Share

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Facebook Pulls Everytown for Gun Safety Page after Pro-Gunners Grabbed It before Bloomberg

 

Earlier this week, I reported on how ex-NYC Mayor and Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is starting up a new $50 million anti-gun group with all new propaganda and the intent to get a million voters to the polls in pro-2nd Amendment states like Texas. (I wonder how much votes are going for these days, anyway?)

The magical endeavor is to be called, “Everytown for Gun Safety”. Cute, huh?

Well, before Bloomberg and his new club could nab the official Facebook page thus named, a pro-gun group grabbed it first:

everytownfb

everytownc

This was the new page’s profile picture:

enhanced-15072-1397681263-7

I’m writing “was” because it has already been taken down.

tweetfbgungroup

That’s right. Facebook pulled the page right quick, as The Truth About Guns reported:

Well that didn’t take long. Facebook has pulled the plug on the page Everytown for Gun Safety. You may recall that pro-gun forces assumed control of the page last week, after Mayor Bloomberg launched his Everytown for Gun Safety anti-NRA lobby group. The Mayor’s majordomo laughed off the missing link, challenging the page’s [temporary] owners to a duel. While we expected the billionaire anti-ballistics bully boys to prevail, what with trademark lawyers parachuting in to rectify the oversight, we didn’t expect the Everytown page to last long. It didn’t. However . . . there are now dozens of local Everytown for Gun Safety pages run by gun rights advocates. All of which are still on-line. For now.

Bloomberg’s pals did actually challenge the pro-gunners, which they called “cybersquatters”, to a duel:

“Maybe they’d like to duel for it,” said Mark Glaze, the executive director of Everytown for Gun Safety. “I hear every person on our staff of 85 is a better shot than Wayne LaPierre. Or maybe a bidding war!”

On a serious note, Glaze said they are in the process of acquiring trademark protection.

“Once that happens, we expect Facebook to shoo these cybersquattters politely off this name/page,” he said.

So it isn’t over a trademark either, as one commenter pointed out:

fbx

Nope, no announcement has been made on exactly what rule the group broke by putting up the page (unless “pissing off the establishment and its agenda” is an official FB no-no)…but if Facebook is anything like our public schools in this country, displaying pictures of guns and American flags are a surefire way to get instantly censored.

Yep, it is as if those in power everywhere want to take away not only our 2nd Amendment, but apparently our 1st Amendment if we choose to use it to even discuss our 2nd Amendment.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple


Contributed by Melissa Melton of The Daily Sheeple.

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media. Wake the flock up!

Facebook Pulls Everytown for Gun Safety Page after Pro-Gunners Grabbed It before Bloomberg
Melissa Melton
Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:56:31 GMT

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Released! Clinton files on media enemies

 

WASHINGTON – If you want to learn what Hillary Clinton meant by “the vast right-wing conspiracy,” part of the extensive collection of dossiers the Clinton White House kept on its media enemies was released today by the Clinton Library.

The most important of the documents, “The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” originally some 331 pages, was reduced to only 28 pages in the sanitized and heavily redacted version posted by the presidential library.

“The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce refers to the mode of communication employed by the right wing to convey their fringe stories into legitimate subjects of coverage by the mainstream media,” explains the report. “This is how the stream works: Well-funded right wing think tanks and individuals underwrite conservative newsletters and newspapers such as the Western Journalism Center, the American Spectator and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Next, the stories are reprinted on the Internet where they are bounced into the mainstream media through one of two ways: 1) the story will be picked up by the British tabloids and covered as a major story, from which the American right-of-center mainstream media, (i.e. the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and New York Post) will then pick the story up; or 2) The story will be bounced directly from the Internet to the right-of-center mainstream American media. After the mainstream right-of-center media covers the story, congressional committees will look into the story. After Congress looks into the story, the story now has the legitimacy to be covered by the remainder of the American mainstream press as a ‘real’ story.”

What makes a book about Bill and Hillary Clinton so explosive that someone would steal it? It’s all here in “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton” (Hardcover)

The operation launched by the Clinton administration in response to this conspiracy theory was designed to prevent so-called “mainstream media” from picking up such stories. That effort came in several parts:

  • The original 331-page report was distributed by the White House and the Democratic National Committee to select reporters in an effort to discredit those behind the critical reports on the Clinton White House – namely billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, journalist Joseph Farah, political activist Floyd Brown and the American Spectator.
  • Hillary Clinton’s public relations effort to vilify what she called “the cast right-wing conspiracy.”
  • A pattern of politically motivated audits of individuals and organizations by the Internal Revenue Service.

