January 11, 2012
By Anthony Gucciardi
Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world’s food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto’s grasp on international politics has never been clearer.
Amazingly, the information reveals that the massive corporation is also intensely involved in the passing and regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for. In fact, the information released by WikiLeaks reveals just how much power Monsanto has thanks to key positions within the United States government and elsewhere. Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.
In 2007 it was requested that specific nations inside the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto’s GMO crops. The request for such measures to be taken was made by Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France and partner to George W. Bush. Despite mounting evidence linking Monsanto’s GM corn to organ damage and environmental devastation, the ambassador plainly calls for ‘target retaliation’ against those not supporting the GM crop. In the leaked documents, Stapleton states:
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”
The undying support of key players within the U.S. towards Monsanto is undeniably made clear not only in this release, but in the legislative decisions taken by organizations such as the FDA and USDA. Legislative decisions such as allowing Monsanto’s synthetic hormone Posilac (rBGH) to be injected into U.S. cows despite being banned in 27 countries. How did Monsanto pull this off?
Click the picture or link below to hear the Health Ranger and editor of NaturalNews.com, Mike Adams, being interviewed on The Kevin Trudeau Show, and click here to get the inside scoop on what is really going on in the world of health.
Today, the Health Ranger and editor of NaturalNews.com, Mike Adams, stops by the show to reveal the truth behind the deadly e.coli superbug spreading throughout Europe and why Coco-Cola is even worse for you than originally thought! Plus, find out what the drug companies are doing to keep you as a customer and why you may want to reconsider eating a banana next time you’re hungry.
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Today, Kevin explains the significance of the Unites States dropping to the 50th best country to start a business and why banks around the world are failing at record rates!
FDA’s Real Agenda Behind The Massive Amount of Food Recalls
Study Finds Nearly 1 Million Kids Misdiagnosed With ADHD
Drug-Resistant Superbugs Found in 3 States
HFCS Getting Rebranded To Deceive Customers
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click Below to watch The Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
August 23rd, 2010
By: Mike Adams
It’s always amusing to see how quickly consumers can be worked up into a false fear frenzy by health authorities. We saw it last year w
ith the overhyped H1N1 swine flu scare which was fanned into a flaming fear fest by WHO advisors on the take from vaccine manufacturers. Now we’re getting a new round of fear-mongering from many of the same sources who are warning us about salmonella contaminated eggs.
According to mainstream news sources, a massive 380-million-egg recall has been announced, and these eggs are all so incredibly dangerous that you have to immediately remove them from your refrigerator and take them back to the store where you bought them so that they can be properly destroyed. This is all backed up by phrases like, “It’s not worth the risk,” and claims that if people eat the eggs, they are taking “too much of a chance.”
Pretty scary, huh?
What they’re not telling you is that more than 80 percent of the chicken meat bought at grocery stores is consistently contaminated with the exact same salmonella. A more recent study conducted by Consumers Union found that two-thirds of grocery store chickens are contaminated every day!
But you don’t hear warnings to “take your chicken back to the store!” or “it’s unsafe to eat your chicken!” Ever wonder why?
Or to phrase the question another way, why is salmonella so dangerous on your eggs, but completely safe on your chicken?
The answer is it’s not. It’s the exact same risk in both cases: Cook either one and you destroy salmonella entirely. Infected eggs are no more dangerous than infected chicken, and infected chicken is apparently so safe that it’s sold every single day at your neighborhood grocery store (without any warnings or alarms, I might add). Nobody at the FDA has even mentioned it is recent memory. Salmonella contaminated chicken is apparently a non-issue.
The Real Reason For The Salmonella Scare
Now, here’s the real reason why the issue of chicken contaminated with salmonella is almost never publicized: Because to expose the salmonella contamination of chicken would be to expose the sick, filthy and inhumane practices of the factory-farmed conventional chicken industry.
And the (non-organic) chicken industry doesn’t want anyone to start looking into its practices because its practices are just too disgusting for most people to stomach. You might lose your (chicken McNugget) lunch, and then you’d probably stop buying chicken. They can’t have that.
So chicken meat gets a free pass: It’s okay with the FDA, the CDC and the USDA that Americans are buying salmonella contamination every single day as long as it’s in the form of a piece of chicken flesh.
