footage Shows Clinton Operatives Admit To Inciting "Anarchy" At Trump Rallies").

It didn't take long for yesterday's video to claim it's first casualty as Scott Foval, the National Field Director for Americans United for Change, was fired shortly after the video's release.  Foval's former employer released the following statement:

"Americans United for Change has always operated according to the highest ethical standards.  Scott Foval is no longer associated with Americans United for Change."

. @woodhouseb It really doesn't look like @AU4Change "operates according to the highest ethical and legal standards." @seanhannity #Veritas pic.twitter.com/Z8nFA4fgUg

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 18, 2016

 

That said, perhaps the more disturbing revelation from the first video was that one agitator, Zulema Rodriguez, who admitted to inciting "violent protests" that forced Trump to cancel a Chicago rally back in March, was paid directly by the Hillary campaign just a few weeks before that event.  In fact, according to data from the Federal Election Commission, Zulema has been collecting fees from a lot of political organizations recently...turns out that picking fights at Republican rallies is a lucrative business...who knew? 

FEC Data

 

And now we have Part II of the series in which O'Keefe reveals how people, like Foval, successfully organize massive voter fraud in key swing states.  Among other things, Foval goes into great details about how fraudulent out-of-state voters are hired on at fake "shell companies" just so they can register to vote and are then paid for their votes through "paychecks" from those same entities.  Foval goes on to detail how the operatives bring people in to different states, using their own personal vehicles or by having shell companies rent vehicles, instead of using busses which would make it easier to prove a conspiracy.

“It’s a very easy thing for Republicans to say, “Well, they’re bussing people in.” Well, you know what? We’ve been bussing people in to deal with you fucking assholes for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way to do it."

 

“When I do this I think as an investigator first – I used to do the investigations. I think backwards from how they would prosecute, if they could, and then try to build out the method to avoid that.”

Per Planet Free Will, the video also features Bob Creamer, a fraudster who served time for a $2.3mm bank fraud in relation to his operation of "community organizing" groups in the 90s.  Creamer is also the founder of Democracy Partners and husband of Democrat congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. The undercover journalist details a plan to register Hispanic voters illegally having them work as contractors, to which Creamer replies that “there are a couple of organizations that that’s their big trick,” and that “turnout is huge, huge, huge.”



via IFTTT

Half of American Adults Already In Facial Recognition Network

ORIGINAL LINK

Half of all American adults are already in some sort of facial recognition network accessible to law enforcement, according to a comprehensive new study. Conducted over a year and relying in part on Freedom of Information and public record requests to 106 law enforcement agencies, the study, conducted by Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology, found American police use of facial recognition technology is a scattered, hodgepodge network of laws and regulations.



via IFTTT

Ecuador Cuts Internet Access for Julian Assange to Preserve Neutrality in U.S. Election

ORIGINAL LINK

The government of Ecuador confirmed on Tuesday that it had decided “to temporarily restrict access” to the internet inside its embassy in London, effectively cutting off Julian Assange, the editor of Wikileaks, who has lived there since he was granted political asylum in 2012.

Assange first reported on Monday that his internet connection had been “severed by a state party,” and the organization was forced to resort to a back-up plan to continue its work.

Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

In an official statement, Ecuador’s foreign ministry suggested that the restriction was related to the release of documents by Wikileaks that could impact the presidential election in the United States.

Official Communiqué | Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states ??https://t.co/4F7R5Iktsd pic.twitter.com/5FtbLViMEo

— Foreign Affairs Ec (@MFAEcuador) October 18, 2016

“The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states,” the statement said. “It does not interfere in external electoral processes, nor does it favor any particular candidate.”

As The Intercept reported in August, since Wikileaks began publishing emails hacked from the accounts of Democratic party officials, the site’s editor has been accused of attempting to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency.

While a founding principle of Wikileaks was that its editors would not know the identity of those who supplied them with documents, the U.S. Intelligence Community said earlier this month that it “is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails” later provided to the site, in order “to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

Intelligence officials have not disclosed evidence to support their attribution of responsibility to Russia, but private cybersecurity experts who investigated the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s servers pointed to what they called strong circumstantial evidence.

The communique released by Ecuador on Tuesday said that the country “does not yield to pressure from other states,” but Wikileaks claimed to have learned from unnamed American sources that a request to shut down Assange’s work had come from Secretary of State John Kerry.