“It’s quite an amazing story,” said Farah, founder and editor of WND whose Western Journalism Center was audited after the White House sent a letter from a constituent calling for an investigation to the IRS. “It may all have a familiar ring to the tea party groups of the 21st century. Clinton got away with it, so it was bound to happen again – and it most assuredly has.”

In Bill Clinton’s memoir, curiously little is said about the many women whose lives he upended and changed forever. That’s remedied in “Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine” (Hardcover)

The document dump today included some 7,500 pages in all, but the focus of attention has been the mysterious Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, as it was dubbed by the Clinton White House.

Most notable in the sections of the report released publicly is the concern the White House had for the impact of the new media, hearkening back to Hillary Clinton’s concern about the Internet that there were “no gatekeepers.”

“The Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication,” the report warns. “The Internet can link people, groups and organizations together instantly. Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all. The right wing has seized upon the Internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the Internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.”

Four of the 28 pages in the redacted report released today focus on Farah – his history running daily newspapers, his religious views and his investigations into official corruption.

“Some time back in 1994 or 1995, Bill and Hillary Clinton had what I would now describe as ‘a prophetic nightmare.’” explains Farah. “Everyone who was conscious back then will remember Hillary talking about this bad dream in a television interview in which she explained that her husband’s problems were all manufactured by ‘a vast right-wing conspiracy.’ This nightmare is chronicled the complete version of the Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, which I intend to publish later this year in its entirety. This was a report distributed to select U.S. reporters in an effort to discredit a new breed of investigative journalism into what was, until now, already emerging as the most scandal-plagued administration in the history of the United States.”

Farah points out that that this concern by the White House was very early in the history of the Internet.

“No one had yet heard of Matt Drudge,” Farah says. “No one knew about the ‘blue dress.’ This was before WND, or WorldNetDaily as it was originally known 17 years ago. To keep things in perspective, I think Monica Lewinsky was a teenage undergraduate student at the time.”

Farah notes the concern expressed in the report about “unregulated data.”

“That’s Hillary, right there,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if she wrote that section herself. A few years later she deplored the fact that the Internet lacks ‘any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.’”

Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment – (Autograped, Hardcover). It’s the ultimate insider’s story on what led a very reluctant House of Representatives to impeach a then-very-popular American president.

To put things in perspective, when this report was distributed to a few dozen key reporters by the White House, there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet.

“I think the Clintons saw what was coming and feared it,” said Farah. “The free market, working through the Internet was addressing longstanding institutional problems in the media, as well as exposing fraud, waste, corruption and abuse at the highest levels of government. This was a crisis for them.”

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah about this story can contact media@wnd.com.

Released! Clinton files on media enemies
-NO AUTHOR-
Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:34:32 GMT

Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover | The Salt Lake Tribune

Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover | The Salt Lake Tribune

Democrats awash in ‘green’ energy deals on public land

Democrats awash in ‘green’ energy deals on public land

Protection for 'children' includes unborn

 

A remarkable opinion in a ruling by the Supreme Court of Alabama that is bound to be quoted in abortion disputes declares the unborn are protected by rights granted by God to every human being.

“Our Creator, not government, gives to all people ‘unalienable’ natural rights,” the opinion asserts, arguing that state laws protecting children after birth also cover the unborn.

The concurrent opinion by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who once fought the state over the display of the Ten Commandments, says: “As stated by James Wilson, one of the first justices on the United States Supreme Court: ‘Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine.’”

Moore noted the “first right listed in the Declaration as among our unalienable rights is the right to ‘Life.’”

“Blackstone wrote that ‘[l]ife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb,’” he wrote.

The case at hand dealt with a woman, Sarah Janie Hicks, who was charged after her newborn tested positive for drugs. She had pleaded guilty to a count of violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute. Her conviction was affirmed.

“We … hold that the use of the word ‘child’ in the chemical-endangerment statute includes all children, born and unborn, and furthers Alabama’s policy of protecting life from the earliest stages of development,” the majority opinion said.

The non-profit Liberty Counsel, which represents pro-life organizations, submitted a brief in the case.

“In an age where some judges do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or do not even care, finally the Alabama Supreme Court springs forth with a ray of light,” said Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

Staver said the opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker “are well-reasoned, grounded in history and natural law, and completely demolish the fallacies of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions.”