Why, then, are contaminated eggs being flagged as so dangerous? To answer that, you have to go back to a story I wrote in 2008 called, “FDA Unleashes Mass Irradiation of Spinach, Lettuce and Other Vegetables”
There, following the FDA’s demands that spinach and lettuce be irradiated, I explained the FDA’s real agenda: “Don’t think the FDA will stop with spinach and lettuce, either. They’re already talking about irradiating tomatoes, peppers and onions. Before long, radiation could become mandatory for ALL fresh produce…”
It’s already happened with almonds, which must now be fumigated or pasteurized in the United States — a punitive rule that has severely damaged the U.S. almond industry. That took place after an outbreak of contamination with almonds. Similarly, this recent egg contamination fiasco is giving the FDA precisely the excuse it needs to demand routine pasteurization or irradiation of all eggs. Meanwhile, salmonella-contaminated chicken will be utterly ignored by the FDA even as it calls for the mass-pasteurization of “dangerous” eggs.
The FDA, you see, will seize upon each contamination event as a leverage point from which to ratchet up its food sterilization agenda, and the agency won’t stop until every scrap of fresh food sold at grocery stores is either pasteurized, fumigated or irradiated.
Only then will the FDA’s true agenda of food control be fully realized. (Insert evil genius laughter here.) And this plan of course involves outlawing all raw milk, raw almonds, raw spinach, raw eggs and anything else that might be living. Hence the recent ramping up of criminal arrests and prosecutions against raw milk producers and living food coops.
The only safe food is dead food according to the FDA. And they’re going to make sure your food is as dead as possible by exploiting these hyped-up food emergencies as leverage points from which to assert their “dead foods agenda.”
The punch line to all this should be obvious by now: Dead foods lead to dead people. When a population is denied access to health-enhancing living foods (raw foods), its health begins to deteriorate. This of course create a financial windfall for the pharmaceutical industry that thrives on suffering and disease. (More vaccines, anyone?)
In other words, keeping the food sterilized means keeping the people diseased. And keeping the people diseased means keeping the sick-care industry rolling in easy cash. There’s nothing like a little sickness to remind people to keep taking their pills, after all…
Don’t think that this egg recall has anything to do with protecting the health of consumers. Cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands of people a year and they’re perfectly legal to sell. Even toxic chemical food ingredients like MSG, aspartame and sodium nitrite remain perfectly legal, too. If the FDA cared about protecting people from dangerous foods, it would have banned disease-causing ingredients long ago. But instead, the agency going after your raw milk, raw eggs, raw spinach and raw almonds.
What does that tell you about the FDA’s real intent?
August 3, 2010
Regardless of topic, not a day goes by without a headline story that uses language that confuses, camouflages, misrepresents, downplays, plays up or otherwise manipulates the subject to support an unspoken agenda.
To stay on-trend it is essential to recognize the “weasel words.” These may take the form of a single word, phrase, or a seemingly innocent descriptive paragraph. It is never obvious, nor does it look like propaganda. The weasel words slither by the conscious mind, unperceived, and register only as afterthoughts, throw-a-ways, or conditionals.
Here’s an example from yesterday’s news: Bloomberg —Trade Deficit in U.S. Unexpectedly Widened in May.
Certainly this headline, to the casual reader, seems straightforward and informative. However, just one word in this very short headline carries a concealed message: “Unexpectedly.” Unexpected by whom? The expectant economists who did not expect it to widen?
What about all those individuals who expected the trade deficit to widen? The underlying, unstated assumption is that if their stable of “accredited” authorities did not expect the trade deficit to widen, no one did.
If this headline was an isolated instance, this kind of semantic micro-analysis might be dismissed as nit-picking. But when it is the rule rather than the exception, this single word reveals an on-going reliance, particularly by media and government, on a limited number of “experts” whose lack of expertise is revealed in the following headlines:
· Orders to US Factories Fall More Than Forecast
· Jobless Claims in US Unexpectedly Increased
· US Consumer Confidence Declines More Than Estimated
· Existing Home Sales Unexpectedly Fell
Add to this list the convenient cop-outs, “No One Saw It Coming” and “Worse Than Anticipated” that experts commonly resort to when they didn’t see it coming and/or failed to anticipate developments. This drumbeat of excuses for missed calls and mistaken forecasts covers up the “experts” personal failings while creating the false impression: since they, the experts, were unable to see into the future, no one else could either.
The elitism and arrogance concealed within the language was inadvertently expressed by Paul Krugman, economist of record for the self-anointed “paper of record,” The New York Times.
“As recently as two years ago, anyone predicting the current [economic] state of affairs (not only is unemployment disastrously high, but most forecasts say that it will stay very high for years) would have been dismissed as a crazy alarmist. Now that the nightmare has become reality …,” Krugman wrote on July 12th.
