TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
Monday, September 8, 2014
Thursday, September 4, 2014
The History of Wall Street’s Unspoken Relationship to Nazi Germany: Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again : Truth Frequency Radio
The History of Wall Street’s Unspoken Relationship to Nazi Germany: Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again : Truth Frequency Radio
Truth Frequency Radio
Sep 01, 2014
Truth Frequency Radio
Sep 01, 2014
By Yuriy Rubtsov
Strategic Culture Foundation
Many media outlets compare the contemporary situation in Europe with the days before WWII. I would like to make an important correction here. Now we are watching the West fostering another Nazi regime represented by Kiev junta and it makes remember the second half of the 1930s when it did the very same thing cooperating with Germany turned into a fascist state.
Of course, the Ukraine we know today cannot measure up to Hitler’s Germany. But the first blow is half the battle. The running amok Fuhrer started as an unknown corporal preaching xenophobia and revenge.
It’s an open secret that Adolf Hitler was supported by the United States. The US penetration was significant, especially its cooperation with the German war industry. By 1933 the United States controlled key branches of Germany’s economy, as well as several large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, etc.
Big business started to trust Hitler. Those were the days of affluence for theNational Socialist German Workers’ Party as funds from abroad began to pour in. Thanks to large donations from Fritz Thyssen’s group including the United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG), I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG) and mining industry tycoon Emil Kirdorf the party received 6,4 million votes to become the second largest in the Reichstag (parliament). Hjalmar Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970), a German economist, banker, liberal politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party, became the key connecting link between German industry and foreign donors.
British business and banking interests also started to channel donations to the Nazi party. On January 4, 1932 Montague Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, met Hitler and German ChancellorFranz von Papen to conclude a secret accord on providing funds for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The US was also represented at this meeting. Both Dulles brothers were present. Western historians shy away from mentioning the fact. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were politically connected Wall Street lawyers, servants of corporate power, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today’s world.
It is worth noting, that during the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, the two immensely powerful Dulles brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. As a result of lavish donations coming in from abroad, the ruling Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler, who was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, registered a large increase in votes emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority in their own right and needed the votes of their coalition partner, the German National People’s Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.
The new German government was treated extremely favorably by US and UK ruling circles. Western democracies kept silent when Berlin refused to pay reparations. Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, went to the United States in May 1933 to meet President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and leading Wall Street bankers. Germany was granted a $1 billion credit. And in June, during a visit to Norman in London, Schacht requested an addition $2 billion in loans as well as a reduction and eventual cessation of payment on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got something that the previous government could not.
In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 1930′s, Germany developed into Britain’s primary trading partner. Schroeder’s bank turned into Germany and Great Britain’s main agent, and in 1936, its New York branch merged with a Rockefeller holding to create the investment bank «Schroeder, Rockefeller and Co.», which the New York Times described as «economic-propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome».
The ‘Secret Memorandum’ was issued by Adolf Hitler in August 1936. The memorandum went out only to a few senior Nazi leaders and its contents – information about the Four-Year Plan – was formally announced to the party’s faithful in September 1936 at the party rally in Nuremberg. The Secret Memorandum stated that in four years Germany was to develop capable combat-ready armed forces and its economy was to be mobilized to meet the needs of war. As he admitted to himself, Hitler viewed foreign credit as the financial basis for his four-year plan, so this didn’t raise the slightest alarm.
In August 1934, American oil giant Standard Oil purchased 730,000 acres of land in Germany and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, the United States secretly provided Germany with the most modern equipment for its airplane factories, which were slated to produce Germany’s military aircraft.
In turn, Germany received a large number of patents from several American companies including Pratt and Whitney, Douglas, and the Bendix Corporation, and the “Junkers-87″ dive-bomber was built using purely American technology. As the war broke out, the monopolies stuck to the good old tried-and-true rule – nothing personal, only business. By 1941, when the Second World War was in full swing, American investment in the German economy totaled $475 million: Standard Oil invested $120 million alone, General Motors — $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.
What motivated the interest of Western business in the growing might of Nazi Germany?
The goal was to direct Hitler to the East involving a German invasion of Russia. The conquest of Lebensraum («living space») was for Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists the most important German foreign policy goal. At his first meeting with the leading Generals and Admirals of the Reich («Empire») on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East and ruthless ‘Germanization’ as his two ultimate foreign policy objectives.
For Hitler, the land which would provide sufficient Lebensraum for Germany was the Soviet Union, which in Hitler eyes was both a nation that possessed vast and rich agricultural land and was inhabited by what Hitler considered as SlavicUntermenschen (sub-humans) ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of blood-thirsty, but grossly incompetent “Jewish revolutionaries”. These people were not “Germanizable” in his eyes; only the soil was.
The US and Britain, which were firmly opposed to the rise of Communism in the Soviet Union, tacitly endorsed Hitler’s “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East, as initially stated in Mein Kampf:
“We National Socialists consciously draw a line under the direction of our foreign policy war. We begin where we ended six centuries ago. We stop the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and have the view on the country in the east. We finally put the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-war and go over to the territorial policy of the future. But if we speak today in Europe of new land, we primarily point to Russia and the border states”
In turn, the policy of appeasement was implemented by Western countries in the 1930s against a background of financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American business interests with Nazi Germany.
In October 1930, Germany withdrew from both the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of 1932–1934 (sometimes named the World Disarmament Conference or Geneva Disarmament Conference) and the League of Nations.
In March 1936, Hitler ordered his troops to openly re-enter the Rhineland which had been demilitarized under the Versailles Treaty.
In March 1938 Austria was annexed.
The West did not react.
Fall Grün (Operation Green), a German military plan to occupy Czechoslovakia, was approved by Hitler in December 1937. The execution of Operation Green was called off after the Munich Pact was concluded between England, France, Italy and Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938.
While Hitler signed the Munich agreement along with Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini, the operation to invade Czechoslovakia prevailed. On October 21 he ordered to start preparations for the military annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia and the Klaipeda Region (also known as the Memel Territory) which had been part of Lithuania since 1923.
In March 1939, Germany delivered an ultimatum to Poland demanding renegotiation of the Danzig agreement. The Polish Corridor (also known as Danzig Corridor, Corridor to the Sea or Gdansk Corridor) was a territory located in the region of Pomerelia (eastern Pomerania, formerly part of West Prussia), which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea, thus dividing the bulk of Germany from the province of East Prussia. The Free city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk) was separate from both Poland and Germany.
But Memel and Danzig were not the ultimate goal of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was fully aware that nobody in the West had any intention to stand in his way. On April 1939 he secretly ordered Poland to be attacked on September 1.
With the seizure of Czechoslovakia, Hitler’s duel-track policy was an open secret even for the most shortsighted politicians and diplomats. The Soviet Union still cherished hope to build a collective system of security in Europe. It managed to make London and Paris start talks on creating a really effective alliance to counter the aggressor. But these talks were to reveal that the Western partners were reluctant to hinder Hitler’s expansionary policy to the East. Sir Alexander Cadogan (Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office) cited Chamberlain saying he would rather resign the premiership than conclude an agreement with the Soviets.
When Germany attacked Poland and the Second World War started, Western leaders pointed their finger at both the Soviet Union and Germany which signed the Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939. Supported by a choir of propaganda, they said it was not the Western appeasement policy, but rather the USSR-Germany Non-Aggression Pact which triggered the war.