BREAKING: Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 18, 2016

Wikileaks most recently published emails hacked from the Gmail account of the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, which included partial transcripts of paid speeches Clinton gave to Wall Street bankers after her tenure as secretary of state.

Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, told the Russian government’s news channel RT last month that a victory for Clinton would be better for the United States, and the world, but a Trump win could produce benefits for left-wing parties in Latin America.

EXCLUSIVA
¿Clinton o Trump? Correa revela quién, a su criterio, es el candidato que le haría bien a EEUU y al mundo https://t.co/342V7rMil4 pic.twitter.com/wCdf3zU8P2

— RT en Español (@ActualidadRT) September 30, 2016

“Obviously, for the U.S., it would be better if Hillary won. I know her personally and have a great deal of respect for her,” Correa told RT.

“But, seriously, Trump would be better for Latin America,” he continued. “When did progressive governments come to power in Latin America? With Obama or with Bush? Bush’s primitive policies were rejected so much that it caused reaction in Latin America. Trump would do the same: maximize the contradictions.”

“So, for the good of the U.S. and the world, and because of my personal esteem for her,” Correa concluded, “I want Hillary to win.”

The post Ecuador Cuts Internet Access for Julian Assange to Preserve Neutrality in U.S. Election appeared first on The Intercept.



via IFTTT

WikiLeaks says Ecuador cut off Assange’s internet after new Clinton emails published

ORIGINAL LINK

WikiLeaks did not elaborate on the grounds for Ecuador’s London embassy, where Assange has spent more than four years after being granted asylum over fears of persecution over his publications, to restrict the whistleblower’s web access.



via IFTTT

Monday, October 17, 2016

How First Lady’s Organic Garden Became a Junk Food Campaign

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

Mere months after President Obama came into office, first lady Michelle Obama launched an organic garden project at the White House, complete with a composting system and beehives.

During a recent White House Kitchen Garden dedication ceremony, the first lady reminisced about those early days, saying:1

"… [W]e started thinking about the challenges that many families faced, so many other families were facing the same things that we were, trying to raise healthy kids.

And many of us didn't understand the impact that the food we ate was having on our bodies, on our kids' bodies, or how we felt. Like we just didn't have the right information, or we didn't have the time that we needed to buy and prepare healthy food for our families.

So I had this crazy idea that what if we planted a garden on the White House lawn to start a conversation about where our food comes from and how it impacts our children's health.

Well, fast-forward to spring of 2009 — Barack actually won … and that's when we decided to move forward on this idea of planting a garden."

Who Shut Down the White House Promotion of Local Organics?

As Mrs. Obama mentions later on in her speech, many were opposed to the idea of an organic garden in the White House, and even more so to having a first lady focused on organic food and organic gardening as a source of health.

Americans are quite used to politicians saying one thing and doing another, a form of 'private vs public' values.

In the end, we shouldn't be surprised. Talking points and policies are crafted by the industries, and politicians are tools hanging from the toolbelt of multinational corporate interests.

In response to her invitation to dialogue about the importance of healthy eating and her promotion of local and organic foods. In a March 2009 letter to President Obama, the Mid America CropLife Association wrote:2

"Fresh foods grown conventionally are wholesome and flavorful yet more economical. Local and conventional farming is not mutually exclusive.

If Americans were still required to farm to support their family's basic food and fiber needs, would the U.S. have been leaders in the advancement of science, communication, education, medicine, transportation and the arts?"

It appears CropLife would have you believe growing organic food and living off the land makes you a fool. While farmers were once considered the backbone of our country, industrial agriculture is suggesting that eliminating most of the farmers has allowed leaders to emerge in other fields.

In a Diane Rehm Show interview that same month, Bob Young, an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation said:3

"We have no problem with this [organic] concept. But understand that you're making lifestyle choices here about how you want your food produced. Fine. But don't denigrate the other approaches to food production."

Organics Branded as 'Elitist' in Effort to Subdue Popularity

Others called the idea of organic gardening "charming" but impractical, due to the seasonality of different food items. In 2012, a number of media articles suddenly cropped up, in which they referred to organics as an "elitist lifestyle choice."