Implicit in Krugman’s words is that no one predicted “the current state of affairs.” As a ranking member of the exclusive “Harvard/Princeton/Yale White Shoe Boy Club, Krugman speaks for his fraternity. Anyone outside it is, a priori, excluded from consideration.
What this means is that the White Shoe Boyz stranglehold on the mass media prevents opinion other than their own from being widely aired. Moreover, on those rare occasions when a contrary opinion slips by, Krugman & Co. ridicule it as crazy alarmism.
Gerald Celente, having predicted in 2007 that the “nightmare” would become a reality, was accused by the Times of disseminating “Pessimism Porn” (even while it grudgingly acknowledged the accuracy of many of his forecasts).
Trend Lesson: The purpose of this Trend Alert® is not to show that Celente was right and Krugman & Co. were wrong. Rather it is to provide important lessons and warnings that reach beyond economics.
1. Always take a moment to parse language that may, at first blush, appear dispassionate and informative to uncover its subtle propaganda content.
2. Don’t ever let your guard down. Develop a healthy distrust of “experts” and for what universally passes as authoritative analysis.
3. Don’t be intimidated. If you smell smoke, head for the exit even if they call you a “crazy alarmist.” Never forget the voice of authority that told the people fleeing the burning World Trade Center, “The fire in the North Tower is under control – go back to your offices.”
April 5, 2010
By Paul Joseph Watson
An article carried by the official Greenpeace website written by a Greenpeace member urges climate activists to resort to criminal activity in an effort to reinvigorate momentum for their stalling global warming agenda, while ominously threatening climate skeptics, “we know where you live”.
The article, written by Greenpeace activist “Gene” from India , calls for “mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism”.
“Gene” then has a special message for roughly half of Americans  who, in the wake of the climategate scandal, are now skeptical of man-made global warming – “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”
“Gene” quotes another climate activist who calls for an army of greenies to break the law and take retribution against anyone who stands in their way.
“The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”
Greenpeace has not issued a retraction of the comments, preferring instead to buffer the blog at both beginning and end with desperate-sounding explanations insisting that the author has peaceful intentions. The organization has obviously been taking a hammering for this as it worsens into another public relations disaster.
This is by no means the first time global warming adherents have resorted to physical threats in an effort to bolster their rapidly crumbling credibility on climate change issues. In June last year, a global warming activist posted an article on the Talking Points Memo website entitled “At What Point Do We Jail Or Execute Global Warming Deniers?” 
Shortly after the article was retracted, a comment traced back to another prominent global warming activist which appeared on the Climate Progress blog threatened Skeptics that “an entire generation that will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds.” Website owner Joe Romm defended the comment as “clearly not a threat but a prediction”.
For years, climate Skeptics have been the target of campaigns to denounce them as criminals and traitors on the scale of the Nazis, with calls for Nuremberg trials . A July 2007 Senate report  detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.
“Is this really the kind of caring, sensitive message this charity ought to be conveying to the world?” asks James Delingpole . “Not to judge by the comments below. Happy Easter, Greenpeace PR department! I think you’re going to have a busy next few days…”
As a recent Psychological Science study highlighted, warmists tend not to adhere to the caring, sensitive image they portray when it comes to their own private lives.
“Those who wear what the authors call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal,” summarizes the Telegraph’s Iain Hollingshead . “Faced with various moral choices – whether to stick to the rules in games, for example, or to pay themselves an appropriate wage – the green participants behaved much worse in the experiments than their conventional counterparts. The short answer to the paper’s question, then, is: No. Greens are mean.”
Despite Greenpeace’s efforts at damage control, there can be little doubt as to the true context of the article. By first encouraging climate activists to “break the law” in pursuit of their stalling political agenda, “Gene” has greased the skids for criminal activity. Concluding with the threat to climate Skeptics that “we know where you live,” is clearly a form of intimidation and an invitation for “an army of climate outlaws” to take physical retribution against people who disagree with them.
Imagine if Infowars put out an article urging its readers to break the law in order to combat the IRS, imagine if we told IRS agents, “we know where you live”. We’d be raided quicker than a heartbeat and Alex Jones would be demonized all over the establishment media as a dangerous extremist. Indeed, a mere peaceful letter-writing campaign urging governors to resign was leapt upon by the media and the federal government this past weekend as a concerning portend of the “extremist” threat posed by constitutionalists despite the fact that there was no indication of violence.