In the wake of World War II, neither London, nor Washington, nor Paris want to hear the truth about these historical events. They signed the Nuremberg Trial verdict that found Germany guilty of grave crimes and violations of international law and the laws of war, without acknowledging who was behind Nazi Germany? The political and financial elites of the United States, Great Britain and France were directly involved in fostering Nazi regime. They incited Hitler to move east.
The West has never recognized its responsibility for supporting Hitler’s regime.
In today’s context, it has does its utmost to prevent Russia’s return on the world stage as a leading actor.
Today it is fostering the ulcer of Nazism and xenophobia emerging right in front of our very eyes. To hide the truth it circulates the Washington-invented and Europe-inculcated story about “Russian aggression” against Ukraine.
Russia is demonized and provoked into direct confrontation with a view to triggering its involvement in Ukraine’s internal conflict.
While the Kiev junta is not “in the same league” as Germany’s Nazi regime, history shows that the ulcer of Nazism combined with the thrust of Russophobia is gaining momentum. And sooner or later it may be beyond the control of those who encouraged it in the first place.
The slogan “Ukraine above all” sounds very much like a remake of Nazi Germany’s “Deutschland über alles”, (Germany above all). “Ukraine above all” is being used to justify the crimes committed by Ukraine forces in Novorossiya.
Edited by Global Research
Strategic Culture Foundation
Many media outlets compare the contemporary situation in Europe with the days before WWII. I would like to make an important correction here. Now we are watching the West fostering another Nazi regime represented by Kiev junta and it makes remember the second half of the 1930s when it did the very same thing cooperating with Germany turned into a fascist state.
Of course, the Ukraine we know today cannot measure up to Hitler’s Germany. But the first blow is half the battle. The running amok Fuhrer started as an unknown corporal preaching xenophobia and revenge.
It’s an open secret that Adolf Hitler was supported by the United States. The US penetration was significant, especially its cooperation with the German war industry. By 1933 the United States controlled key branches of Germany’s economy, as well as several large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, etc.
Big business started to trust Hitler. Those were the days of affluence for theNational Socialist German Workers’ Party as funds from abroad began to pour in. Thanks to large donations from Fritz Thyssen’s group including the United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG), I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG) and mining industry tycoon Emil Kirdorf the party received 6,4 million votes to become the second largest in the Reichstag (parliament). Hjalmar Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970), a German economist, banker, liberal politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party, became the key connecting link between German industry and foreign donors.
British business and banking interests also started to channel donations to the Nazi party. On January 4, 1932 Montague Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, met Hitler and German ChancellorFranz von Papen to conclude a secret accord on providing funds for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The US was also represented at this meeting. Both Dulles brothers were present. Western historians shy away from mentioning the fact. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were politically connected Wall Street lawyers, servants of corporate power, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today’s world.It is worth noting, that during the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, the two immensely powerful Dulles brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. As a result of lavish donations coming in from abroad, the ruling Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler, who was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, registered a large increase in votes emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority in their own right and needed the votes of their coalition partner, the German National People’s Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.
The new German government was treated extremely favorably by US and UK ruling circles. Western democracies kept silent when Berlin refused to pay reparations. Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, went to the United States in May 1933 to meet President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and leading Wall Street bankers. Germany was granted a $1 billion credit. And in June, during a visit to Norman in London, Schacht requested an addition $2 billion in loans as well as a reduction and eventual cessation of payment on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got something that the previous government could not.
In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 1930′s, Germany developed into Britain’s primary trading partner. Schroeder’s bank turned into Germany and Great Britain’s main agent, and in 1936, its New York branch merged with a Rockefeller holding to create the investment bank «Schroeder, Rockefeller and Co.», which the New York Times described as «economic-propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome».
The ‘Secret Memorandum’ was issued by Adolf Hitler in August 1936. The memorandum went out only to a few senior Nazi leaders and its contents – information about the Four-Year Plan – was formally announced to the party’s faithful in September 1936 at the party rally in Nuremberg. The Secret Memorandum stated that in four years Germany was to develop capable combat-ready armed forces and its economy was to be mobilized to meet the needs of war. As he admitted to himself, Hitler viewed foreign credit as the financial basis for his four-year plan, so this didn’t raise the slightest alarm.
In August 1934, American oil giant Standard Oil purchased 730,000 acres of land in Germany and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, the United States secretly provided Germany with the most modern equipment for its airplane factories, which were slated to produce Germany’s military aircraft.
In turn, Germany received a large number of patents from several American companies including Pratt and Whitney, Douglas, and the Bendix Corporation, and the “Junkers-87″ dive-bomber was built using purely American technology. As the war broke out, the monopolies stuck to the good old tried-and-true rule – nothing personal, only business. By 1941, when the Second World War was in full swing, American investment in the German economy totaled $475 million: Standard Oil invested $120 million alone, General Motors — $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.
What motivated the interest of Western business in the growing might of Nazi Germany?
The goal was to direct Hitler to the East involving a German invasion of Russia. The conquest of Lebensraum («living space») was for Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists the most important German foreign policy goal. At his first meeting with the leading Generals and Admirals of the Reich («Empire») on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East and ruthless ‘Germanization’ as his two ultimate foreign policy objectives.
For Hitler, the land which would provide sufficient Lebensraum for Germany was the Soviet Union, which in Hitler eyes was both a nation that possessed vast and rich agricultural land and was inhabited by what Hitler considered as SlavicUntermenschen (sub-humans) ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of blood-thirsty, but grossly incompetent “Jewish revolutionaries”. These people were not “Germanizable” in his eyes; only the soil was.
The US and Britain, which were firmly opposed to the rise of Communism in the Soviet Union, tacitly endorsed Hitler’s “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East, as initially stated in Mein Kampf:
“We National Socialists consciously draw a line under the direction of our foreign policy war. We begin where we ended six centuries ago. We stop the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and have the view on the country in the east. We finally put the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-war and go over to the territorial policy of the future. But if we speak today in Europe of new land, we primarily point to Russia and the border states”
In turn, the policy of appeasement was implemented by Western countries in the 1930s against a background of financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American business interests with Nazi Germany.
In October 1930, Germany withdrew from both the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of 1932–1934 (sometimes named the World Disarmament Conference or Geneva Disarmament Conference) and the League of Nations.
In March 1936, Hitler ordered his troops to openly re-enter the Rhineland which had been demilitarized under the Versailles Treaty.
In March 1938 Austria was annexed.
The West did not react.
Fall Grün (Operation Green), a German military plan to occupy Czechoslovakia, was approved by Hitler in December 1937. The execution of Operation Green was called off after the Munich Pact was concluded between England, France, Italy and Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938.
While Hitler signed the Munich agreement along with Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini, the operation to invade Czechoslovakia prevailed. On October 21 he ordered to start preparations for the military annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia and the Klaipeda Region (also known as the Memel Territory) which had been part of Lithuania since 1923.
In March 1939, Germany delivered an ultimatum to Poland demanding renegotiation of the Danzig agreement. The Polish Corridor (also known as Danzig Corridor, Corridor to the Sea or Gdansk Corridor) was a territory located in the region of Pomerelia (eastern Pomerania, formerly part of West Prussia), which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea, thus dividing the bulk of Germany from the province of East Prussia. The Free city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk) was separate from both Poland and Germany.
But Memel and Danzig were not the ultimate goal of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was fully aware that nobody in the West had any intention to stand in his way. On April 1939 he secretly ordered Poland to be attacked on September 1.