A spokesman for the American Council on Science and Health (ASCH) went so far as calling the Obamas "organic limousine liberals."4 Clearly, it was a poorly shrouded effort to quell the rising tide of organic food enthusiasts.5

It was also quite clear that the White House organic garden upset some significant donors, not because it was there, but because the first lady was implying that organic foods are healthier.

Pesticides become 'Crop Protection Products'

In May 2009, Tom Philpott wrote about how the Mid America CropLife Association stepped up its pressure on the first lady by urging its members to share the benefits of conventional agriculture with her through a letter writing campaign. According to Philpott, CropLife told its members:6

"What message does [a White House organic garden] send to the non-farming public about an important and integral part of growing safe and abundant crops to feed and clothe the world — crop protection products?

I hope that you will take a moment to consider how important that message is to your livelihood, your passion for agriculture, and your growers' future — and send your own letter, sharing the benefits of modern, conventional agriculture.

Help allay any fears by providing a specific example of how what you do on a daily basis, including custom application and/or the sale of crop protection products and fertilizers, has saved a crop and/or improved yields to benefit more Americans."

"Crop protection products" — that's the industry's term for what the rest of us call pesticides and toxic chemicals.7 According to the chemical industry, crops would suffer dramatic losses without these chemicals, and have positioned them as a farming necessity.

Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, as you can grow healthy, thriving plants without any pesticides at all, provided you're using appropriate support strategies. I've detailed many of these strategies in previous regenerative agriculture articles.

How Junk Food Partnered with Obama's Campaign

In February 2010, Michelle Obama launched the "Let's Move" campaign, which by then had turned into something quite different from her original stance, which had been focused on raising awareness about the impact of food on health and the importance of organics.

Instead, the "Let's Move" campaign focused on "solving the challenge of childhood obesity" — primarily by getting kids to exercise more.

Riding on the coat tails of this public health campaign were messages promoting the ridiculous and clearly flawed "energy balance" model, promoted by the Global Energy Balance Network — an industry front group secretly funded by Coca-Cola.8

The aim of this group, which has since been disbanded,9 was to minimize and obfuscate the scientific evidence showing that sugar (and sweet beverages in particular) are a majorcontributor to obesity and diseases associated with insulin resistance, such as diabetes.

Arguing for more exercise is a good thing, but not when you're placing the sole focus on exercise and making people think you can exercise your way out of a high-sugar diet. The fact is, your diet can make or break your exercise efforts. Not the other way around.

Food Industry Legislation Falls by the Wayside

The "Let's Move" campaign also put an end to the first lady's push for food industry legislation. As noted by Think Progress in 2013:10

"Let's Move" has deliberately veered away from pushing actual legislation, instead focusing on personal responsibility in nutrition and fitness. That's a very different approach than the one Mrs. Obama took during the inception of her fight against childhood obesity.

In 2010, the first lady gave a fiery speech at a Grocery Manufacturers Association [GMA] conference, arguing that changing personal habits won't work if big companies like Kraft and General Mills continue to target children with misleading ads for sugary, fatty food:

'This is a shared responsibility … And we need you not just to tweak around the edges, but to entirely rethink the products that you're offering, the information that you provide about these products, and how you market those products to our children.

That starts with … ramping up your efforts to reformulate your products … so that they have less fat, salt, and sugar, and more of the nutrients that our kids need.

As a mom, I know it is my responsibility …  to raise my kids. But what does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at their kids? And what are these ads teaching kids about food and nutrition? That it's good to have salty, sugary food and snacks every day —  breakfast, lunch and dinner?'"

Junk Food for the People

In a recent New York Times article,11 Michael Pollan expertly details the subversive influence of Big Food on Obama's presidency. Our broken food system contributes to many of our most pressing problems, including but not limited to health care costs, energy dependence, greenhouse gas emissions, antibiotic resistance and food safety. Yet the power of Big Food, in large part due to the centralization and monopolization that has occurred, effectively blocks any and all attempts at positive change.

There can be no denying that our current food system is undermining public health and is a major contributor to environmental destruction and pollution, and while on the presidential campaign trail, Barrack Obama appeared very supportive of regenerative agriculture, and seemed in favor of agricultural reform.

"In ways small and large, Obama left the distinct impression during the campaign that he grasped the food movement's critique of the food system and shared its aspirations for reforming it," Pollan writes.

Obama promised to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs), for example — a promise that was never fulfilled during his eight years in office.

