Recently unearthed documents from the private collection of former diplomat and Bilderberg regular George C. McGhee have revealed (among other things) that the Club of Rome in 1970 wanted to create a “global matrix approach”, or G-Matrix approach, as a means of bringing people into an enviro-eugenicist mindset globally.

The Club of Rome was an influential think tank, advocating among other things worldwide population reduction and global environmental governance.

The author of the uncovered manuscript from 1970 was Italian industrialistAurelio Peccei, who founded the Club of Rome in 1968. Peccei wrote that any acceptance of the Club’s conclusions “relies heavily on a global matrix approach”. Furthermore he writes that these conclusions by the infamous Club (which includes advocacy of worldwide population reduction) can only be generally accepted “through (…) an iterative, global and substantive process”. Through such a comprehensive process, writes Peccei, mankind can “gradually attain a value-base consensus, and avoid the prospects of a critical future situation.”

“The work program exposition of the Club of Rome project relies heavily on the global (or G) matrix approach. It therefore appears desirable to start the discussion of the work program by explicating the structure and utility of such a matrix.”

The uncovered document from McGhee’s private collection states outright that the Club has sought to manufacture a consensus in all layers of society in regards to the conclusions of the Club’s reports as published in the early 1970s.

“It should be pointed out (…) that such a consensus is meant to provide “the initial conditions” for the operational evolution of the Club of Rome Project”, Aurelio wrote in 1970.

“It should only be viewed as an exemplary value-base whose universality, validity, and credibility depends on the judgments of the DELPHI technique participants. Nevertheless, it will represent an attempt for a substantive and professionally coordinated delineation of the “Predicament of Mankind”. The more groups engage in similar intellectual efforts, the more meaningful the dialogue on the worldwide problematique will become.”

This “problematique” is being described as “the constantly widening cultural, economic and technological gaps among nations, or the fearsome multiplication of the population on a finite planet, or the transnational phenomenon of youth rebellion, or the possibility of crossing the threshold past which it will be feasible to manipulate human genetic material.”

The mention of the DELPHI method in the context of this information-snippet about a global matrix of manufactured consent is interesting. According to Wikipedia, the method has been widely used for business forecasting and other forecasting “covering such topics as scientific breakthroughs, population control, automation, space progress, war prevention and weapon systems.”

As I covered in an earlier article, the predictive systems and models of the Club of Rome were used by the Chinese to set up their brutal one-child policy. In 1978, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades. Robert Zubrin, senior fellow with the center for security policy, published an op-ed in the Washington Times, reaffirming that Greenhalgh’s study is correct. Zubrin wrote:

“In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for the Chinese guided-missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on control-system theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of “The Limits to Growthand: Blueprint for Survival”- publications of the Club of Rome, a major source of Malthusian propaganda – and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting the report’s method of using computerized “systems analysis” to predict and design the human future.”

To illustrate that the Global Matrix was further developed, the 1991 publicationThe First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome shows us that early on the common denominator was invented around which the world could rally, thereby creating a common purpose:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

The concept of a Global Matrix of manufactured consent, as described and developed by the founder of the Club of Rome, illustrate that the scam is perpetrated on such an unprecedented scale, that up until a few years ago few dared question its validity.

Are already reported clashes with police, who used tear gas and water cannons, the Alawite district of Gazi in Sisli, Kurtulus and Harbiye. The police blocked the bridge over the Bosporus to prevent demonstrators coming from the Asian shore to come closer.

ERDOGAN TO THE SQUARE OF SUPPORTERS: CLEAN GEZI PARK – turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in front of a crowd of supporters in Istanbul that was his duty to “clean up” yesterday Gezi Park, occupied by anti-government protesters and assaulted by the police. “The operation was conducted yesterday,” he added, noting that the park and Taksim Square “have been cleaned up.”

Stinging HYDRANT IN THE POLICE, THE PICTURES ON THE WEB – Chemical stinging water hydrants used by Turkish police against demonstrators antgi-Erdogan after the suspicions aroused by the strange wounds encountered by physicians on Children affected by water cannons, have come now even pictures. On the internet outputs are photos of Turkish agents who charge the tanks with water cannons blue with the words ‘Jenix’. It is a stinging sold in Turkey, according to the website that sells it, for military, police and gendarmerie. The photos of the tanks of chemicals were taken by Italian activists in Istanbul and published on the website of the Global Project. In a press conference held this morning discussed the Istanbul Governor Huseyin Avni Mutlu has denied that the water dell’idranti there are dangerous substances, admitting only the presence of “medicine.”