With the seizure of Czechoslovakia, Hitler’s duel-track policy was an open secret even for the most shortsighted politicians and diplomats. The Soviet Union still cherished hope to build a collective system of security in Europe. It managed to make London and Paris start talks on creating a really effective alliance to counter the aggressor. But these talks were to reveal that the Western partners were reluctant to hinder Hitler’s expansionary policy to the East. Sir Alexander Cadogan (Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office) cited Chamberlain saying he would rather resign the premiership than conclude an agreement with the Soviets.
When Germany attacked Poland and the Second World War started, Western leaders pointed their finger at both the Soviet Union and Germany which signed the Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939. Supported by a choir of propaganda, they said it was not the Western appeasement policy, but rather the USSR-Germany Non-Aggression Pact which triggered the war.
In the wake of World War II, neither London, nor Washington, nor Paris want to hear the truth about these historical events. They signed the Nuremberg Trial verdict that found Germany guilty of grave crimes and violations of international law and the laws of war, without acknowledging who was behind Nazi Germany? The political and financial elites of the United States, Great Britain and France were directly involved in fostering Nazi regime. They incited Hitler to move east.
The West has never recognized its responsibility for supporting Hitler’s regime.
In today’s context, it has does its utmost to prevent Russia’s return on the world stage as a leading actor.
Today it is fostering the ulcer of Nazism and xenophobia emerging right in front of our very eyes. To hide the truth it circulates the Washington-invented and Europe-inculcated story about “Russian aggression” against Ukraine.
Russia is demonized and provoked into direct confrontation with a view to triggering its involvement in Ukraine’s internal conflict.
While the Kiev junta is not “in the same league” as Germany’s Nazi regime, history shows that the ulcer of Nazism combined with the thrust of Russophobia is gaining momentum. And sooner or later it may be beyond the control of those who encouraged it in the first place.
The slogan “Ukraine above all” sounds very much like a remake of Nazi Germany’s “Deutschland über alles”, (Germany above all). “Ukraine above all” is being used to justify the crimes committed by Ukraine forces in Novorossiya.
Edited by Global Research
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Two CA Judges Censured for Having Sex in Chambers | Truth Revolt
Two CA Judges Censured for Having Sex in Chambers | Truth Revolt 9.3.2014 Sarah Fisher
A state judicial commission said on Tuesday that two California judges have been censured for having sex in their respective chambers. One judge had sex with his clerk, the other had sex with multiple women. The events are separate as the judges are in separate courts and are located in difference parts of the state.
One judge was from Orange County.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Scott Steiner was censured by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for engaging in sexual activity in his chambers on multiple occasions with women. The commission called it "the height of irresponsible and improper" behavior.
"It reflects an utter disrespect for the dignity and decorum of the court, and is seriously at odds with a judge’s duty to avoid conduct that tarnishes the esteem of the judicial office in the public’s eye," the commission said in a written order.
The other judge was in Kern County.
The commission also censured Kern County Superior Court Judge Cory Woodward, who it said carried on an intimate affair with his court clerk from July of 2012 until May of last year, engaging in sexual activity with her in his chambers and in public places.
The commission said Woodward passed notes of a sexual nature to the clerk during court proceedings and lied about the relationship when confronted by his presiding judges in a bid to block her transfer.
"Judge Woodward cooperated fully with the Commission’s inquiry. As the Commission recognized, he expressed great remorse and contrition," Meyer, who also represented Woodward, said in a separate statement. "He has apologized and appreciates the thorough review of the Commission in this matter.”
Both judges will be allowed to remain on the bench.
A state judicial commission said on Tuesday that two California judges have been censured for having sex in their respective chambers. One judge had sex with his clerk, the other had sex with multiple women. The events are separate as the judges are in separate courts and are located in difference parts of the state.
One judge was from Orange County.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Scott Steiner was censured by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for engaging in sexual activity in his chambers on multiple occasions with women. The commission called it "the height of irresponsible and improper" behavior.
"It reflects an utter disrespect for the dignity and decorum of the court, and is seriously at odds with a judge’s duty to avoid conduct that tarnishes the esteem of the judicial office in the public’s eye," the commission said in a written order.
The other judge was in Kern County.
The commission also censured Kern County Superior Court Judge Cory Woodward, who it said carried on an intimate affair with his court clerk from July of 2012 until May of last year, engaging in sexual activity with her in his chambers and in public places.
The commission said Woodward passed notes of a sexual nature to the clerk during court proceedings and lied about the relationship when confronted by his presiding judges in a bid to block her transfer.
"Judge Woodward cooperated fully with the Commission’s inquiry. As the Commission recognized, he expressed great remorse and contrition," Meyer, who also represented Woodward, said in a separate statement. "He has apologized and appreciates the thorough review of the Commission in this matter.”
Both judges will be allowed to remain on the bench.
Nation's Poor Remain Hungry as Wall Street Feasts | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
Nation's Poor Remain Hungry as Wall Street Feasts | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
Published on
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
by Common Dreams
Persistent rates of food insecurity reveal vast inequities of so-called "economic recovery" in US, say anti-poverty advocates
by Nadia Prupis, staff writer
ALIVE Food Bank Distribution in Alexandria VA (Photo: Bread for the World)
Critics and anti-poverty advocates are questioning the so-called economic recovery as a USDA study (PDF) published Wednesday revealed that while the nation's wealthiest enjoyed record gains, nearly 50 million Americans continue to struggled with food insecurity in 2013.
According to the government figures, while a majority of people who were not always able to afford food last year were adults, 16 million children also went hungry at times, with 360,000 households reporting that their kids skipped meals or did not eat for an entire day because there was not enough money.
Joel Berg, executive director of the NYC Coalition Against Hunger, said the country's widespread hunger problem is deeply connected to the government's pro-corporation, anti-worker policies. "A country that combines massive hunger with record Wall Street markets is so derailed we can't even find our tracks anymore," Berg said. "These startling numbers prove there has been no true economic recovery for tens of millions of struggling U.S. families."
Overall, food insecurity is 35 percent higher than in 2007, before the recession began. In 2013, the average food-secure household spent 30 percent more on food than the average food-insecure household of the same size.
"Too many people at the top don't understand the difference between Wall Street and Main Street," Berg told Common Dreams. Corporations resettling overseas to avoid paying higher taxes in the U.S.—as exemplified by Burger King's recent merger with Canadian food chain Tim Horton's—is "supremely unpatriotic," Berg said. Asked whether government officials are willfully ignoring hunger statistics, Berg said, simply and emphatically, "Yes."
The research comes shortly after the Harvard School of Public Health released a studyshowing that the healthy diet gap between rich and poor Americans doubled between 1999 and 2010. That study, published earlier this week, found that differences in diet are directly related to both cost and access, as low-income people are more likely to live in "food deserts" — areas that have few to no grocery stores selling healthy produce, forcing families who cannot afford to travel outside of their neighborhoods to rely on corner stores selling boxed and processed food.
“The overall improvement in diet quality is encouraging, but the widening gap related to income and education presents a serious challenge to our society as a whole,” said the study's senior author, Walter Willett, professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at HSPH.
Of all the food-insecure households that participated in the 2013 survey, 62 percent received assistance from federal food and nutrition assistance programs. "It is vital to note that this new data was collected before most of the recent SNAP (food stamps) cuts kicked in," Berg wrote in a press release for the coalition. "Given the pain measured in these numbers, I can only imagine that next year's report, which will include the impact of the recent cuts, will more formally document the mass suffering we are already seeing on the ground from coast to coast."