When so-called “right-wingers” or libertarians merely write letters urging peaceful political change, they are demonized as terrorist hate-mongers, but when greenies openly call for criminal behavior allied with thinly veiled threats of physical violence, it’s no big deal.
Will CNN and MSNBC devote weeks of endless coverage to Greenpeace’s threats towards people they disagree with? There’s more chance of Keith Olbermann awarding Rep. Hank Johnson (a major global warming adherent) his “worst person in the world” gong for hilariously warning that the island of Guam could capsize  like a boat due to overpopulation.
December 18, 2009
By Patrick Henningsen
On Wednesday, Global warming skeptics from CFACT pulled off an international climate caper by using GPS triangulation from Greenpeace’s own on-board camera photos to locate and sail up long-side its famous vessel, Rainbow Warrior. Then in Greenpeace-like fashion, the ‘climate realists’ dropped a banner reading “Propaganda Warrior” in order to highlights how the radical green group’s policies and agenda are based on a series of scientific myths, lies and exaggerations about global warming and climate change.
Earlier that day, CFACT’s “skeptivists” also boarded Greenpeace’s other seafaring vessel, the Arctic Sunrise, gaining passage on deck by distracting Greenpeace crew with boxes of doughnuts whilst they unfurled yet another banner hand-painted with the slogan “Ship of Lies” off of the ship’s starboard side.
Using its well-known radical approach to activism, campaigning group Greenpeace has become one of the key components behind the proliferation of man-made global warming theory, as well as its subsequent rebranding into what is now commonly known as “climate change”. Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold was recently forced to confess during an interview with the BBC that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information claiming that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030. Greenpeace’s own members commonly cite the group’s reports on climate change as ‘trusted’ science, when in reality their claims are politically motivated, promoting selective science. The organisation’s co-founder, Patrick Moore, who has long since been chased out by radical left elements in the group, foresaw this as a genuine flaw in Greenpeace’s hierarchy. Moore stated in 2008 that “I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.”
After nearly a decade of campaigning for vague concepts as ‘climate action’ and ‘climate justice’ with virtually no direct public opposition, Greenpeace members will certainly be shocked and horrified to see a genuine physical challenge their assumed moral hegemony over all things environmental.
CFACT executive director Craig Rucker masterminded the operation and explains, “Greenpeace has been using these kinds of tactics for decades, and now they can find out what it’s like to have a little taste of their own medicine“.
After nearly a week of fundamentally meaningless street protests by climate action groups and their hundreds of arrests, how refreshing to see climate realists take action- certainly they are an environmental movement with a brain. It might seem like a modest skirmish on the high seas, but with any luck, The Battle of Copenhagen will be remembered as a rallying cry for lovers of real science and common sense everywhere.
June 23, 2009
The Raw Story
by David Edwards and Stephen Webster
Ron Paul, the popular Republican Congressman from Texas, is ripping into the president and Congress for what he sees as their “goal” with round after round of stimulus: complete economic collapse.
“From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration,” he said in his June 22, 2009, weekly address.
He added that Democrats who voted for the president’s war funding request, which gave an additional $106 billion to military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq — among other, unrelated items — were actually voting in favor of the wars, not just authorization of the president’s agenda.
He called it an affront to everyone who believed a vote for Obama was a vote for a peace candidate.
The president’s insistence on including an additional $108 billion in asset exchange with the International Monetary Fund is merely “buying global oppression,” he said.
Paul added that, “this [bill sent] $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan and $420 million to Mexico; and some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called peace keeping missions.”
In other words, the latest U.S. war funding was an “International bailout,” he said.
The legislation’s provisions for the IMF included 100 billion dollars for the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), a credit instrument providing the multilateral institution with additional resources to deal with exceptional risks to the stability of the international monetary system.
They also include an expansion of the nation’s special drawing rights by five billion SDRs, adding roughly eight billion dollars to the IMF’s financial firepower.
The 100 billion dollars for the NAB acts as a credit line for the IMF in case member countries need emergency loans that exceed the institution’s resources. As such, the money is not considered an immediate budget expense.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) had proposed to strip out the IMF funds, but his measure was defeated in May by a vote of 64-30.
“Not only does sending money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help,” Paul said. “Along with IMF loans come IMF required policy changes called ’structural adjustment programs,’ which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that brought our own country to its knees.”
This audio is from Congressman Ron Paul’s weekly address, released June 22, 2009.