Saturday, May 25, 2013

March Against Monsanto, May 25th, 2013

March Against Monsanto, Tucson AZ, was, I think, a huge success. Many people showed up to support our cause, and it was nice to see that everything was carried out safely, and without complication. I was pleased to see many people, with diverse backgrounds, ideas, and opinions come together to share information and ideas. I must say, it was a pleasant change of pace, to be able to talk to a large number of people that shared many of my views, and understood what I was talking about. It's truly satisfying to see a community come together with a common denomination, and with the same intentions. I especially enjoyed the fact that there were many young participants, educating children is a good way to bring up a generation that won't allow abominations like Monsanto to exist.  Below are some photos I took at the event. I'd like to thank everyone who showed up, and marched with us.

Monday, May 20, 2013

The Blind And Unquestioning Public

We are living in a time of unparalleled  ignorance. We don't comprehend in entirety the level of brainwashing that has taken place in this country. We don't even realize how influenced by media we are. Think about this, my fellow Americans:

We pick up an item in the store and turn it over to see the nutrition facts. We don't recognize half the ingredients on the label, but buy the product because it only has a hundred calories. You don't wonder for a minute what all those unfamiliar ingredients on that label are, because we believe that the FDA, and our Government has taken care of that for us.

We hear that there is sodium fluoride in our water, and instead of questioning why this is, and what effects it might have on us, we assume that our Government wouldn't put it in our water unless it was wonderfully beneficial, and never give it a second thought.

We hear something on the news, and we take it as absolute fact. Never questioning what they have told us. Never checking their facts to see if they hold-up. Never wondering if they might have reason to be biased. And not believing anything we hear until our favorite news network confirms it for us.

We are told what to eat, what to wear, what to think, what we should feel, and this doesn't bother you.
Try this, next time you see a label with words you don't recognize, look them up. See what they are, where they come from, and what effect it has on your body. Next time you go to the grocery store and see bottled water with added fluoride don't assume it's good, find out if it is. When your watching the news, check their sources, check their facts, and find out who's investing money into their business. The main issue is that people forget that the news networks are businesses, and a business's main goal is to stay open and make money. People forget that politicians only have a job if they get reelected, and they care more about reelection and a pay check then the important issues they talk about. Politicians are in business for themselves, not for you.

When you take it upon yourself to find out the truth of these matters, you will find things that don't please you. See if you don't feel betrayed, and distrusting. See if you aren't quick to doubt. See if you don't lean toward skepticism when you hear corporations, Governments, and media sources tell you they know what's good for you. Don't assume the world is out for your best interests.

Do you want to know what kind of citizens every Government in this world wants?

They want citizens who:

  • Never question what they eat.
  • Never question what they drink.
  • Never question what they hear.
  • Never question what they see.
  • Never question what they do.
  • Never question what they tell you.
  • Never question the status quo.

Think of that next time someone calls you a model citizen.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Water Collection Illegal In Many States: Our Power Hungry Government

It is now illegal to collect water for personal use in many states, here in our happily Government dependent Country. How long will it take for you to open your eyes, America? When will you realize that you are quickly becoming the most helpless, defenseless, gullible and naive nation in this wide-world. We wake-up each morning in a happy haze of stupidity, and bumble through our artificial life of careless consumption, unaffected, and showing a simplicity of mind, once only observed in the brains of certain apes.

Our Government gives us a healthy daily dose of propaganda, and we all too willingly swallow it, day after happy day. Ask yourself this, America. Why is our Government continually taking steps to increase our dependency on them. They make themselves seem indispensable to us, so we will except every drastic move they make, and hand over all power to them. Realize this, our Government is not a divine entity, who's primary goal is to make our lives easy, painless, and safe. They are a group of men. And you should know already that the hearts of men are easily corrupted. We should not think of them as being above other men in their deeds and actions.

What harm is there in collecting rain water? The only negative that they could see in this is that we will not depend on them for an important commodity, without which life is not possible. With Obama care they are making us dependent on them for healthcare, making the price for other healthcare providers shoot up, and putting many of those service providers out of business, while fining those who do not want to be covered by Obama-care, punishing them for not being a burden on tax payers. With gun control they are attempting to hinder our ability to defend ourselves, and maintain our freedom and rights, making us less of a threat to our Government.

They are making it impossible to not need them, and you accept this because it is easier then trying to make it on your own. Better to work in the blistering heat of the day, sweating like slaves in fields WE have planted, drawing from a well on OUR land to quench the thirst of ourselves and our animals, and spend hours canning, baking, and building for ourselves, and know that we are not dependent on men that take our freedom to "protect" us and control us to make sure we don't hurt ourselves.