The Food Research and Action Center also noted that the "severe" food insecurity rate was 5.6 percent in 2013, compared to 4.1 percent in 2007 before the recession.
"Hunger continues to plague too many Americans," said FRAC president Jim Weill. "We can end hunger in this country, but that takes political will. It is up to our nation’s leaders – Congress, the President, state and local officials – to make sure that workers can earn family supporting wages, and that income supports and nutrition assistance programs reach more people in need and provide more adequate benefits. That means strengthening, not cutting or limiting nutrition programs."
Fast food workers in 150 cities across the U.S. on Thursday will launch strikes and sit-ins to demand a $15 minimum wage, the right to organize in the workplace, and an end to wage theft, a move that the coalition supports. "It's appalling that the people who grow our food and serve our food can't afford to eat," Berg said.
The day of action is being organized by employees of McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and KFC, who are expected to be joined by thousands of home healthcare providers, with an end goal of building a movement of low-wage workers.
"Sometimes things have to bottom out... before people wake up," Berg said. "I think that waking up is happening now."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Published on
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
by Common Dreams
Persistent rates of food insecurity reveal vast inequities of so-called "economic recovery" in US, say anti-poverty advocates
by Nadia Prupis, staff writer
ALIVE Food Bank Distribution in Alexandria VA (Photo: Bread for the World)
Critics and anti-poverty advocates are questioning the so-called economic recovery as a USDA study (PDF) published Wednesday revealed that while the nation's wealthiest enjoyed record gains, nearly 50 million Americans continue to struggled with food insecurity in 2013.
According to the government figures, while a majority of people who were not always able to afford food last year were adults, 16 million children also went hungry at times, with 360,000 households reporting that their kids skipped meals or did not eat for an entire day because there was not enough money.
Joel Berg, executive director of the NYC Coalition Against Hunger, said the country's widespread hunger problem is deeply connected to the government's pro-corporation, anti-worker policies. "A country that combines massive hunger with record Wall Street markets is so derailed we can't even find our tracks anymore," Berg said. "These startling numbers prove there has been no true economic recovery for tens of millions of struggling U.S. families."
Overall, food insecurity is 35 percent higher than in 2007, before the recession began. In 2013, the average food-secure household spent 30 percent more on food than the average food-insecure household of the same size.
"Too many people at the top don't understand the difference between Wall Street and Main Street," Berg told Common Dreams. Corporations resettling overseas to avoid paying higher taxes in the U.S.—as exemplified by Burger King's recent merger with Canadian food chain Tim Horton's—is "supremely unpatriotic," Berg said. Asked whether government officials are willfully ignoring hunger statistics, Berg said, simply and emphatically, "Yes."
The research comes shortly after the Harvard School of Public Health released a studyshowing that the healthy diet gap between rich and poor Americans doubled between 1999 and 2010. That study, published earlier this week, found that differences in diet are directly related to both cost and access, as low-income people are more likely to live in "food deserts" — areas that have few to no grocery stores selling healthy produce, forcing families who cannot afford to travel outside of their neighborhoods to rely on corner stores selling boxed and processed food.
“The overall improvement in diet quality is encouraging, but the widening gap related to income and education presents a serious challenge to our society as a whole,” said the study's senior author, Walter Willett, professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at HSPH.
Of all the food-insecure households that participated in the 2013 survey, 62 percent received assistance from federal food and nutrition assistance programs. "It is vital to note that this new data was collected before most of the recent SNAP (food stamps) cuts kicked in," Berg wrote in a press release for the coalition. "Given the pain measured in these numbers, I can only imagine that next year's report, which will include the impact of the recent cuts, will more formally document the mass suffering we are already seeing on the ground from coast to coast."
The Food Research and Action Center also noted that the "severe" food insecurity rate was 5.6 percent in 2013, compared to 4.1 percent in 2007 before the recession.
"Hunger continues to plague too many Americans," said FRAC president Jim Weill. "We can end hunger in this country, but that takes political will. It is up to our nation’s leaders – Congress, the President, state and local officials – to make sure that workers can earn family supporting wages, and that income supports and nutrition assistance programs reach more people in need and provide more adequate benefits. That means strengthening, not cutting or limiting nutrition programs."
Fast food workers in 150 cities across the U.S. on Thursday will launch strikes and sit-ins to demand a $15 minimum wage, the right to organize in the workplace, and an end to wage theft, a move that the coalition supports. "It's appalling that the people who grow our food and serve our food can't afford to eat," Berg said.
The day of action is being organized by employees of McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and KFC, who are expected to be joined by thousands of home healthcare providers, with an end goal of building a movement of low-wage workers.
"Sometimes things have to bottom out... before people wake up," Berg said. "I think that waking up is happening now."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
FOCUS | Obama Makes Bushism the New Normal
FOCUS | Obama Makes Bushism the New Normal
Obama Makes Bushism the New Normal
By Dan Froomkin, The Intercept
03 September 14
n a lot of ways, we’re worse off today than we were under George W. Bush.
Back then, Bush’s extremist assault on civil liberties, human rights and other core American values in the name of fighting terror felt like an aberration.
The expectation was that those policies would be quickly reversed, discredited — and explicitly outlawed — once he was no longer in power.
Instead, under President Barack Obama, they’ve become institutionalized.
There will be no snapping back to a pre-Bush-era respect for basic human dignity and civil rights. Thanks to Obama, it’s going to be a hard, long fight.
In some cases, Obama has set even darker precedents than his predecessor. Massively invasive bulk surveillance of Americans and others has been expanded, not constrained. This president secretly condemns people to death without any checks or balances, and shrugs as his errant drones massacre innocent civilians. Whistleblowers and journalists who expose national security wrongdoing face unprecedented criminal prosecution.
In a few cases, Obama publicly distanced himself from Bush/Cheney excesses, but to little effect. He forswore torture, and promised to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But by actively covering up what happened in the U.S.’s torture chambers, and by refusing to hold the torturers and their political masters in any way accountable, he has done nothing to make sure that the next time a perceived emergency comes up, it won’t all happen again. And Gitmo, which he treated as a political rather than moral issue, is still very much open for business.
To his credit, Obama is not driven, like Bush and Dick Cheney were, to involve us in massive land wars. And he inherited a mess full of no-win scenarios. But he chose to extend a dead-end war in Afghanistan for two years — and 1,300 American lives — based on political optics rather than military strategy. And he is blind to reality in the Middle East; cleaving to the belief that airstrikes and fealty to Israel are viable long-term strategies, and ignoring the fact that his counter-terrorism policies actually create more terrorists than they destroy.
In retrospect, what the country needed was a radical break from the Bush/Cheney national security policies: A reestablishment of American moral integrity; a rejection of decision-making based on fear (of terrorism, or of political blowback); a reassertion of the international laws of war; and a national reckoning.
Instead, the hopes for any change are slim. Obama has eroded the credibility of any future promises of expansive reform in the area of national security. And, in any case, no such promises are forthcoming: Congressional response to the recent disclosures has been narrowly focused and prone to loopholes; the current leadership of both political parties — and their likeliest standard-bearers in 2016 — aren’t expressing any outrage at all.