“One day soon the United States Supreme Court’s abortion opinions will come toppling down like a house of cards,” he said. ‘Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child.”

The 8-1 decision affirmed the position adopted by the court a year ago. In that case, Ankrom v. State, the court ruled the term “child” includes the “unborn child.”

Read about the inside of the abortion industry, in “Unplanned,” see what happens when people learn the truth, in “180.”

Hicks argued “that the word ‘child’ in the chemical-endangerment statute did not apply to an unborn child.”

It’s the argument regularly put forward by activists for abortion.

The court said “the plain meaning of the word ‘child,’ as that word is used in the chemical-endangerment statute, includes an unborn child.”

The opinion goes on to argue that “the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of children from the earliest stages of their development and has done so by enacting the chemical-endangerment statute.”

Moore wrote: “God, not governments and legislatures, gives persons these inherent natural rights.”

“Government, in fact, has no power to abridge or destroy natural rights God directly besets to mankind and indeed no power to contravene what God declares right or wrong.”

Moore said that as “the gift of God, this right to life is not subject to violation by another’s unilateral choice.”

“States have an affirmative duty to protect unborn human life under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he said.

The statement alluded to the majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that created the right to abortion in America.

Blackmun admitted that if a fetus was ever determined to be a human being, the landmark case would collapse.

“If this suggestion of personhood is established,” Blackmun wrote. “[Jane Roe's] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the amendment.””

Moore said that because a human life “with a full genetic endowment comes into existence at the moment of conception, the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights encompasses the moment of conception.”

“Legal recognition of the unborn as members of the human family,” he said, “derives ultimately from the laws of nature and nature’s God, who created human life in His image and protected it with the commandment: ‘Thou shall not kill.’”

Parker said that in contrast “to the reasoning of Roe and Casey, Alabama’s reliance upon objective principles has led this court to consistently recognize the inalienable right to life inherently possessed by every human being and to dispel the shroud of doubt cast by the United States Supreme Court’s violation of the law of noncontradiction.”

“Liberty will continue to find no refuge in abortion jurisprudence until courts refuse to violate the law of noncontradiction and, like Alabama, recognize an unborn child’s inalienable right to life at every point in time and in every respect,” he said.

He blasted the regulations in many states that allow early-term abortions while banning late-term procedures.

“The unborn child cannot logically be a separate and distinct human for the purposes of one abortion procedure but not another. Protecting the unborn child’s right to life at all stages of development would eliminate the contradictory reasoning of the court’s abortion decisions and dispel the shroud of doubt obscuring the unborn child’s right to life.”

He said that because an unborn child “has an inalienable right to life from its earliest stages of development, it is entitled not only to a life free from the harmful effects of chemicals at all stages of development but also to life itself at all stages of development.”

“Treating an unborn child as a separate and distinct person in only select respects defies logic and our deepest sense of morality.”

Protection for 'children' includes unborn
Bob Unruh
Sat, 19 Apr 2014 00:12:54 GMT

Illegal alien champions Gates, Soros profit by jailing them

Illegal alien champions Gates, Soros profit by jailing them

northwest-detention-center

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass

 

Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass

April 16, 2014

Exclusive: As the post-coup regime in Ukraine sends troops and paramilitaries to crack down on ethnic Russian protesters in the east, the U.S. news media continues to feed the American public a steady dose of anti-Russian propaganda, often wrapped in accusations of “Russian propaganda,” Robert Parry reports.

By Robert Parry

The acting president of the coup regime in Kiev announces that he is ordering an “anti-terrorist” operation against pro-Russian protesters in eastern Ukraine, while his national security chief says he has dispatched right-wing ultranationalist fighters who spearheaded the Feb. 22 coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

On Tuesday, Andriy Parubiy, head of the Ukrainian National Security Council, went on Twitter to declare, “Reserve unit of National Guard formed #Maidan Self-defense volunteers was sent to the front line this morning.” Parubiy was referring to the neo-Nazi militias that provided the organized muscle that overthrew Yanukovych, forcing him to flee for his life. Some of these militias have since been incorporated into security forces as “National Guard.”

Ukrainian Secretary for National Security Andriy Parubiy.

Ukrainian Secretary for National Security Andriy Parubiy.

Parubiy himself is a well-known neo-Nazi, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991. The party blended radical Ukrainian nationalism with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy also formed a paramilitary spinoff, the Patriots of Ukraine, and defended the awarding of the title, “Hero of Ukraine,” to World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose own paramilitary forces exterminated thousands of Jews and Poles in pursuit of a racially pure Ukraine.