AFTERNOON HIGH RISK – This afternoon is considered high-risk incidents in Istanbul, where they were called almost simultaneously two events to the contrary, the government party and of the anti-Erdogan. The Islamic party AKP of Prime Minister has provided a concentration with tens of thousands of people to support Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The protesters have called for a demonstration in Taksim – but it is guarded by a massive policing arrangements, which do not permit access – to protest against the brutal assault by the forces of anti-riot yesterday in Gezi Park and demand the resignation of head of government. They’re hoping for a million protesters. On twitter the event was convened yesterday with the hashtag ‘# 1MilyonYarinTaksime’ (Tomorrow 1 Million in Taksim).

The court found that the organic farmers had no standing in the case because, as long as the farmers did not take active steps to infringe on Monsanto’s patents, no threat of infringement suits existed.

The organic farmers’ main concern stems from a previous attempt to have Monsanto sign a covenant not to sue organic farmers.  Without this covenant, the organic farmers were afraid to plant soy, corn, and similar produce that were likely to become contaminated with transgenic seeds from their neighbor’s farms.  Monsanto refused to sign the agreement and assured the organic farmers that they would not be in danger of a patent infringement suit if they did not “intend to possess, use or sell any transgenic seed, including any transgenic seed potentially covered by Monsanto’s patents.”

The court began the standing analysis by stating that “Article III jurisdiction may be met where the patentee takes a position that puts the declaratory judgment plaintiff in the position of either pursuing arguably illegal behavior or abandoning that which he claims a right to do.”  Thus, the main question was whether there was a “substantial risk” that the harm would occur, which may prompt the organic farmers to reasonably incur costs to mitigate or avoid that harm.

Although Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for patent infringement (144 suits between 1997 and 2010, and 700 settlements), the court found that Monsanto “unequivocally” disclaimed any intent to sue farmers whose crops “inadvertently” contained traces of Monsanto’s seeds.  Because Monsanto argued this disclaimer to defeat the organic farmers’ declaratory judgment claims, Monsanto was judicially estopped from later adopting a contrary position in a patent infringement suit regarding the same patents.  None of the organic farmers were found outside of the scope of Monsanto’s disclaimer, and the steps the organic farmers took to ensure their crops were not contaminated were based on speculation.  Therefore, none had a “substantial risk” that harm would occur which may prompt the organic farmers to reasonably incur costs to mitigate or avoid a suit.

I absolutely believe what I wrote in the title of this article: apathetic citizens deserve to lose their freedoms. That’s right, I’m talking to you. Those of you who don’t know what is going on withyour government, or to those of you who don’t care.

I don’t think they should lose their freedoms just because they are apathetic, nor do I want them to lose their freedoms because they are apathetic. IF we get to a point that our government takes away or limits our freedoms, those that sat around and did nothing while others warned them will deserve to have had their freedoms lost because they did nothing to prevent it. They are going to be responsible for their own oppression by the government.

To the apathetics: did you know that you even have freedoms? Probably not to the extent that you should. Let me explain some of them.

You have the right and freedom to say whatever you want. If you want to call Obama a traitor who cares more about his own power than he does about law, you can say that. If you want to call Mitt Romney a greedy moneybags who is a parasitical tumor, you can say that too.

You can also say something simple like, I don’t know if I trust my government. You can have honest conversations with people aboutanything. You can be an obnoxious, rude troll, or you can be a truth seeking citizen who wants to learn and ask questions about anything, including the government, without fear of retribution from the same government. That is your right, guaranteed by law in The Constitution. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be living in a free republic.

You have the right to be with the people you want to be with. If you want to gather with people to discuss a book, you can do that, if you want to gather to discuss local school issues with other parents, you can do that to. If you want to gather with a bunch of people to protest a war, you can do that.

You have the freedom to choose your own religion and to exercise your religious beliefs. If this means that your belief is that there is no god, you can believe that, and you can exercise that belief by worshiping yourself. Or, if you believe in God, you can exercise that according to your beliefs.

You have the right to arm yourself in order to prevent attacks from those who may harm you.

You have the right of privacy. Police, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DOJ, cannot spy on you, cannot enter your home, cannot take your property, computer, smart phone, cannot read your email or texts, without first obtaining a warrant from a judge. This is your right.

So What?

“Well, I already knew all that” you say. Really, then why aren’t you standing up defending those rights? They are being violated! Do you care? No, of course you don’t. because you live in a free country and the government will never abuse its power. It will never spy on you if you are doing nothing wrong, it will never bust open your door looking for someone that you have never seen. Nothing like that has ever happened in a free country before and certainly has never occurred in America.

Lies. All of them. I’ll address those lies in a minute. But first . . . .

History is ripe with examples of apathetic citizens letting politicians who seem harmless grab unjust power and slowly take away citizens’ freedoms. They do this one small step at a time, imperceptible to apathetics, but plain to anyone actively engaged. This is how Hitler was able to lull Germany into Nazi control. He promised peace and security, he was legally elected, but Germans slowly lost their rights and freedoms, without even noticing, or without caring, all in the name of peace, security, and patriotism.