As surely — if not as enthusiastically — as his predecessor, Obama has succumbed to the powerful systemic pressures that serve the needs of the military-intelligence-industrial complex. Secrecy is rampant. Politics drives policy. There is no accountability. Congressional and judicial oversight have become a bitter joke. And the elite press gets tighter and tighter with those to whom it should be adversarial.
That, in short, is where I find myself today, as I take up my blogging cudgel again, at The Intercept.
Those of you familiar with my White House Watch column on washingtonpost.com (it ran from early 2004 to mid-2009) may remember my attempt to organize the data stream about the White House, with intelligence and voice.
Reading copiously is one approach. Even in a flawed press climate, a pretty compelling picture emerges when you connect the dots. I’ll be doing that relentlessly, and with a particular focus on the areas that concern me the most. Among them: National security issues and whistleblowing; the collapse of oversight; media failure; political exploitation of fear; torture; the corrupting influence of money; and the moral bankruptcy of the major political parties.
I also want to spend a lot of time exploring issues related to privacy policy in an era of ubiquitous data. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s primary and most admirable goal was to spark a national conversation about surveillance and privacy. But the conversations that have ensued have been relatively narrow and muted.
I’ll be doing original reporting — from the Snowden archive, and elsewhere. I’ll be asking lots of questions. And I intend to serve as a megaphone for sometimes insufficiently heard people who have great ideas — and who have a track record of being proven correct over time, rather than, say, consistently wrong. (Nominees welcome!)
And I’ll be depending on readers to do it all. There’s so much more to keep track of than there was even five years ago — heck, keeping abreast of Twitter lately has been nearly a full-time job — so I’ll need help finding the newest, the most intriguing, the best and the worst. There will be new ways for informed readers to make important contributions to the discussion.
Most significantly, this is a work in progress. The principal goal that seems to be emerging at First Look Media — the umbrella organization financed by Pierre Omidyar that publishes The Intercept — is experimentation in the pursuit of accountability.
If you have ideas on how I can do any of this better (from the micro to the macro; story topics to software) I want to hear them. Post a comment; email me at dan.froomkin@theintercept.com; or use our open-source whistleblower submission system, SecureDrop. I’ll try to be transparent about what I’m thinking, and what I’m doing.
The blog will have a handful of regular features — at least one of which will be familiar to White House Watch readers. Cartoon Watch will be back, because political cartoonists, as a group, remain our most incisive truth-tellers. I’ll also have an Open Book feature, to call attention to great accountability reporting books; and we’ll play around with the concept of Frequently Unanswered Questions (FUQ).
Obama Makes Bushism the New Normal
By Dan Froomkin, The Intercept
03 September 14
n a lot of ways, we’re worse off today than we were under George W. Bush.Back then, Bush’s extremist assault on civil liberties, human rights and other core American values in the name of fighting terror felt like an aberration.
The expectation was that those policies would be quickly reversed, discredited — and explicitly outlawed — once he was no longer in power.
Instead, under President Barack Obama, they’ve become institutionalized.
There will be no snapping back to a pre-Bush-era respect for basic human dignity and civil rights. Thanks to Obama, it’s going to be a hard, long fight.
In some cases, Obama has set even darker precedents than his predecessor. Massively invasive bulk surveillance of Americans and others has been expanded, not constrained. This president secretly condemns people to death without any checks or balances, and shrugs as his errant drones massacre innocent civilians. Whistleblowers and journalists who expose national security wrongdoing face unprecedented criminal prosecution.
In a few cases, Obama publicly distanced himself from Bush/Cheney excesses, but to little effect. He forswore torture, and promised to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But by actively covering up what happened in the U.S.’s torture chambers, and by refusing to hold the torturers and their political masters in any way accountable, he has done nothing to make sure that the next time a perceived emergency comes up, it won’t all happen again. And Gitmo, which he treated as a political rather than moral issue, is still very much open for business.
To his credit, Obama is not driven, like Bush and Dick Cheney were, to involve us in massive land wars. And he inherited a mess full of no-win scenarios. But he chose to extend a dead-end war in Afghanistan for two years — and 1,300 American lives — based on political optics rather than military strategy. And he is blind to reality in the Middle East; cleaving to the belief that airstrikes and fealty to Israel are viable long-term strategies, and ignoring the fact that his counter-terrorism policies actually create more terrorists than they destroy.
In retrospect, what the country needed was a radical break from the Bush/Cheney national security policies: A reestablishment of American moral integrity; a rejection of decision-making based on fear (of terrorism, or of political blowback); a reassertion of the international laws of war; and a national reckoning.
Instead, the hopes for any change are slim. Obama has eroded the credibility of any future promises of expansive reform in the area of national security. And, in any case, no such promises are forthcoming: Congressional response to the recent disclosures has been narrowly focused and prone to loopholes; the current leadership of both political parties — and their likeliest standard-bearers in 2016 — aren’t expressing any outrage at all.
As surely — if not as enthusiastically — as his predecessor, Obama has succumbed to the powerful systemic pressures that serve the needs of the military-intelligence-industrial complex. Secrecy is rampant. Politics drives policy. There is no accountability. Congressional and judicial oversight have become a bitter joke. And the elite press gets tighter and tighter with those to whom it should be adversarial.
That, in short, is where I find myself today, as I take up my blogging cudgel again, at The Intercept.
Those of you familiar with my White House Watch column on washingtonpost.com (it ran from early 2004 to mid-2009) may remember my attempt to organize the data stream about the White House, with intelligence and voice.
Reading copiously is one approach. Even in a flawed press climate, a pretty compelling picture emerges when you connect the dots. I’ll be doing that relentlessly, and with a particular focus on the areas that concern me the most. Among them: National security issues and whistleblowing; the collapse of oversight; media failure; political exploitation of fear; torture; the corrupting influence of money; and the moral bankruptcy of the major political parties.
I also want to spend a lot of time exploring issues related to privacy policy in an era of ubiquitous data. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s primary and most admirable goal was to spark a national conversation about surveillance and privacy. But the conversations that have ensued have been relatively narrow and muted.
I’ll be doing original reporting — from the Snowden archive, and elsewhere. I’ll be asking lots of questions. And I intend to serve as a megaphone for sometimes insufficiently heard people who have great ideas — and who have a track record of being proven correct over time, rather than, say, consistently wrong. (Nominees welcome!)
And I’ll be depending on readers to do it all. There’s so much more to keep track of than there was even five years ago — heck, keeping abreast of Twitter lately has been nearly a full-time job — so I’ll need help finding the newest, the most intriguing, the best and the worst. There will be new ways for informed readers to make important contributions to the discussion.
Most significantly, this is a work in progress. The principal goal that seems to be emerging at First Look Media — the umbrella organization financed by Pierre Omidyar that publishes The Intercept — is experimentation in the pursuit of accountability.
If you have ideas on how I can do any of this better (from the micro to the macro; story topics to software) I want to hear them. Post a comment; email me at dan.froomkin@theintercept.com; or use our open-source whistleblower submission system, SecureDrop. I’ll try to be transparent about what I’m thinking, and what I’m doing.
The blog will have a handful of regular features — at least one of which will be familiar to White House Watch readers. Cartoon Watch will be back, because political cartoonists, as a group, remain our most incisive truth-tellers. I’ll also have an Open Book feature, to call attention to great accountability reporting books; and we’ll play around with the concept of Frequently Unanswered Questions (FUQ).