He also promised to address pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) by bringing them under the authority of the federal Clean Air and Clean Water Acts — another campaign promise left unfulfilled, and there's reason to suspect that industry pressure was at play in both instances. Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying? You can see their lips moving.

Obama's Big Food Antitrust Initiative Went Nowhere

When Obama first took office, the new administration did launch an antitrust initiative, investigating potentially anticompetitive practices within several food sectors, including the poultry, dairy, cattle and seed industries.

"… [R]anchers and farmers testified to the abuses they suffered at the hands of the small number of companies to which they were forced to sell, often on unfavorable terms. In many regions … there were so few buyers for cattle that the big four meatpackers were able to dictate prices, impose unfair contracts and simply refuse to buy from ranchers who spoke out.

Chicken farmers testified about how they had been reduced to sharecroppers by the industry's contract system. Companies like Tyson and Perdue make farmers sign contracts under which the companies supply the chicks and feed and then decide how much to pay for the finished chickens based on secret formulas; farmers who object or who refuse any processor demands … no longer receive chicks, effectively putting them out of business."

After months of investigation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed new regulations to level the playing field for producers. The proposed rules specifically addressed legal recourse, making it easier for producers to sue packers for unfair practices.

Producers who complained or sued would also gain additional protection from retaliation under the new rules. The proposed legislation infuriated the meat industry, and after an intense lobbying campaign, the legislation was successfully squashed.

The antitrust initiative was also quietly dropped and never received any further attention, despite farmers' testimonies clearly having established that anticompetitive behavior was commonplace. Once again, many promises were made but in the end - the people lose and the industry wins. As noted by Pollan:

"Obama had launched the most serious government challenge to the power of Big Food since Teddy Roosevelt went after the Meat Trust a century ago, but in the face of opposition it simply evaporated."

The Four Horsemen of Agriculture Atrocities

How is it that an industry with such a clear pattern of malfeasance and wrongdoing can so successfully corrupt our politicians? Perhaps 'corrupt politicians' is a redundant phrase. According to Pollan:

"In order to follow the eight-year drama starring Big Food and both Obamas … it's important to know what Big Food is. Simply put, it is the $1.5 trillion industry that grows, rears, slaughters, processes, imports, packages and retails most of the food Americans eat."

The four proverbial horsemen that make up our food system are:

  1. Industrial agriculture or "Big Ag": growers of commodity crops, GMO seed and chemical companies
  2. CAFOs
  3. Food processors
  4. Food retailers and fast food franchises

As noted by Pollan:

"Each of these sectors is dominated by a remarkably small number of gigantic firms. According to one traditional yardstick, an industry is deemed excessively concentrated when the top four companies in it control more than 40 percent of the market.

In the case of food and agriculture, that percentage is exceeded in beef slaughter (82 percent of steers and heifers), chicken processing (53 percent), corn and soy processing (roughly 85 percent), pesticides (62 percent) and seeds (58 percent). Bayer's planned acquisition of Monsanto promises to increase concentration in both the seed and agrochemical markets."

Not only do all of these industry sectors have powerful lobbying organizations working on their behalf, they also have a large number of front groups secretly pushing the industry's agenda under various other guises. And, while these industries are sometimes at loggerheads, they all have one common enemy: The local and organic food movement.

One of the primary reasons why change is so difficult is because when these "four horsemen of agriculture" join forces, they form one formidable entity — one that Pollan refers to as "Big Food".

How Big Food Markets Junk Food to Kids

Pollan mentions Scott Faber, who in 2010 — at the time of Mrs. Obama's impassioned GMA speech in which she in no uncertain terms implored the food industry to clean up its act to protect children's health — was the chief lobbyist for the GMA. In a shocking twist, earlier this year Faber was hired by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and represented Just Label It (JLI) during closed doors negotiations with Congress to undermine the GMO labeling effort.12

"The obesity epidemic 'had put a bull's-eye on the food industry's back,' Faber explained. Here was a chance to remove it, with the first lady's help," Pollan writes.