Hitler squashed opposing political voices via bullying, controlling the press, and sometimes covert violence. This enabled him to be the sole hope for Germany during an economic depression and fear of war. The end result for Germany, a loss of freedom for all, even those who supported Hitler. That’s right, even those who supported Hitler lost freedom. Why? Because they elected a person who wanted 100% control of citizens. There were warning signs, but citizens ignored them.

“That will never happen in America.” A lie. It has already started. After the Boston bombings earlier this year, citizens’ homes were broken into, searched, and residents were forced out of their homes, all without a warrant. Illegal.

The president has used the IRS to bully opposition. He has used the IRS to bully tech companies to spy on citizens. He has bullied news outlets that challenge him.

You are being spied on. Illegally. “I’m not doing anything wrong, so it doesn’t matter,” you say. That argument is irrelevant. What the government is doing is illegal. And besides, it doesn’t matter if you think you are doing nothing wrong, it matters if the person spying on you thinks you are doing something wrong. And with the thousands upon thousands of lines of tax code in this country, I guarantee that you are doing something wrong, and the government can use the IRS to bully you, or worse.

“I’m a democrat, so who cares?” you say. Think about how appalling that sounds . You belong to a party that preaches tolerance, acceptance, and freedom, but you are okay with people losing their freedoms if they think differently? You are a hypocrite, and you are facilitating fascism if you are okay with people losing freedoms just because they have a different opinion.

If you want to have the ability to have your own associations, your own political and religious beliefs, you need to let others have their own as well. And you must defend those people’s rights.

You may be okay with the current administration spying on you, because you trust Obama. Thats certainly your right to believe that, but what about the next president? What if the next president is a right-wing religious zealot? Do you want him or her to have the ability to spy on you? Do you want them violating your rights? Nope. So stop the government now before it gets out of control.

Once Hitler came into power, he started to control citizens, and he didn’t care if a citizen had voted for him. Hitler wanted complete control. I am not saying that Obama is Hitler, nor am I saying that Obama is going to do what Hitler did. I am illustrating an example from history in which citizens, apathetic or blind, lost their freedoms regardless of their political affiliations. It can certainly occur again, even in the USA.

We have warning signs that Obama is becoming a tyrant. And if history repeats itself, even in a small way, we may get to the point Obama, or a future president, won’t care if you are a democrat or a republican. He may only want complete control. I hope it never happens. And please, please, please listen to warnings. Once you lose your freedoms, you will not get them back.

Stand with me. I want you to keep your freedoms and your rights. But if you remain apathetic, you will deserve to lose your freedoms, and no one will be able to defend you.

Call your representatives, state and federal. Share this message with others.

To republicans who think that your party is going to oppose Obama about this illegal spying on citizens, think again. John Boehner and Eric Canter have both said that they don’t care about this illegal spying business — they only care about arresting the 29-year-old man who let U.S. citizens know their rights were being violated.

Note to the federal employee who is taking a break from his pornography habit to intercept this article: the “I was only following orders” excuse doesn’t work. History has taught us that. Stand up with us, defend your own rights.

Note to those who will say “Bush started the illegal surveillance:” you are right. I opposed it then too. But that doesn’t change a thing. We have to stop it now.

Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.

The White House announced it had conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against opposition forces. Mr Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line,” suggesting greater American intervention.

The Syrian government dismissed the US claims it used chemical weapons as “full of lies.”

A statement by the Syrian Foreign Ministry in Damascus said the US was resorting to “cheap tactics” and fabrications to justify Mr Obama’s decision to arm the rebels.

The statement was the first official Syrian response to the decision.

While a small percentage of the 93,000 people reportedly killed in Syria are said to have died from chemical weapons – US intelligence puts the number at 100 to 150 – the White House views the deployment of the deadly agents as a flouting of international norms. Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said the multiple chemical weapons attacks gave greater urgency to the situation.

“Suffice it to say this is going to be different in both scope and scale in terms of what we are providing,” Mr Rhodes said . But US would make specific determinations “on our own timeline.”

The Obama administration could give the rebels a range of weapons, including small arms, assault rifles, shoulder-fired remote-propelled grenades and other anti-tank missiles. The opposition forces could operate most of that equipment without significant training.

Mr Obama’s opposition to sending American troops into Syria makes it less likely the US will provide sophisticated arms or anti-aircraft weapons that would require large-scale training. Administration officials are also worried about high-powered weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups. Hezbollah fighters are among those backing Assad’s armed forces, and al Qaida-linked extremists back the rebellion.

The CIA and special operations trainers are already running some weapons training programmes for the rebels and are expected to take charge of teaching the opposition how to use the weapons the US has agreed to supply, another US official said.

There is also some debate within the administration about who would provide the lethal aid and how it might be delivered, the US officials said.

Mr Obama has resisted arming the rebels until now, a cautious approach that underscores the deep divisions within his administration. The proponents of more aggressive action, including Secretary of State John Kerry, appeared to have won out over those wary of sending weapons and ammunition into the war zone.