During the months of protests aimed at overthrowing Yanukovych, Parubiy became the commandant of “Euromaidan,” the name for the Kiev uprising, and – after the Feb. 22 coup – Parubiy was one of four far-right Ukrainian nationalists given control of a ministry, i.e. national security.

But the U.S. press has played down his role because his neo-Nazism conflicts with Official Washington’s narrative that the neo-Nazis played little or no role in the “revolution.” References to neo-Nazis in the “interim government” are dismissed as “Russian propaganda.”

Yet there Parubiy was on Tuesday bragging that some of his neo-Nazi storm troopers – renamed “National Guard” – were now being sicced on rebellious eastern Ukraine as part of the Kiev government’s “anti-terrorist” operation.

The post-coup President Oleksandr Turchynov also warned that Ukraine was confronting a “colossal danger,” but he insisted that the suppression of the pro-Russian protesters would be treated as an “anti-terrorist” operation and not as a “civil war.” Everyone should understand by now that “anti-terror” suggests extrajudicial killings, torture and “counter-terror.”

Yet, with much of the Ukrainian military of dubious loyalty to the coup regime, the dispatch of the neo-Nazi militias from western Ukraine’s Right Sektor and Svoboda parties represents a significant development. Not only do the Ukrainian neo-Nazis consider the ethnic Russians an alien presence, but these right-wing militias are organized to wage street fighting as they did in the February uprising.

Historically, right-wing paramilitaries have played crucial roles in “counter-terror” campaigns around the world. In Central America in the 1980s, for instance, right-wing “death squads” did much of the dirty work for U.S.-backed military regimes as they crushed social protests and guerrilla movements.

The merging of the concept of “anti-terrorism” with right-wing paramilitaries represents a potentially frightening development for the people of eastern Ukraine. And much of this information – about Turchynov’s comments and Parubiy’s tweet – can be found in a New York Times’ dispatch from Ukraine.

Whose Propaganda?

However, on the Times’ front page on Wednesday was a bizarre story by David M. Herszenhorn accusing the Russian government of engaging in a propaganda war by making many of the same points that you could find – albeit without the useful context about Parubiy’s neo-Nazibackground – in the same newspaper.

In the article entitled “Russia Is Quick To Bend Truth About Ukraine,” Herszenhorn mocked Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev for making a Facebook posting that “was bleak and full of dread,” including noting that “blood has been spilled in Ukraine again” and adding that “the threat of civil war looms.”

The Times article continued, “He [Medvedev] pleaded with Ukrainians to decide their own future ‘without usurpers, nationalists and bandits, without tanks or armored vehicles – and without secret visits by the C.I.A. director.’ And so began another day of bluster and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week.”

This argumentative “news” story spilled from the front page to the top half of an inside page, but Herszenhorn never managed to mention that there was nothing false in what Medvedev said. Indeed, it was the much-maligned Russian press that first reported the secret visit of CIA Director John Brennan to Kiev.

Though the White House has since confirmed that report, Herszenhorn cites Medvedev’s reference to it in the context of “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories.” Nowhere in the long article does the Times inform its readers that, yes, the CIA director did make a secret visit to Ukraine last weekend. Presumably, that reality has now disappeared into the great memory hole along with the on-ground reporting from Feb. 22 about the key role of the neo-Nazi militias.

The neo-Nazis themselves have pretty much disappeared from Official Washington’s narrative, which now usually recounts the coup as simply a case of months of protests followed by Yanukovych’s decision to flee. Only occasionally, often buried deep in news articles with the context removed, can you find admissions of how the neo-Nazis spearheaded the coup.

A Wounded Extremist

For instance, on April 6, the New York Times published a human-interest profile of a Ukrainian named Yuri Marchuk who was wounded in clashes around Kiev’s Maidan square in February. You have to read far into the story to learn that Marchuk was a Svoboda leader from Lviv, which – if you did your own research – you would discover is a neo-Nazi stronghold where Ukrainian nationalists hold torch-light parades in honor of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.

Without providing that context, the Times does mention that Lviv militants plundered a government weapons depot and dispatched 600 militants a day to do battle in Kiev. Marchuk also described how these well-organized militants, consisting of paramilitary brigades of 100 fighters each, launched the fateful attack against the police on Feb. 20, the battle where Marchuk was wounded and where the death toll suddenly spiked into scores of protesters and about a dozen police.