"[T]he industry adopted a clever two-track strategy to deal with the challenge laid down by the first lady. On a very public track, industry leaders engaged the foundation that she formed, the Partnership for a Healthier America, in negotiating a series of private-sector partnerships — a series of voluntary efforts that the industry hoped would help avert new regulations …

Supermarket retailers pledged to promote more healthful foods in their stores, like fresh produce … Food makers pledged to reduce harmful ingredients in processed food, like salt and sugar, while boosting healthy ingredients, like whole grains …

Michelle Obama has celebrated these partnerships as significant achievements, but do they match the ambitions of her 2010 speech, with its call for industry to do more than "tweak around the edges" and instead to "entirely rethink the products you're offering"? …

[M]aking junk food incrementally less junky is a dubious achievement at best. It tends to obscure the more important distinction between processed food of any kind and whole foods. What began as a cultural conversation about gardens and farmers markets and real food became a conversation about improved packaged foods, a shift in emphasis that surely served the interests of Big Food.

While it can be argued that this was simply a concession to reality — because most Americans eat processed foods most of the time — to give up on real food so fast was to give up a lot."

Scott Faber Takes Pride in Efforts That Destroy Children's Health

Big Food even derailed Mrs. Obama's efforts to implement voluntary guidelines for marketing foods to children, and Faber was instrumental in this industry coup as well. The guidelines, which set standards for salt, sugar and fat in processed foods marketed to kids, were "a turning point" for the food industry,

Faber told Pollan, because even though they were voluntary, they could potentially give certain popular kid foods a bad rap. The GMA decided to face the administration head on — and won without so much as a fight.

"Faber … told me he was 'frankly surprised the administration never came back with a revised set of guidelines.' Evidently the White House had lost its stomach for this particular fight. That wasn't the only one, either. In the years after, Big Food scored a series of victories over even the most reasonable attempts to rein in its excesses."

Those successes include but are not limited to:

  • Preventing CAFOs from being regulated like other polluting industries
  • Preventing antibiotics from being regulated out of agriculture
  • Undermining the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act by getting Congress to refuse its reauthorization
  • Circumventing the inclusion of CAFOs and agriculture as industries to be regulated under new, more stringent pollution standards aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions
  • Preventing the labeling of GMOs

With clear evidence that processed junk food is responsible for childhood obesity and related health problems, Faber seems proud of his successful efforts to ensure that junk food manufacturers can continue to manipulate children with their cartoon marketing style. And as the health of Americans keep declining, he seems proud of his ability to influence politicians to ensure that toxic foods remain the status quo.

Circumventing Big Food

Big Food is a formidable opponent. There's no denying that. But we can still win; we can still steer the agricultural industry toward safer, more sustainable systems. The key is to keep supporting local farmers and choosing fresh, local produce over processed and fast food fare. Every dollar you spend pays not just for a food but for an entire food system.

There's a tipping point at which the failing system must change or perish, so it's all a numbers game, really. The more people that buy non-toxic, whole, unprocessed foods, the closer we get to that tipping point. Big Food wields great political power, but our power is our sheer numbers. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

EatWild.com

EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce wholesome raw dairy products as well as grass-fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass-fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation

Weston A Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange

The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass-fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest

This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets

A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals

The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA)

CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

FoodRoutes

The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and markets near you.

The Cornucopia Institute

The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products, and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO "organic" production from authentic organic practices.

RealMilk.com

If you're still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area.

The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund13 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.14 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.





Related Articles:

 Comments (21)


via IFTTT

Sunday, October 16, 2016

GOP Headquarters In North Carolina Firebombed In Act Of "Political Terrorism"

ORIGINAL LINK

Hillsborough police are investigating an apparent firebombing of the Orange County Republican headquarters, an incident that one state GOP official called an act of “political terrorism” according to the Charlotte observer.  Police say the incident occurred when a bottle of flammable liquid was thrown through the front window of the office on Ja-Max Dr.

The flammable substance appears to have ignited inside the building, burned some furniture and damaged the building’s interior before going out. The substance was housed in a bottle thrown through one of the building’s front windows. No damage estimates are available yet, and Hillsborough police are continuing to investigate the incident with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Cu6WORuVMAI75c5%20%281%29_0.jpg

Last night the Orange County Republican Party in NC was viciously fire bombed. #ncpol pic.twitter.com/TayJcdMMX1

— NCGOP (@NCGOP) October 16, 2016

The building, located at 347 Ja-Max Drive in the Shops at Daniel Boone, was struck overnight with hate graffiti and with a flammable material thrown through a front window of the headquarters. The graffiti — which included a swastika and the words “Nazi Republicans leave town or else” — was spray-painted in black on the side of an adjacent building, Balloons Above Orange, 353 Ja-Max Drive. The damage was discovered this morning by another business owner, who reported it before 9 a.m.