The US has made no decision on operating a no-fly zone over Syria, Mr Rhodes said.

The US has so far provided the Syrian rebel army with rations and medical supplies. The administration has also agreed in principle to provide body armor and other equipment such as night-vision goggles to the rebels, although the Pentagon has said there has been no movement on that as yet.

The new move followed new US intelligence assessments showing that Mr Assad has used chemical weapons, including sarin, on a small scale multiple times in the last year, killing an estimated 100 to 150 people.

Mr Obama advisers believe Mr Assad’s regime still maintains control of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and does not see any evidence that rebel forces have launched attacks using the deadly agents.

The administration announced in April that it had “varying degrees of confidence” that sarin had been used in Syria. But they said at the time that they had not been able to determine who was responsible for deploying the gas.

The more conclusive findings announced last night were aided by evidence sent to the United States by France, which, along with Britain, has announced it had determined that Mr Assad’s government had used chemical weapons.

In Brussels, Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said today: “The international community has made clear that any use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and a clear breach of international law.”

He said he welcomes the “clear US statement” and called on Syria to “grant access to the United Nations to investigate all reports of chemical weapons use.”

Mr Obama will discuss the chemical weapons assessments, along with broader problems in Syria, during the summit of eight leading industrial nations next week in Northern Ireland.

Among those in attendance will be Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of Mr Assad’s most powerful backers. Today Mr Putin’s foreign affairs adviser said Moscow was not convinced with Washington’s claims.

Yuri Ushakov told reporters that the information provided by US officials to Russia “didn’t look convincing.”

The Syrian fighters have been clamouring for bolder Western intervention, particularly given the estimated 5,000 Hezbollah guerrillas propping up Mr Assad’s forces. Mr Assad’s stunning military success last week at Qusair, near the Lebanese border, and preparations for offensives against Homs and Aleppo have made the matter more urgent.

Ed Royce, a Republican congressman who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he supported the president’s decision “to expand assistance for the vetted Syrian opposition.” But other politicians expressed reservations, including Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat, and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Alexey Pushkov, chairman of Russia’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, wrote on his Twitter account today that “the data on Assad’s use of chemical weapons were faked in the same place as the lie about (Saddam) Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” referring to the deposed Iraqi dictator.

“Obama is going down the route of G. Bush,” he added, in reference to former US President George W.Bush’s assertion – never proven, but used to justify the invasion of Iraq – that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Sixty percent of Bolivians are indigenous, and culture directly considered unworthy, health and pocket, set foot in a McDonald’s. Despite the relatively cheap prices of fast food, McDonald’s could not brainwash the indigenous population of Bolivia proud inducing it to eat your BigMacs, or McRibs McNuggets. While waiting for the bus at a stop in front of a corporate restaurant, an Indian woman named Esther Shock said: “The day I was nearest of those burgers rained pitchers and climbed the stairs to the door does not get wet.” “Then a couple of employees came to me out saying he was dirtying the place. Why should I care if McDonald’s gone from Bolivia?”

A decade of lost every year

According to reports, fast food stores McDonald’s in the Bolivian cities of La Paz, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz de la Sierra, worked with financial losses every year for a decade. The McDonald’s franchise persisted also during that time, showing that the purpose of the corporation is not billed but intoxicating. After 14 years in the country, its extensive network could not compete with a chain Bolivia. Finally, Bolivia rejected the program of McDonald’s fast food. Very soon, the company will definitely leave the country.

Deep cultural rejection

The shocking failure of McDonald’s and their expulsion from Bolivia were so important that immediately filmed a documentary entitled: “Why McDonald’s broke in Bolivia?”. Chefs, nutritionists, historians and educators, participated in this documentary that examines the unpleasant reality of how to prepare the food at McDonald’s and why Bolivians reject “fast food philosophy.”

70 chemical ingredients

Did you know that the McRib is processed with 70 different ingredients including azodicarbonamide, a bleaching agent for flour often used in the production of plastic foam? The McRib contain a mixture of gut, heart and stomach of transgenic cows, and other additives highly injurious to health produced by Monsanto.

This is the disgusting idea that Bolivians have rejected in their country.

The rejection of Bolivia to McDonald’s has set a good example to the rest of the world should follow

This was reported this morning the Catholic newspaper Avvenire. “The issue is not within the jurisdiction of the court,” the Court decided, requested by the complaint of an association of New York.

The lawyer for the Holy See, Jeffrey Lena, said: “confirmed our defensive line.”

Slowly, and largely under the radar, a growing number of local law enforcement agencies across the country have moved into what had previously been the domain of the F.B.I. and state crime labs — amassing their own DNA databases of potential suspects, some collected with the donors’ knowledge, and some without it.

The Obama administration announced on Thursday that it has determined that the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons against opposition groups, crossing what President Obama had called a “red line” and prompting him to provide direct support the Syrian groups for the first time.