Time Magazine accidentally reveals greater autism fraud « Jon Rappoport's Blog
Time Magazine accidentally reveals greater autism fraud
Sep2by Jon Rappoport
by Jon Rappoport
September 2, 2014
www.nomorefakenews.com
Time Magazine (8/28) is covering the ongoing CDC whistleblower scandal. (“Whistleblower Claims CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link,” by Alice Park)
In one piece of one sentence, without meaning to, the article blows another hole in the 2004 study that whistleblower William Thompson exposed as a fraud.
A hole beyond what Thompson has admitted to in his public mea culpa statement of August 27th.
What Time Magazine revealed demonstrates that the entire study is based on a lie.
Here is the sentence-fragment from the Time article:
“Now one of the authors of a 2004 study that found similar vaccination rates among children with and without autism…”
There it is. For people who can see it.
According to conventional medical researchers, demonstrating that children with and without autism have similar vaccine rates means: vaccines couldn’t cause autism. Because many children who were vaccinated didn’t develop autism.
But suppose you proved that a virus in the bodies of 1000 children caused actual illness in only 160. Would you then say the virus couldn’t be the cause of illness, because some children didn’t get sick?
Not if you were a conventional researcher. You would say, “Well, of course, most children didn’t fall ill. But for those that did, the virus was the cause.”
Applying this line of thinking to vaccines, you could say, “Well, many children who get the MMR vaccine remain healthy. But for those who fall ill and are diagnosed with autism, the vaccine was the cause.”
Naturally, vaccine researchers don’t say that. If they did, they’d never work again.
“So, Dr. X, you’re saying that 1000 children were vaccinated. They all had ‘similar rates’ of vaccination.”
“Yes, correct.”
“And some of these children developed autism, and some didn’t.”
“That’s right.”
“Therefore, vaccination couldn’t be the cause of autism.”
“Correct.”
Let’s consider this situation: A thousand children have a particular virus in their bodies.”
“Sure. All right.”
“Some of those children go on to develop the flu, and some don’t.”
“Yes, that would be a standard situation.”
“Therefore, you’d say the virus couldn’t have caused the flu, because some children didn’t get the flu.”
“No, I wouldn’t say that at all.”
“What would you say?”
“The children who did get the flu—the virus was the cause.”
“But in the case of the vaccine, you didn’t say that.”
“A virus isn’t the same thing as a vaccine. In the case of the virus, we already know it causes the flu.”
“No, Dr. X, you don’t know that. Not by the standard you’re applying to vaccines. Let’s review. If 1000 children are vaccinated, and only some of them develop autism, you say the vaccine couldn’t cause autism, but—“
“I have to go now. I’m late for a meeting at the CDC, where we’re writing up our millionth press release claiming vaccines are perfectly safe.”
It gets much, much worse. Here is the crux:
Researchers conveniently assume that autism is one condition with one and only one cause in all cases.
But there is no conclusive evidence, after all these years, that autism is a single condition. If such evidence existed, you would see it presented, front and center, in the definition of autism, contained the in the psychiatric bible of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).
The evidence would appear in the form of a physical diagnostic test for autism. A blood test, or a brain scan, or a genetic assay.
There is no such definitive test. It isn’t there.
Instead, autism is entirely defined by a cluster of behaviors.
There is a reason for that.
There is no defining diagnostic test.
Therefore, saying autism is a single physical condition is belief and opinion and surmise and “could-be” and “everybody knows”, fabricated as fact.
Therefore, saying “autism” has one cause is also an opinion fabricated as fact.
Therefore, saying that vaccines don’t cause “autism” is meaningless—because the label “autism” doesn’t refer to a specific defined condition.
However, saying vaccines cause damage is true.
Use this label or that label to name the grave damage—the labels don’t matter.
Except to the devious game players who invent the labels and thereby exonerate vaccines.
The 2004 study that CDC whistleblower William Thompson confessed to falsifying—and thousands of other such studies—are all based on the same fundamental fraud.
In a sane world, as opposed to the lunatic world of disease research, you would only declare you’ve found a single condition if you could put forward an accurate physical test for it.
That test would, for every patient examined, show whether he had the condition. Yes or no.
Assuming you could do these things, you could then and only then try to rule out vaccines as the cause of the condition.
Until then, you would remain silent. You wouldn’t construct devious vaccine studies. You wouldn’t lie every day of your research career. You wouldn’t pretend to knowledge you didn’t have. You wouldn’t work hand in glove with paid propagandists to assure the public, and in particular, parents of vaccine-damaged children, that injecting germs and toxic chemicals is safe and effective.
You would remain silent and you would do no harm.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com
Sep2by Jon Rappoport
by Jon Rappoport
September 2, 2014
www.nomorefakenews.com
Time Magazine (8/28) is covering the ongoing CDC whistleblower scandal. (“Whistleblower Claims CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link,” by Alice Park)
In one piece of one sentence, without meaning to, the article blows another hole in the 2004 study that whistleblower William Thompson exposed as a fraud.
A hole beyond what Thompson has admitted to in his public mea culpa statement of August 27th.
What Time Magazine revealed demonstrates that the entire study is based on a lie.
Here is the sentence-fragment from the Time article:
“Now one of the authors of a 2004 study that found similar vaccination rates among children with and without autism…”
There it is. For people who can see it.
According to conventional medical researchers, demonstrating that children with and without autism have similar vaccine rates means: vaccines couldn’t cause autism. Because many children who were vaccinated didn’t develop autism.
But suppose you proved that a virus in the bodies of 1000 children caused actual illness in only 160. Would you then say the virus couldn’t be the cause of illness, because some children didn’t get sick?
Not if you were a conventional researcher. You would say, “Well, of course, most children didn’t fall ill. But for those that did, the virus was the cause.”
Applying this line of thinking to vaccines, you could say, “Well, many children who get the MMR vaccine remain healthy. But for those who fall ill and are diagnosed with autism, the vaccine was the cause.”
Naturally, vaccine researchers don’t say that. If they did, they’d never work again.
“So, Dr. X, you’re saying that 1000 children were vaccinated. They all had ‘similar rates’ of vaccination.”
“Yes, correct.”
“And some of these children developed autism, and some didn’t.”
“That’s right.”
“Therefore, vaccination couldn’t be the cause of autism.”
“Correct.”
Let’s consider this situation: A thousand children have a particular virus in their bodies.”
“Sure. All right.”
“Some of those children go on to develop the flu, and some don’t.”
“Yes, that would be a standard situation.”
“Therefore, you’d say the virus couldn’t have caused the flu, because some children didn’t get the flu.”
“No, I wouldn’t say that at all.”
“What would you say?”
“The children who did get the flu—the virus was the cause.”
“But in the case of the vaccine, you didn’t say that.”
“A virus isn’t the same thing as a vaccine. In the case of the virus, we already know it causes the flu.”
“No, Dr. X, you don’t know that. Not by the standard you’re applying to vaccines. Let’s review. If 1000 children are vaccinated, and only some of them develop autism, you say the vaccine couldn’t cause autism, but—“
“I have to go now. I’m late for a meeting at the CDC, where we’re writing up our millionth press release claiming vaccines are perfectly safe.”
It gets much, much worse. Here is the crux:
Researchers conveniently assume that autism is one condition with one and only one cause in all cases.
But there is no conclusive evidence, after all these years, that autism is a single condition. If such evidence existed, you would see it presented, front and center, in the definition of autism, contained the in the psychiatric bible of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).