How ironic that we call ourselves the "land of the free", when we relentlessly enslave ourselves with our luxurious American lifestyle, and tremble at the thought of life without our precious, and caring Government. Don't be deceived. They call themselves public servants, but they consider themselves rulers. And if they claim the title of ruler, then their is only one part for you to play, and that is the part of the ruled, the subjects, the servants, the commoners.

If you don't find it disgusting that you must ask for permission from your Government before you use "their" rainwater, then you have effectively been brainwashed. With water collection now illegal in many states the Government must issue you a water right before you can collect the natural resource, even though you are not harming the environment or any person by doing so. It is up to the Government to decide whether or not they want to issue you that right. They claim to care about the environment and your rights, and then they turn around and hinder your ability to protect both.

Prior to the passage of these laws that bar the free use of rainwater, Douglas County, Colorado did a study to determine what kind of effect rain water collection had on the environment and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that allowing people to collect water had a very positive effect on the environment, conserved water resources, and reduced demand from water facilities. What reason is there to ban free use of rain water, then? One would have to assume that these were not the results they wanted.

How can they claim the right to rain water, which falls from the sky, onto your land? If rain belongs to them, then can you charge them for any damage done by it? If your neighborhood floods, then can you charge the Government the cost of repairs? No, they only mean to take power over it, and not responsibility for it. If a storm blows through, and your basement floods, Standard homeowner's insurance won't cover the damage. Why? Because rain and the flooding that occasionally comes of it is considered an act of God. How can they claim control over an act of God?  This is just another way to keep us from attaining self-sufficiency. They might as well claim the air we breathe and the beating in our hearts, as they have no more right to one than the other.

 What can i do about this, you might wonder. Well, you can stop your blind consumerism. You can stop excepting everything you are told by your Government as fact. You can stop swallowing that propaganda pill. You can hold your Government officials accountable for their actions, as they hold you accountable for yours. You can stand up for your rights, and demand your freedom. Or you can tear that star spangled banner from your flag pole, burn your constitution, and call this the land of the enslaved.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Drones Over America: Unblinking Eyes

Imagine walking outside, conscious of the fact that you're being watched- that somebody is keeping tabs on your whereabouts. They can see through walls, roofs, they can find you on the darkest of nights by your heat signal. You aren't doing anything wrong, but the awareness of these constant, and unblinking eyes makes you uneasy. 

What are we reading about here? A science fiction story? The thoughts of a paranoid schizophrenic? No, you are reading about someone who knows that drones are flying overhead.

By 2015 there are going to be thousands of drones over America. These drones can be equipped with: cameras that can watch someone for days at a time, face recognition technology (enabling them to pick you, specifically out of a crowd of hundreds.), Heat sensors (making it easy to find you at night.), and soon, with cameras that can see through walls.

With the passing of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Re-authorization Act, receiving a license to fly a drone in American Airspace will be much easier than it used to be. The Senate passed the bill by a 75-20 margin. It is thought that by 2015 something like 30,000 drones will be flying over America. That's about 600 over each state. Needless to say, civil liberties groups are not at all pleased with the situation.

The American Civil Liberties Union stated, "Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected."

Questions are being raised over whether or not drone "surveillance", is constitutional. If searching a home without a warrant is unconstitutional, then why isn't constant observation without the consent of the observed? It seems a lot like stalking American citizens. 

Harley Geiger, a policy attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C., told Discovery News, “Right now, under current U.S. laws there are very few restrictions on our ability to take pictures or videos of individuals outside,”


“Some of the privacy issues that we see with drones are very different than the sort of surveillance that can be conducted with a helicopter. Drones can quietly watch an entire town without refueling. It can conduct a pervasive and secret surveillance that helicopters cannot match,” Geiger stated. 


If you walk onto someones property, then you are clearly trespassing, and can be prosecuted for it. But if you fly a drone (or UAV) over someone's property, are you working within the confines of the law? It's hard to tell what is and isn't legal when it comes to drones. The Capitol Hill Seattle Blog reports a complaint it received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood. She wrote:

"This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house or a peeping-tom."

It is difficult for experts to determine whether or not this man's actions are illegal. While most people agree that this situation is "odd" and "creepy", it isn't necessarily a crime. It all comes down to fine details, like what kind of drone was being used, and whether or not photos were taken of the homes interior or inhabitants. But what people seem to be saying is that it would be very difficult to take legal action against this man. 

Can you imagine how unsafe and violated you would feel if you found out that someone was doing this to you, without your knowledge? It would seem a tall brick wall won't be enough to ensure privacy from your neighbors anymore. But with drones becoming commercially available to civilians, what can you do ensure privacy? board-up your windows? That may not be enough. It seems the general public will have little recourse when these eyes-in-the-sky decide to stalk us.