While the White House stopped short of saying it would arm Syrian rebels, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that the president has decided to step up “military support” to the main opposition group , the Supreme Military Council, to bolster its effectiveness.

The announcement comes ahead of next week’s Group of Eight Summit in Northern Ireland, where the conflict in Syria is expected to be a focal point of conversation. Russia, one of the G-8 member countries, has continued to back the Bashar Assad regime despite pleas from the United States and international community to cease.

The White House has also expressed concerns that the situation is getting more dire in Syria as Hezbollah and Iran have stepped up their involvement in the conflict in support of Assad.

“There is an urgency to the situation,” Rhodes said. “There has been an urgency to the situation for two years. It’s particularly urgent right now in terms of the situation on the ground, in some respect, because we have seen Hezbollah and Iran increase their own involvement.”

The White House notified lawmakers on Thursday that it had positively determined chemical weapons were used before announcing the findings to the press.

Obama acknowledged in April that chemical weapons likely had been deployed, but they needed further confirmation before taking action. Obama had called the potential use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad a “red line” that would spur further action by the U.S.

The president “has said the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus and it has,” Rhodes said.

The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date, a small fraction of the more than 90,000 that have been killed in the 2-year-old civil war. The U.S. assessment is based on laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals that revealed exposure to sarin.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. John McCain suggested that Obama has already decided to arm the rebels. But Rhodes said that the White House will offer “direct support” to Syrian rebels to increase their effectiveness, but said he could not “inventory the types of support” at this point.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf Arab states are already providing arms and ammunition to rebel groups. What is lacking is cohesion and organization. But Assad’s forces have made recent headway against the rebels, driving them from a strategic city near the border of Lebanon.

“You need to provide the right kind of arms,” said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for McCain. “What they really need is anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons.”

Rhodes said that the president has not made any decisions to implement a no-fly zone, as he did in Libya in as part of an international effort to oust Muammar Gaddafi. But Rhodes underscored that White House officials believe the most effective action they can take to improve the situation on the ground is to strengthen the opposition.

“A no-fly zone…would carry with it great and open-ended costs for the United States and the international community,” Rhodes said. “It would be far more complex to undertake that effort in Syria than it was in Libya. Furthermore, there’s not a clear guarantee that it would dramatically improve the situation on the ground.”

Several lawmakers applauded the president for acknowledging the chemical weapon use, but called on him to take more significant action to topple Assad.

“I thank the president for acknowledging that Syrians are using chemical weapons,” McCain said. “Just to provide additional weapons to the Syrian National Army is not enough. We have got to change the equation on the battleground.”

According to these minutes, released in the Kremlin today by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNRE), Putin was so incensed over the Obama regimes refusal to discuss this grave matter that he refused for three hours to even meet with Kerry, who had traveled to Moscow on a scheduled diplomatic mission, but then relented so as to not cause an even greater rift between these two nations.

At the center of this dispute between Russia and the US, this MNRE report says, is the “undisputed evidence” that a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine, known as neonicotinoids, are destroying our planets bee population, and which if left unchecked could destroy our world’s ability to grow enough food to feed its population.

So grave has this situation become, the MNRE reports, the full European Commission (EC) this past week instituted a two-year precautionary ban (set to begin on 1 December 2013) on these“bee killing” pesticides following the lead of Switzerland, France, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine, all of whom had previously banned these most dangerous of genetically altered organisms from being used on the continent.

Two of the most feared neonicotinoids being banned are Actara and Cruiser made by the Swiss global bio-tech seed and pesticide giant Syngenta AG which employs over 26,000 people in over 90 countries and ranks third in total global sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market.

Important to note, this report says, is that Syngenta, along with bio-tech giants Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and DuPont, now control nearly 100% of the global market for genetically modified pesticides, plants and seeds.

Also to note about Syngenta, this report continues, is that in 2012 it was criminally charged in Germany for concealing the fact that its genetically modified corn killed cattle, and settled a class-action lawsuit in the US for $105 million after it was discovered they had contaminated the drinking supply of some 52 million Americans in more than 2,000 water districts with its “gender-bending” herbicide Atrazine.

To how staggeringly frightful this situation is, the MNRE says, can be seen in the report issued this past March by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) wherein they warned our whole planet is in danger, and as we can, in part, read:

“As part of a study on impacts from the world’s most widely used class of insecticides, nicotine-like chemicals called neonicotinoids, American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has called for a ban on their use as seed treatments and for the suspension of all applications pending an independent review of the products’ effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.

“It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns,” said Cynthia Palmer, co-author of the report and Pesticides Program Manager for ABC, one of the nation’s leading bird conservation organizations.

ABC commissioned world renowned environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau to conduct the research. The 100-page report, “The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds,” reviews 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act. The report evaluates the toxicological risk to birds and aquatic systems and includes extensive comparisons with the older pesticides that the neonicotinoids have replaced. The assessment concludes that the neonicotinoids are lethal to birds and to the aquatic systems on which they depend.