“The office itself is a total loss,” said Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of state GOP. “The only thing important to us is that nobody was killed, and they very well could have been.”

Police said the words, “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” were spray painted on the side of an adjacent building.

IMG_6379_0.jpg

“This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety via fire, and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation,” Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens said. “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of people who make Hillsborough their home: Acts like this have no place in our community. Our law enforcement officials are responding quickly and thoroughly to investigate this reprehensible act and prosecute the perpetrators.”

The North Carolina Republican party issued the following statement:

NC%20GOP_0.jpg

The mayor said law enforcement officials are investigating the incident. Anyone with information is asked to call the police department’s tip line at 919-732-3975.

In the meantime, Woodhouse said he’s sending an advisory to county Republican offices across the state warning them to take extra caution.



via IFTTT

Head of Clinton’s Campaign John Podesta Talks About A UFO That Crashed In The 1960s

ORIGINAL LINK

As you’ve probably already heard, Wikileaks has been exposing previously classified documents and private emails of various people within politics. Some of these emails include leaks from John Podesta’s inbox. Podesta is the current head of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and also a former councillor to Barack Obama, as well as former White House Chief of Staff under the Clinton administration.

Some of these Wikileaks dealt with the topic of UFOs, extraterrestrials, zero-point energy and more, in the form of emails sent to Podesta by former Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to walk on the moon.  You can read more about that here.

Although this might have been surprising to many, those who keep close tabs on the UFO issue were not shocked at all, and that’s because Podesta has been outspoken about UFOs for a very long time, and he is not the only politician to do so, there have been dozens over the past few decades.

For example, Senator Barry Goldwater, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said:

“This thing has gotten so highly-classified… it is just impossible to get anything on it. I have no idea who controls the flow of need-to-know because, frankly, I was told in such an emphatic way that it was none of my business that I’ve never tried to make it to be my business since. I have been interested in this subject for a long time and I do know that whatever the Air Force has on the subject is going to remain highly classified.” (source)

He has also stated that he thinks that at “Wright Patterson Field, if you could get into certain places, you find out what the Air Force and the government knows about UFOs. Reportedly, a spaceship landed, and it was all hushed up quieted and nobody ever heard about much of it.” (source)

He also told of a story of calling General Curtis Lemay, stating that he said “General, ugh, I know we have a room at Wright Patterson, where you put all this secret stuff, can I go in there? I’ve never heard him get mad, but he got madder than hell at me, cussed me out and said, ‘don’t ever ask me that question again.'”

Another example would be Former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), and 2008 presidential candidate who in 2008 stated that there is “an extraterrestrial influence that is investigating our planet. Something is monitoring the planet and they are monitoring it very cautiously.” 

Here is a video of Paul Hellyer, Former Canadian Defence Minister basically doing the same thing.

As far as John Podesta, he wrote the statement below as part of the forward for Leslie Kean’s 2010 New York Times bestseller, “UFOs: Generals, Pilots, And Government Officials Go On The Record,” the same source used for the first Barry Goldwater quote above.

I’m skeptical about many things, including the notion that government always knows best, and that the people can’t be trusted with the truth. The time to pull the curtain back on this subject is long overdue. We have statements from the most credible sources – those in a position to know – about a fascinating phenomenon, the nature of which is yet to be determined.” – John Podesta

John Podesta

If you take a look at the sentence highlighted in red above from Senator Barry Goldwater, he speaks of landing spaceships, or rumours of crashed spaceships like the one that supposedly crashed at Roswell, New Mexico. These types of rumours have been floating around these circles for years.

Below is another example from John Podesta, where he says that he “filled an FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) on a cash of a crash that occurred in Pennsylvania in the 1960’s.”

He went on to state that “nobody knew what it was” and that there was “some speculation of whether it was a Soviet satellite.”

Furthermore, he said that “all of a sudden when the FOIA case was filled it turned out most of the files had disappeared, it was clear that there was an investigation by the Air Force.”