There are countless ways that drones can be used to end privacy and stalk citizens, and few laws to protect us. What can we do to protect ourselves, in case these drones are implemented in unconstitutional ways?
At this point, nothing. Let us hope that at the very least these pesky and pervasive devices are confined by the law, so as to be implemented in only the most appropriate of situations. It's hard to understand what a normal person might want with a devise who's primary use has been spying and assassinations overseas. But apparently our Government has found many ways for these drones to make themselves useful on American soil. The impact of this remains to be seen.
By 2015 Drones will be the new American"normal"

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Benghazi: Government Failure

There is no question that there was a failure to act promptly, and appropriately during the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. What most people are questioning is who it was that failed to act, provide aid, gather accurate information, and send men as a precaution in case the attack lasted for more than two or three hours (It could have lasted days.) The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the consulate building. Early the next morning a second attack took place, this attack was against a CIA annex in a different diplomatic compound. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Ten others were injured.

After the attack, investigators identified over a dozen violent incidents in Benghazi during the last six months. October 2, 2012, three weeks after the attacks, Jason Chaffets (R-UT, chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations) and Darrell Issa (R-CA, chairman of the Committee) sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which listed a number of these events—including car jackings, assassination attempts, kidnappings, and gun battles. "Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi." The letter stated.

Initially reports were spread that the attack had broken out during a protest over an independent, short film uploaded to YouTube, named "The Innocents Of Muslims", which bad-mouthed the Muslim faith. The violence was thought to have broken out suddenly, and to have been the act of only a few people in retaliation over the film, while the protest was meant to remain peaceful. However, these claims were later determine to be false. No protest ever took place. One must wonder how these rumors started spreading to begin with. Who was it who had claimed that the video was the cause of this violence? Even Government officials claimed this largely unknown film to be the cause of the attack. One would suppose that debunking this claim would be as simple as interviewing a witness, after all, there were surviving witnesses who could definitely determine if there had been a protest outside the building before violence broke out. If gathering this information is that simple, then why did it take so long for anyone to tell us these rumors were false? Perhaps it was easier to put these matters off until after Obama's re-election.

But who is to blame for the poor response to Benghazi? My first guess would be the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose job it is to advise the President on foreign affairs and who is in charge of correspondence, commission, or instructions to consuls abroad, and to conduct negotiations with foreign representatives. But Obama also repeated the "YouTube Film" myth, again and again. Perhaps Obama didn't want to "rock the boat" before re-election. Hillary was about to retire from her position, it seems correct to assume they were hoping to put things off until after these deadlines.

If the attack had lasted longer the death tole could have been much higher. Help was never sent, though we could have had men on the ground in about three hours. They should have been sent as a precaution, but they weren't. And it would seem that the public was intentionally misled about the cause of the attack, which was done by terrorists, not protesters. I'm also wondering why men weren't sent right after the initial night attack at the compound that was meant to protect the consulate building. Why didn't we respond immediately to the first attack by sending men, who may have been there in time to make a difference? And let's remember, this was not just any day. It was 9/11, a day when all U.S. embassies in Muslim countries should be well guarded and take more precautions. We should have prepared for this, especially in a place that was already experiencing a number of violent acts. 

Some people are worried that the Benghazi scandal could effect Hillary Clinton's chance of election if she chooses to run for the presidency in 2016.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Poisoning the masses: Mansonto test results

Some GMO foods have been proven in laboratory tests (on rats and mammals including monkeys) to cause: NEW allergies, cancer, sterility (consumers losing their ability to become pregnant and have children), miscarriages, seizures, and even death!

French scientists have found that  Monsanto's NK603 GMO corn accelerates tumors.
 In a two-year study, a team of French researchers found that rats who were fed Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group which was not fed GM corn. They also decovered that rats fed a GM diet developed tumors that appeared earlier, behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group. In accordance with scientific method, this test can be replicated in order to prove the results. After the results were made public Monsanto started a public relations campaign to down play the results and reassure consumers. Nothing says healthy and delicious like this image below. Yum.

The French government has asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union's food safety agency.

 The French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement:
 "Based on the conclusion…, the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union,"

These aren't the only troubling test results about GM food. Let's examine another.

Egyptian scientists experiment:
After Egypt agreed to import Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, MON 810, (tens of thousands of tons of it, to give you an idea of the amount.), An Egyptian scientist named Hussein Kaoud decided to fund an experiment to test it's effects on rats. Kaoud, (of Cairo University’s Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene), fed nine groups of rats and mice different GM foods. GM foods such as potatoes, corn, grapes and tomatoes. These GM foods made up about 10% of the rats diets. The remaining 90% of their diet was conventional, none GM food.