“A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a songbird,” Palmer said. “Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the oldest neonicotinoid — called imidacloprid — can fatally poison a bird. And as little as 1/10th of a neonicotinoid-coated corn seed per day during egg-laying season is all that is needed to affect reproduction.”

The new report concludes that neonicotinoid contamination levels in both surface- and ground water in the United States and around the world are already beyond the threshold found to kill many aquatic invertebrates.”

Quickly following this damning report, the MRNE says, a large group of group of American beekeepers and environmentalists sued the Obama regime over the continued use of these neonicotinoids stating: “We are taking the EPA to court for its failure to protect bees from pesticides. Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an agricultural system in trouble.”

And to how bad the world’s agricultural system has really become due to these genetically modified plants, pesticides and seeds, this report continues, can be seen by the EC’s proposal this past week, following their ban on neonicotinoids, in which they plan to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with the European Union, and as we can, in part, read:

“Europe is rushing towards the good ol days circa 1939, 40… A new law proposed by the European Commission would make it illegal to “grow, reproduce or trade” any vegetable seeds that have not been “tested, approved and accepted” by a new EU bureaucracy named the “EU Plant Variety Agency.”

It’s called the Plant Reproductive Material Law, and it attempts to put the government in charge of virtually all plants and seeds. Home gardeners who grow their own plants from non-regulated seeds would be considered criminals under this law.”

This MRNE report points out that even though this EC action may appear draconian, it is nevertheless necessary in order to purge the continent from continued contamination of these genetically bred “seed monstrosities.”

Most perplexing in all of this, the MRNE says, and which led to Putin’s anger at the US, has been the Obama regimes efforts to protect pesticide-producer profits over the catastrophic damaging being done to the environment, and as the Guardian News Service detailed in their 2 May article titled “US rejects EU claim of insecticide as prime reason for bee colony collapse” and which, in part, says:

“The European Union voted this week for a two-year ban on a class of pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, that has been associated with the bees’ collapse. The US government report, in contrast, found multiple causes for the collapse of the honeybees.”

To the “truer” reason for the Obama regimes protection of these bio-tech giants destroying our world, the MRNE says, can be viewed in the report titled “How did Barack Obama become Monsanto’s man in Washington?” and which, in part, says:

“After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA: At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center. As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.”

Even worse, after Russia suspended the import and use of an Monsanto genetically modified cornfollowing a study suggesting a link to breast cancer and organ damage this past September, theRussia Today News Service reported on the Obama regimes response:

“The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week – including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.”

On 26 March, Obama quietly signed this “Monsanto Protection Act” into law thus ensuring the American people have no recourse against this bio-tech giant as they fall ill by the tens of millions, and many millions will surely end up dying in what this MRNE report calls the greatest agricultural apocalypse in human history as over 90% of feral (wild) bee population in the US has already died out, and up to 80% of domestic bees have died out too.

By

In 2007, Obama proclaimed that he would put an end to all forms of spying on citizens not suspected of a crime. In his words, he would make sure there was ‘no more tracking’ of citizens that weren’t doing anything wrong.

Seven years later, we now have the largest public leak of NSA spying data in history, with literally every citizen a target of what’s known as the ‘PRISM’ spy grid. The NSA actually goes directly to the servers of your favorite mega tech companies to grab your personal data and chats, from Google to Facebook and Apple. This was at first disputed by the tech companies themselves and even the United States Director of National Intelligence, but as it turns out a second leaked slide confirms that the entire basis of PRISM is actually 100% direct connection to these mega tech servers.

So what exactly is Obama saying when he says that he is going to put an end to the massive spying on citizens? The spying that he says was actually a part of the Bush Administration and something he was going to put a halt to once taking office. Well, we all know that spying on US citizens is not purely a Democratic of Republican thing. Instead, it’s more of an absolute power corruption thing. And Obama is continuing the trend of Big Brother government that has its roots far before the Bush Administration — despite his empty promises.

Let’s look at what Obama said in 2007 when vying for the vote in regards to his promises of alleviating spy programs in the US that target citizens who are not engaging in criminal activity (he even specifically mentions protesters, who are targeted most of all):

“This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand…

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists… We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.”

The extraordinary silence of the American media on the state killing of Ibragim Todashev, a key witness in relation to the recent Boston bombings, calls the official account of the bombings even further into question.

On May 22, Todashev was shot seven times by an FBI agent inside his house in Orlando, Florida, including once in the head, under the most dubious circumstances. Todashev was an acquaintance of alleged bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. In the days following Todashev’s death, a half-dozen wildly inconsistent accounts of the killing were presented in the media before the story was dropped and buried.