Crash Retrievals of UFOs & Why We Can’t Trust  Government

It’s not odd that Podesta threw  in the comment that “there was some speculation of whether it was a soviet satellite.” Why? Because that’s not probably not true, in my opinion.

It’s no secret that a growing number of people  are starting to lose faith in information that Western governments and mainstream media put forth. A great example is the so-called ‘war on terror,’ the validity of which many people have begun to question. It is now becoming clear that this war is based on false premises meant to justify the invasion of other countries and a heightened national security state. (You can read more about this topic and ‘false flag’ terrorism here).

There are countless examples, the point is, why should we be any different when it comes to the topic of UFOs. Western politics is a cesspool of disinformation, half truths, manipulation of information and lies.

Based on the research conducted by the world’s foremost UFO researchers, and witness testimony from countless people who would be “in the know,” so to speak, it’s clear to me that there have been multiple UFO crashes over the decades, and these crashes have involved the retrieval of the craft along with alien bodies.

That’s a separate topic in itself (crash retrievals). In my research, I’ve come across multiple sources that have stated these craft were able to disarm electronic weapons, nuclear weapons and rockets, but they were incapable of handling anti-aircraft fire. We are also pretty advanced ourselves, more so than we know. Our world is plagued in secrecy, and you can find out more about that in an article I wrote about the Black Budget, here.

To learn more about this topic, and crash retrievals about UFOs, a book titled “UFOs For The 21st Century Mind is a great place to start.”

“Something That’s “Glaringly Obvious.” 

One of the world’s foremost researchers on the topic of UFOs sums it up best, “if one thing is glaringly obvious, it is that the UFO phenomenon is a global and has included many military encounters

“If one thing is glaringly obvious, it is that the UFO phenomenon is global and has included many military encounters.” – Richard Dolan, Author, Historian, UFO Researcher, taken from his book cited above. 

This is true, if something is violating your airspace, and performing maneuvers that defy our understanding of physics, maneuvers that no known  air craft can perform, you’re going to want to take a closer look.vUFOs present a number of defence, national security and air safety issues at the very least.

Military jets are scrambled to intercept these objects that are commonly tracked on air radar, ground radar, and visually confirmed by both ground and air personnel.  What often happens to the jets when they enter into the vicinity of a UFO is that critical weapons systems and electrical devices within the jet go completely dead.

Here is one example out of thousands of declassified files coming from defence agencies from around the world.

Another example would be an event that occurred over Aviano Air Base in Italy, on July 1, 1977. During this event, several U.S. Air Force personnel saw a UFO hovering outside of the base perimeter. While the object was there, the facility lost electrical power. (source) Or when Canadian military pilots were flying in a formation of four F86 Sabre jet aircraft. One of the pilots described the phenomenon as a “bright light which was sharply defined as disk-shaped,” that looked like “a shiny silver dollar sitting horizontal.” Another pilot managed to photograph the object. Dr. Jacques Vallee, notable for co-developing the first computerized mapping of Mars for NASA,  published a paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration titled “Estimates of Optical Power Output in Six Cases Of Unexplained Ariel Objects With Defined Luminosity Characteristics.” (source)(source)

“The nations of the world are currently working together in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon. There is an international exchange of data. Maybe when this group of nations acquires more precise and definite information, it will be possible to release the news to the world” – General Carlos Castro Cavero, Spanish Air Force General

The above statement was made in the 1970’s…

The list goes on and on, again, there are too many documented cases to count.

I’m going to leave you with this last video, one of my favourites, and a great one to let people know that there really is abundant evidence, you just have to look for it. This is something that, I believe, Podesta and his camp are playing an active role in covering up, in the guise of ‘releasing’ documents to find out the truth. I guarantee you that there will be no significant leaks dealing with extraterrestrial bodies and craft from other worlds, but who knows?

The point is, we constantly look to these people for validation of a subjects credibility, which is a huge mistake. Mainstream media and politics is the last place you want to look for any type of truth for this matter.

 

 

 

 

nav_logo_white2.png

 



via IFTTT

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Obama Enters Media Wars: Why His Recent Attack On Free Speech Is So Dangerous & Radical

ORIGINAL LINK

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

20161015_free.jpg

Control of the news media is an instrumental, key feature to any totalitarian government. In contrast, the primary reason this experiment known as the United States has lasted so long under relatively free conditions is due to the preservation of free speech (and press) via the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In case you haven’t read it in a while, here’s the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there do I see an exception for “conspiracy theories,” but apparently Constitutional scholar Barack Obama has an alternative interpretation.