Marchuk later said he visited his comrades at the occupied City Hall. What the Times doesn’t mention is that City Hall was festooned with Nazi banners and even a Confederate battle flag as a tribute to white supremacy.

The Times touched on the inconvenient truth of the neo-Nazis again on April 12 in an articleabout the mysterious death of neo-Nazi leader Oleksandr Muzychko, who was killed during a shootout with police on March 24. The article quoted a local Right Sektor leader, Roman Koval, explaining the crucial role of his organization in carrying out the anti-Yanukovych coup.

“Ukraine’s February revolution, said Mr. Koval, would never have happened without Right Sector and other militant groups,” the Times wrote. Yet, that reality – though actually reported in the New York Times – has now become “Russian propaganda,” according to the New York Times.

This upside-down American narrative also ignores the well-documented interference of prominent U.S. officials in stirring up the protesters in Kiev, which is located in the western part of Ukraine and is thus more anti-Russian than eastern Ukraine where many ethnic Russians live and where Yanukovych had his political base.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was a cheerleader for the uprising, reminding Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations,” discussing who should replace Yanukovych (her choice, Arseniy Yatsenyuk became the new prime minister), and literally passing out cookies to the protesters in the Maidan. (Nuland is married to neoconservative superstar Robert Kagan, a founder of the Project for the New American Century.)

During the protests, neocon Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, took the stage with leaders of Svoboda – surrounded by banners honoring Stepan Bandera – and urged on the protesters. Even before the demonstrations began, prominent neocon Carl Gershman, president of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, had dubbed Ukraine “the biggest prize.” [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “What’s the Matter with John Kerry?”]

Indeed, in my four-plus decades in journalism, I have never seen a more thoroughly biased and misleading performance by the major U.S. news media. Even during the days of Ronald Reagan – when much of the government’s modern propaganda structure was created – there was more independence in major news outlets. There were media stampedes off the reality cliff during George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War and George W. Bush’s Iraq War, both of which were marked by demonstrably false claims that were readily swallowed by the big U.S. news outlets.

But there is something utterly Orwellian in the current coverage of the Ukraine crisis, including accusing others of “propaganda” when their accounts – though surely not perfect – are much more honest and more accurate than what the U.S. press corps has been producing.

There’s also the added risk that this latest failure by the U.S. press corps is occurring on the border of Russia, a nuclear-armed state that – along with the United States – could exterminate all life on the planet. The biased U.S. news coverage is now feeding into political demands to send U.S. military aid to Ukraine’s coup regime.

The casualness of this propaganda – as it spreads across the U.S. media spectrum from Fox News to MSNBC, from the Washington Post to the New York Times – is not just wretched journalism but it is reckless malfeasance jeopardizing the lives of many Ukrainians and the future of the planet.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Effective Immediately: France Bans All GMO Cultivation

 

"I do not want"

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post
The French National Assembly has made a sweeping declaration with a new bill, effective immediately. No more genetically modified crops.
On Tuesday, the French lower house of parliament adopted a law immediately banning cultivation of any GMO corn, due to environmental safety concerns.
Recently, they also made a halt decree to prohibit planting the only GM crop allowed in the EU - Monsanto's MON810 corn, with built-in insect resistance.
Jean-Marie Le Guen, the minister in charge of relations with parliament, said:

It is essential today to renew a widely shared desire to maintain the French ban. This bill strengthens the decree passed last March by preventing the immediate cultivation of GMO and extending their reach to all transgenic maize varieties.

Farmers and seed companies are challenging the rule, as they have blocked similar decrees before, viewing safety concerns insufficient. But Le Guen bound the rule so that member state decisions could not be litigated against.
The ban heads back to the Senate for final approval - if rejected, the French National Assembly gets to cast the final ruling. Future strains will be banned even if the EU states approve more.
Of course big biotech companies are not satisfied to let bans rest. If companies like Monsanto have any say, they'll be back. The EU actually wants to give them that final say.
Additionally, DuPont and Dow Chemical are poised to crash the EU again, if allowed. They already jointly developed Pioneer 1507 GM corn and most of the member states did not gather enough votes to block it.
It appears these companies have money, power and persistence on their side to keep pushing despite wide-spread consumer and safety concerns.
Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/us-france-gmo-idUSBREA3E1NY20140415
http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/16/french-parliament-bans-gmo-corn/
Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.
Recent posts by Heather Callaghan:

Non GMO Survival Food Storage

Effective Immediately: France Bans All GMO Cultivation
Activist
Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:17:00 GMT