The symptoms started apearing within the first four weeks of the test.

Kaoud stated, “I recorded the alteration of different organs, shrinkage of kidneys, change in the liver and spleen, appearance of malignant parts in the tissues, kidney failure and hemorrhages in the intestine,” Kaoud said. “The brain functions were touched as well, and the rats’ learning and memory abilities were seriously altered,”

He also noted that the death rate of baby rats, whose mothers were fed the diet rose by 35%. 

If these statistics are applicable to humans, then these are very scary results.

British GM potato test:

1995, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a highly respected British scientist embarked on the first Government funded research project on GM food.
The rats given GM potatoes (raw and cooked) after 10 days showed significant damages - impairment of the immune system, shrinkage of brain, liver and testicles, as well as per-cancerous cell growth in the intestines and stomach. 

 GMO corn and obesity: Results from 10-year study in Norway
Animals fed a GM diet gained weight faster and retained weight longer when compared to animals fed a non-GM diet.

“Researchers found distinct changes to the intestines of animals fed GMOs compared to those fed non-GMOs. This confirms other studies done by US researchers. Significant changes occurred in the digestive systems of the test animals’ major organs including the liver, kidneys, pancreas, genitals and more.”

“They also suffered immune system alterations. The impaired ability to digest proteins may be of particular concern as this can have far-reaching implications for your health. If your body cannot digest proteins, your body will be less able to produce amino acids, which are necessary building blocks for proper cell growth and function. …”

Why have these products been approved by the FDA if tests are producing these results?

Preventative Detention

With the passing of the bill that will allow Indefinite Preventative Detention a few questions have been raised by some concerned citizens about whom the bill gives authorization to detain. Questions have also been raised about how long one might be detained without being charged with a crime. So we will take a moment to answer some of these looming inquiries, although I cannot guarantee that the answers will erase your suspension of the bill, or set your mind at ease. On the contrary, it is often the informed mind that has the most cause for concern, as the uninformed breeze through their lives in a sort of happy, hazy bliss, attainable only by the ignorant. Below we attempt to answer the most popular questions about the bill:

How Long Can Someone Legally Be Detained Without A Charge Against Them?

As the name states, an individual may be detained indefinitely. Presumably until the threat of there possible future crimes have passed. Which may be two days, or a hundred years. In other words, they keep you as long as they please.

Who May Be Legally Detained, According To The Bill?

The bill is rather vague about who may or may not be detained. It does not state anywhere in it's language that only terrorist may be detained, and it does not specify whether those being detained will be only foreign or if they will include U.S citizens, which probably means that they intend for the bill to apply to both. It is also important to note that indefinite imprisonment is not based on proven crimes or past violations of the law, but also authorizes the imprisonment of individuals whom the government deems a "threat" or whom they consider generally "dangerous".  

In short, people who may be detained include everyone from terrorist who cannot be convicted in a legal court, to people the Government determines are likely to commit a crime in the future. Now the question must be raised, what exactly makes someone dangerous? What makes them likely to commit a crime?

Do they need any proof that you planned or are planning to commit a crime?

In short, no. If they had proof that you committed a crime then they would charge you with that crime and try you in court. If they had proof you are planning to commit a crime, then they could charge you with conspiracy to commit, and would try you in a court of law. The point of the bill seems to be that they can't charge you with anything, but they would like to, so they imprison you like they would if they had proof. 

Do other countries have preventative detention?

Yes, there are other countries that have preventative detention. And that is one of the facts that Obama is trying to use as a way of showing that it isn't a radical idea. Other counties do it, so it isn't radical? There are countries that will stone you for being a victim of rape. There are other countries that will imprison or kill you for your words and beliefs. The fact that other countries do something does not mean that it isn't radical. And I would like to point out that some of the countries that Obama is pointing to- the ones that aren't all that radical, do not have "indefinite" detention. 

In the times of IRA bombings, the British Parliament passed a law allowing the Government to preventively detain terrorist suspects for a maximum of 14 days.  After a rash of subway bombings the time which someone can be detained for was ultimately increased to 28 days. I think we all agree that there is a big difference between saying "I think you may be a terrorist, so we are going to detain you for 28 days." and "We think you may possibly commit a crime in the future, so I'm going to detain you for as long as I want." 

 This law has drawn a lot of criticism from human rights advocates, and it's hardly difficult to see why.

How do you feel about this? Do you agree that people can and should be held for an indefinite period of time without a trial?