The evidence would appear in the form of a physical diagnostic test for autism. A blood test, or a brain scan, or a genetic assay.
There is no such definitive test. It isn’t there.
Instead, autism is entirely defined by a cluster of behaviors.
There is a reason for that.
There is no defining diagnostic test.
Therefore, saying autism is a single physical condition is belief and opinion and surmise and “could-be” and “everybody knows”, fabricated as fact.
Therefore, saying “autism” has one cause is also an opinion fabricated as fact.
Therefore, saying that vaccines don’t cause “autism” is meaningless—because the label “autism” doesn’t refer to a specific defined condition.
However, saying vaccines cause damage is true.
Use this label or that label to name the grave damage—the labels don’t matter.
Except to the devious game players who invent the labels and thereby exonerate vaccines.
The 2004 study that CDC whistleblower William Thompson confessed to falsifying—and thousands of other such studies—are all based on the same fundamental fraud.
In a sane world, as opposed to the lunatic world of disease research, you would only declare you’ve found a single condition if you could put forward an accurate physical test for it.
That test would, for every patient examined, show whether he had the condition. Yes or no.
Assuming you could do these things, you could then and only then try to rule out vaccines as the cause of the condition.
Until then, you would remain silent. You wouldn’t construct devious vaccine studies. You wouldn’t lie every day of your research career. You wouldn’t pretend to knowledge you didn’t have. You wouldn’t work hand in glove with paid propagandists to assure the public, and in particular, parents of vaccine-damaged children, that injecting germs and toxic chemicals is safe and effective.
You would remain silent and you would do no harm.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Activist Post: New Anti Police State App Helps You "See Something, Say Something" in Real-Time
Activist Post: New Anti Police State App Helps You "See Something, Say Something" in Real-Time
Sunday, August 31, 2014
New Anti Police State App Helps You "See Something, Say Something" in Real-Time
Sidekik App
Activist Post
Recent studies have shown that police are held almost completely unaccountable by the current systems of governmental oversight. Perhaps this is the reason why you are 9 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than a terrorist. Rather than wait for bloated bureaucracy or corrupt government to save the day, we as activists have to find our own solutions. Technology is one of these solutions.
As we have seen, the violent crackdown on independent journalism in Ferguson is a sign of a worsening situation in much of America. More than ever, each citizen needs to become a member of the media and record everything that they see during encounters with the police.
A new smartphone app called Sidekik aims to make it as easy as possible for you not only to record the police and upload that recording offsite, but to put you in immediate contact with legal representation to help you navigate the encounter ... in real-time.
Please view additional details and their Indiegogo campaign video below if you would like to support this new anti police state tool.
What is Sidekik?
Sidekik is a mobile application which will perform two key actions simultaneously. One, Sidekik will activate your smartphone's audio and video recording devices and begin streaming the data to a secure facility. Two, Sidekik will initiate a video call and connect you with an attorney who will represent you in whatever situation you find yourself.
Why is Sidekik Important?
When you are in a critical situation, such as being pulled over by law enforcement, the balance of power is often against you. The fact is that most people don't know their rights or how to enforce them. In addition, without a record of your encounter with law enforcement, the question of what happened during the encounter devolves into your word against that of the officer, which normally results with courts and public opinion in favor of the officer, regardless of what actually occurred. Though many people have begun recording their interactions with law enforcement, the recording is stored on the recording device, which is sometimes confiscated.
Sidekik solves both of these problems. With the activation of the Sidekik app, your smartphone's audio and video recorders will begin streaming to a secure server. If the officer has behaved outside of their bounds and doesn't want evidence of that misconduct available to you, there is simply nothing the officer can do. The audio and video has been stored and timestamped securely, and can be retrieved by you at your convenience.
Within seconds of activating the Sidekik app, you will be connected through a video call to an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Every attorney on the Sidekik network will be well versed regarding your rights during a police encounter and do everything in their power to defend your rights as they interact with the officer on your behalf.
Sidekik is important because it restores balance to a previously unequal interaction. Your rights are worth preserving; all it takes is the tap of a screen.
What we need and what you get
Our crowdfunding campaign has a goal of $250,000. Almost all of this funding will go toward the creation of the Sidekik app, attorney software, and website, which will communicate with each other to provide a seamless Sidekik product for you. There are already apps for streaming video and even apps for notifying your attorney that you need assistance. However, nothing has come close to combining audio/video streaming with video call technology as well as high-end security measures to keep your data protected. This combination of features is complex and expensive to produce. We have partnered with one of the top software design firms in the United States, Zco Corporation, to create this leap forward in app sophistication. Once we begin development with Zco Corporation the clock will start ticking and three months later Sidekik will be fully functional.
The remainder of the funds will be used to set up an office in Reno, Nevada, pay for essential legal services, and cover expenses while we work with Zco during Sidekik development.
With your help we will make Sidekik a reality and provide a powerful tool for people to protect their rights.
Perks
You will receive a number of uses of Sidekik for your contribution, with the number of uses varying depending on the size of the contribution. The months included in each perk will match the number of Sidekik uses. For example, if you contribute $10 you will receive a three month subscription with three uses of Sidekik, while a $100 contribution is good for a two year subscription with twenty-four uses of Sidekik along with a one year subscription (twelve uses) for a friend.
When the Sidekik app is activated, the audio and video devices on the user's smartphone will begin recording and streaming to a secure third party data storage facility. Simultaneously the Sidekikapp will initiate a video phone call, and within a few seconds the user will be seeing and speaking live to an attorney who will represent the user and interact with the police officer on the user's behalf.
Meet the team, read the FAQ, and Donate Here (24 days left):
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sidekik-real-time-representation-and-data-storage
Sidekik App
Activist Post
Recent studies have shown that police are held almost completely unaccountable by the current systems of governmental oversight. Perhaps this is the reason why you are 9 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than a terrorist. Rather than wait for bloated bureaucracy or corrupt government to save the day, we as activists have to find our own solutions. Technology is one of these solutions.
As we have seen, the violent crackdown on independent journalism in Ferguson is a sign of a worsening situation in much of America. More than ever, each citizen needs to become a member of the media and record everything that they see during encounters with the police.
A new smartphone app called Sidekik aims to make it as easy as possible for you not only to record the police and upload that recording offsite, but to put you in immediate contact with legal representation to help you navigate the encounter ... in real-time.
Please view additional details and their Indiegogo campaign video below if you would like to support this new anti police state tool.
What is Sidekik?
Sidekik is a mobile application which will perform two key actions simultaneously. One, Sidekik will activate your smartphone's audio and video recording devices and begin streaming the data to a secure facility. Two, Sidekik will initiate a video call and connect you with an attorney who will represent you in whatever situation you find yourself.
Why is Sidekik Important?
When you are in a critical situation, such as being pulled over by law enforcement, the balance of power is often against you. The fact is that most people don't know their rights or how to enforce them. In addition, without a record of your encounter with law enforcement, the question of what happened during the encounter devolves into your word against that of the officer, which normally results with courts and public opinion in favor of the officer, regardless of what actually occurred. Though many people have begun recording their interactions with law enforcement, the recording is stored on the recording device, which is sometimes confiscated.
Sidekik solves both of these problems. With the activation of the Sidekik app, your smartphone's audio and video recorders will begin streaming to a secure server. If the officer has behaved outside of their bounds and doesn't want evidence of that misconduct available to you, there is simply nothing the officer can do. The audio and video has been stored and timestamped securely, and can be retrieved by you at your convenience.