The media first reported that Todashev attacked an FBI agent with a knife. After approximately a week, the “knife” story was unceremoniously abandoned without any explanation and replaced with a series of increasingly incredible accounts. (See “The state killing of Ibragim Todashev”) One account involved Todashev retrieving a “samurai sword.” Another involved a “metal pole” that “might have been a broomstick.”

Todashev was killed following an FBI-led interrogation at his house that lasted up to eight hours. Before the interrogation, he told his roommate that he feared for his life. The Washington Post on May 29 reported that, immediately before the shooting, all of the interrogators left the room except for one FBI agent.

There is every reason to suspect that Todashev’s death was an extrajudicial state execution, in violation of US and international law. In contrast to the various implausible stories presented in the media, the most probable scenario is that Todashev possessed some information that undermined the official story of the Boston bombings, likely pertaining to Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s relations with the US military and intelligence agencies. To ensure his silence, the FBI terminated him.

With the servile assistance of the “responsible” journalists of the US media establishment, the Todashev story has been effectively censored.

The New York Times, for example, published two principal articles on Todashev. The first article, dated May 22, cited unnamed “law enforcement officials” who claimed that Todashev lunged at the FBI agent with “a knife or a pipe or something.”

A week later, a second Times article dated May 30 gave a new and improved account of the shooting, also citing unnamed government officials. In this account, Todashev lunged at the agent with a “metal pole” that “might have been a broomstick.” Having duly disseminated the latest state department of events, the Times has had nothing substantial to say on the subject since May 30.

The Washington Post, in the week following the shooting, chided the FBI for failing to get its story straight. Offering a friendly warning to the political establishment, the Post noted on May 30 that the dramatically inconsistent stories of Todashev’s killing could “fuel wild conspiracy theories” and urged the FBI to conduct an official investigation. This call for an investigation was then dropped, and the Post has not covered or opined on the subject since May 31.

The silence of the national media has been mirrored in the pseudo-left press.

The Socialist Worker, the online organ of the International Socialist Organization, has produced zero articles in which the name “Todashev” appears. The Nation likewise published no article containing the name “Todashev,” with the exception of a single blog entry by its contributor Greg Mitchell on May 31. Mitchell noted the inconsistencies in the media accounts of the killing and, echoing the Washington Post ’s line the previous day, claimed that the inconsistencies “encouraged the Boston bombing conspiracy nuts to get nuttier.”

The issues surrounding the killing of Todashev do not fit neatly into the politically acceptable categories of race, gender, sexuality and lifestyle favored by these forces. The killing also implicates the Democratic Party and the Obama administration, to which the ISO and the Nation are oriented. Accordingly, the pseudo-left is not particularly interested in the subject.

Many questions remain unanswered with respect to the April 15 bombings in Boston, which resulted in three deaths and the maiming or wounding of hundreds of people. After the bombings, the city of Boston was placed under military siege, with all transportation halted, armored vehicles in the streets, and heavily armed commandos conducting house-to-house searches without regard for basic rights.

In the aftermath of the bombings, the Russian government claimed that it had provided the US authorities with enough information to stop the perpetrators, but that these warnings had been ignored. (See Russian officials charge FBI failure to heed warnings led to Boston bombings.) It also emerged that, despite very specific warnings from Russia, Tamerlan Tsarnaev traveled in and out of the US to Dagestan to meet with leading radical Islamists with no questions asked by the US intelligence agencies. Moreover, prior to the bombings, the FBI inexplicably failed to inform the state and local agencies of the elder Tsarnaev’s activities, despite the existence of joint task forces established to monitor potential terrorists.

It stands to reason that if Todashev actually did attack and injure an FBI agent, and if the FBI agent did actually shoot Todashev in self-defense, the media would readily report the details of the shooting. The public would be reminded that that the “brave men and women serving in the FBI” are daily “risking life and limb” in the fight to “secure our freedoms,” and so forth.

The ubiquitous silence from the political establishment and the media amounts to an acknowledgement that Todashev was terminated by the state. There is something about the Boston bombings that the political establishment does not want the public to know.

FBI agents are required to retire at age 57 and many begin thinking about private-sector jobs once they hit their 50s, said Special Agent Greg Comcowich, an FBI spokesman.
Advertise | AdChoices

Comcowich revealed that DesLauriers was offered a job at the Penske Corporation in March, but delayed stepping down from the FBI on account of the marathon bombings.
After the bombings in April, his name became nationally known after his decision to turn to the public for help by releasing photos of the two suspects, who the FBI then called “Suspect 1” and “Suspect 2.” Following a deadly shootout and shootout — which killed an MIT police officer and one of the suspects — Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found and arrested the next day.
But turning to the public for help was a tactic DesLauriers had success with before. He used a media campaign, which led to the arrest of alleged gang boss James “Whitney” Bulger, who had been at large for 16 years.
Bulger is charged with 19 counts of murder, among other crimes. Jury selection was completed on Tuesday and his trial will start Wednesday.
An FBI press release noted that “DesLauriers has overseen many significant investigations” and highlighted his involvement in the convictions and arrests of DiNunzio and Luigi Mannochio, former leaders of the New England mafia and “significant progress made in the theft of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.”
But the investigation into the $500 million worth of art stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum is still open — something that DesLauriers is leaving behind for his replacement.
According to Comcowich, DesLauriers’ successor will be announced within two months, and his retirement will go into effect on July 13