As reported by AFP:

 

Pittsburgh (AFP) – President Barack Obama on Thursday decried America’s “wild, wild west” media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.

 

Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.

 

“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

 

“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.

 

“That is hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible,” he added.

 

“The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”

The above may sound good on a superficial level to people with zero critical thinking skills, but even the most elementary analysis exposes it as the obvious and dangerous attack on free speech that it is. Let’s zero in on a few things he said in closer detail.

He describes the media environment as the “wild, wild west.” Kind of sounds like an environment in which people are free to say, publish or record whatever they want, and let the chips fall where they may. Seems consistent with the first amendment to me.

He notes that there needs to be “some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard.” This sounds good on the surface because, after all, who doesn’t want truth? The problem lies in the fact that governments can and do lie all the time about stuff of monumental significance. Let’s take the Iraq war for example. As I discussed in August’s post, Questioning Hillary’s Health is Not Conspiracy Theory:

Of course, the New York Times rendering judgment on those pushing conspiracy theories would be downright hilarious if it weren’t so sad. For example, the paper itself exhibited no such restraint when it came to peddling U.S. government conspiracies about Iraq in the run up to one of the most inhumane, unnecessary and destructive foreign policy blunders in American history. In fact, the paper was ultimately so embarrassed by its own behavior, it issued a statement in 2004 titled, FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq

Meanwhile, there were millions of people in the “wild west” of opinion making yelling and screaming that the government was misleading the public about Iraq in order to go to war. So who got it right, the New York Times, or the wild, wild west?

If Obama had his way, those people who asserted that the public was being mislead into the Iraq war would have been dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” not worth paying attention to since they refused to agree with government “facts.” Obama’s position is such an obvious authoritarian slippery slope, one has to ask why he would dare go so far.

My view is that there is a full on panic occurring right now at the very top of America’s shadow government due to the fact that the public is no longer falling for corporate media propaganda. Once again, let’s turn to something I wrote in the post, Questioning Hillary’s Health is Not Conspiracy Theory:

As I look at the landscape in 2016 to-date, I observe emergent signs that alternative media is finally beginning to take over from the legacy mainstream media when it comes to impact and influence. The mainstream media (unlike with John McCain in 2008), had decided that Hillary Clinton’s health was not an issue and chose not to pursue it. Many in the alternative media world took a different position, and due to mainstream media’s failure to inform the American public for decades, the alternative media drove that issue to the top of the news cycle. That’s power.

 

This is an incredibly big deal, and the mainstream media intuitively knows what it means. It means a total loss of legitimacy, prestige and power. All of which is well deserved of course.

 

So here’s the bottom line. 2016 represents the true beginning of what I would call the Media Wars. Alternative media is now capable of driving the news cycle. Mainstream media now has no choice but to fight back, and fight back it will. It will fight back dirty. This is going to get very ugly, but by the time the dust has settled, I think much of the mainstream media will be left as a shell of its former self.

By ugly, I didn’t expect the President of these United States to so publicly and radically advocate in favor of free speech restrictions, but here we are.

 

Let’s conclude by tackling another portion of his talk, where he states, “the answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.” 

Who exactly is supposed to be granted the power to create such spaces and verify things as factual? We know that government lies all the time, yet when they lie, they present such falsehoods as fact. It is the duty of the people to decide what to believe and what not to believe. This is not the job of government, or anyone else for that matter.

Yes, it’s true that there’s an unbelievable amount of garbage out there on the internet, but yet we manage. What seems to be happening here with Obama is a not so subtle attempt to blame the rise of Trumpism on alternative media as opposed to the actual culprit, his oligarch coddling policies. It’s a sign of pathetic desperation from a man who has completely and utterly failed the American public while protecting the rich and powerful. It’s an ugly manifestation of an executive who cannot come to terms with the justified anger of a public who feels betrayed by him. Sure a compliant, preening and entirely propagandist media would make Obama feel a whole lot better about his miserable legacy, but we shouldn’t sacrifice the first amendment to achieve this.

For more on this topic, see:

Hillary Clinton Enters the Media Wars

 

The Death of Mainstream Media



via IFTTT