Within seconds of activating the Sidekik app, you will be connected through a video call to an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Every attorney on the Sidekik network will be well versed regarding your rights during a police encounter and do everything in their power to defend your rights as they interact with the officer on your behalf.Sidekik is important because it restores balance to a previously unequal interaction. Your rights are worth preserving; all it takes is the tap of a screen.
What we need and what you get
Our crowdfunding campaign has a goal of $250,000. Almost all of this funding will go toward the creation of the Sidekik app, attorney software, and website, which will communicate with each other to provide a seamless Sidekik product for you. There are already apps for streaming video and even apps for notifying your attorney that you need assistance. However, nothing has come close to combining audio/video streaming with video call technology as well as high-end security measures to keep your data protected. This combination of features is complex and expensive to produce. We have partnered with one of the top software design firms in the United States, Zco Corporation, to create this leap forward in app sophistication. Once we begin development with Zco Corporation the clock will start ticking and three months later Sidekik will be fully functional.
The remainder of the funds will be used to set up an office in Reno, Nevada, pay for essential legal services, and cover expenses while we work with Zco during Sidekik development.
With your help we will make Sidekik a reality and provide a powerful tool for people to protect their rights.
Perks
You will receive a number of uses of Sidekik for your contribution, with the number of uses varying depending on the size of the contribution. The months included in each perk will match the number of Sidekik uses. For example, if you contribute $10 you will receive a three month subscription with three uses of Sidekik, while a $100 contribution is good for a two year subscription with twenty-four uses of Sidekik along with a one year subscription (twelve uses) for a friend.
When the Sidekik app is activated, the audio and video devices on the user's smartphone will begin recording and streaming to a secure third party data storage facility. Simultaneously the Sidekikapp will initiate a video phone call, and within a few seconds the user will be seeing and speaking live to an attorney who will represent the user and interact with the police officer on the user's behalf.
Meet the team, read the FAQ, and Donate Here (24 days left):
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sidekik-real-time-representation-and-data-storage
EMF Electromagnetic Field Summit
Monday, September 1, 2014
Free Online EMF Summit Begins September 2nd
Electromagnetic Killing Fields / image source
Activist Post
Join thousands for a free online EMF Summitstarting tomorrow and continuing every Tuesdayuntil December. Each week is a new video interview, which begins Sept. 2nd with Dirty Electricity: How We Can Co-exist With This Powerful Technology and Its Inherent Dangers by Dr. Samuel Milham the physician-epidemiologist who first alerted the world about electromagnetic exposure in various careers and the link to human disease.
Josh del Sol, producer and director of Take Back Your Power, will be on the interview panel along with world-class researchers, scientists, microwave weapons experts and authors such as:
Dr. Olle Johansson, neuroscientist (as in Take Back Your Power) - See Activist Post's article here for more information about Dr. Johansson's courageous work.
Barrie Trower, former consultant to MI5 and MI6
Dr. Martin Blank, researcher of DNA damage caused by EMF
Dr. Ross Anderson, EMF consultant & retired physician
Dave Stetzer, dirty electricity expert and retired military electrician
Dr. Ann Louise Gittleman, acclaimed nutritionist and author
Farren Lander, electropollution consultant
Electromagnetic Killing Fields / image source
Activist Post
Join thousands for a free online EMF Summitstarting tomorrow and continuing every Tuesdayuntil December. Each week is a new video interview, which begins Sept. 2nd with Dirty Electricity: How We Can Co-exist With This Powerful Technology and Its Inherent Dangers by Dr. Samuel Milham the physician-epidemiologist who first alerted the world about electromagnetic exposure in various careers and the link to human disease.
Josh del Sol, producer and director of Take Back Your Power, will be on the interview panel along with world-class researchers, scientists, microwave weapons experts and authors such as:
Dr. Olle Johansson, neuroscientist (as in Take Back Your Power) - See Activist Post's article here for more information about Dr. Johansson's courageous work.
Barrie Trower, former consultant to MI5 and MI6
Dr. Martin Blank, researcher of DNA damage caused by EMF
Dr. Ross Anderson, EMF consultant & retired physician
Dave Stetzer, dirty electricity expert and retired military electrician
Dr. Ann Louise Gittleman, acclaimed nutritionist and author
Farren Lander, electropollution consultant
Vaccines cause brain damage: the mothers know « Jon Rappoport's Blog
Vaccines cause brain damage: the mothers know
Sep2by Jon Rappoport
Vaccines cause brain damage: the mothers know
By Jon Rappoport
September 2, 2014
http://www.nomorefakenews.com
I’ve spent many pages laying out how the medical cartel plays semantic games, in order to “prove” vaccines don’t cause “autism.”
There’s a simpler conclusion.
The mothers know.
They know what happened to their children. They don’t need sophisticated analyses. They don’t need disease or disorder labels. They don’t need the very doctors who administered the vaccines turning around and lying to them.
And the lying is vicious. It’s coming out of the mouths of physicians who are indifferent to human life.
Doctors, underneath their layers and layers of hostile fakery, know the truth, too.
So does the CDC. That agency spends billions defending the indefensible.
William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower who recently admitted to gross fraud and lying, in order to exonerate the toxic MMR vaccine…he knows, too.
He knows the fraud is rampant inside the CDC. He knows it isn’t just a matter of one subset of data that was omitted in one study.
The vaccine manufacturers know, too. Long ago, they consummated a deal with the US government to forbid citizens from filing lawsuits as a result of vaccine damage. That was the whole point: vaccines inflict damage; let the federal government and the taxpayer carry the burden of financial compensation.
And the labyrinthine system through which a parent must pass, when filing a petition for compensation, is an affront to human dignity.
In that “court,” the full semantic shell game is on view.
“You say your child was severely damaged by a vaccine? First, you must prove the child developed a recognized and labeled neurological disorder. Then you must prove that a vaccine can and did cause that specific disorder. We have erected all sorts of roadblocks to keep you stymied…”
This is a grotesquery. The people who run this system should be in prison for the rest of their lives.
But regardless, the mothers know. They know when and how and why their child withdrew from the world, and was, afterward, never the same.
It was a vaccine.
An empire can be built, and has been built, to avoid that stark truth.
The CDC is the Orwellian Ministry of Truth of the empire. It lies about case numbers of diseases—inflating them—in order to sell vaccines.
It holds meetings to discuss how to frighten the public into getting vaccines.
It beats the drum every hour of every day to assure us that vaccines are the wonder of modern science. Safe and effective. Safe and effective.
The CDC’s propaganda allies and their chosen experts attack the “anti-vaccine people” as close cousins to terrorists.
At the center of this storm stand the mothers.
They know.
They live with their knowledge. They care for their children, who have been driven out of the futures they would have had by poison.
Nothing can shake the mothers’ knowledge.
Not the doctors, not the fake experts, not the government-compensation overseers, not the CDC, not smooth-talking television anchors, not teachers, not school counselors, not neighbors, not friends, not family.
The mothers know.
And if by some great effort, against odds, as they continue to care for their vaccine-damaged children, they organize and rise up, you who are lying to them and passing them off as inconsequential will know they are coming.
You’ll feel the nightmare you’re perpetuating turn around and engulf you.
And somewhere inside you, you’ll recognize this is what justice is.
Jon Rappoport http://www.nomorefakenews.com
Monday, September 1, 2014
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)