Monsanto Co. on Monday won another round in a legal battle with U.S. organic growers as an appeals court threw out the growers’ efforts to stop the company from suing farmers if traces of its patented biotech genes are found in crops.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a previous ruling that found organic growers had no reason to try to block Monsanto from suing them as the company had pledged it would not take them to court if biotech crops accidentally mix in with organics.

Organic farmers and others have worried for years that they will be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement if their crops get contaminated with Monsanto biotech crops. In its ruling Monday, the appellate court said the organic growers must rely on Monsanto assurances on the company’s website that it will not sue them so long as the mix is very slight.

“Monsanto’s binding representations remove any risk of suit against the appellants as users or sellers of trace amounts (less than one percent) of modified seed,” the court stated in its ruling. Monsanto officials applauded the ruling. “The assertion that Monsanto would pursue patent infringement against farmers that have no interest in using the company’s patented seed technology was hypothetical from the outset,” the company said in a statement issued Monday.

Monsanto has developed a reputation for zealously defending patents on its genetically altered crops, which include patented “Roundup Ready” soybeans, corn and cotton, genetically altered to tolerate treatments of its Roundup weedkiller. The crops are widely used in the United States and Latin America. It has proven difficult to keep the genetic alteration from contaminating non-biotech crops, as recently occurred in a wheat field in the U.S. state of Oregon.

The group of more than 50 organic farmers and seed dealers sued Monsanto in March 2011 seeking to prohibit Monsanto from suing them if their seed and crops become contaminated. Monsanto officials specifically refused to sign a covenant stating it would not sue the growers, but the court said the website statement was sufficient and would be binding. Andrew Kimbrell, a lawyer with the Center for Food Safety, which joined as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the decision made no sense. “It is a very bizarre ruling that relies on a paragraph on a website,” he said. “It is a very real threat to American farmers.

This is definitely appealable.” In its ruling Monday, the court noted that records indicate a large majority of conventional seed samples have become contaminated by Monsanto’s Roundup resistance trait. Monsanto filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers between 1997 and April 2010, and won judgments against farmers it said made use of its seed without paying required royalties. Many U.S. farmers have said their fields were inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto’s biotech seeds without their knowledge. The issue has been a topic of concern for not only farmers, but also companies that clean and handle seed.

By Samer Al-Atrush

There has been tough rhetoric from Morsi and other Egyptian officials in recent weeks about Ethiopia’s diversion of a section of the Blue Nile for a dam project.

“If a single drop of the Nile is lost, our blood will be the alternative,” Morsi said in a speech on Monday.

A government official told AFP Egypt would negotiate a solution to the intensifying dispute.

“We are in the midst of negotiations,” said the official, on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

Morsi’s stern tone, he added, was meant to emphasise “that there is a commitment to our rights,” denying that the president had intended to appear bellicose.

“For us it is a matter of life or death,” he added.

An Egyptian government report concluded the proposed dam on the Blue Nile could affect the supply of water for irrigation and hydroelectric power generation.

Almost a year into his first term of office, Morsi is beleaguered by simmering opposition that has seized on the dam project as a failure of his much touted foreign policy.

In the Islamist-dominated senate, lawmakers heckled Prime Minister Hisham Qandil in a rowdy session on Monday after he finished a speech in which he warned the dam would affect the country’s principal water source.

In one of his first steps, Morsi had convened a meeting with party leaders, including those from the opposition, calling for a national front to tackle the dam.

The meeting, aired live on television, backfired as the politicians, apparently unaware they were on air, proposed supporting Ethiopian rebels or sending agents to sabotage the dam.

But some opposition leaders have rallied around the president’s call for unity, saying the dam’s threat requires a national front.

“It is not a matter of blame now,” said Amr Mussa, who lost to Morsi in a presidential election last June.

“It is much more serious,” said the former foreign minister and head of the Arab League.

“The solution must stem from an understanding between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia,” he told AFP.

“It is necessary to create the right political environment to reach such an understanding.”

The dam project has been significantly expanded from past Ethiopian plans when Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, overthrown in a 2011 uprising, was in power.

When Mussa was foreign minister, between 1991 and 2001, the project was far more modest, he said.

“At the time, there was talk of a dam that was six times smaller, hence… it was six times smaller, therefore six times less threatening,” he said.

Morsi had come to power pledging a new chapter in relations with Nile Basin countries, which felt alienated by Mubarak’s opposition to upstream projects.

The Islamist president will try to contain the crisis through talks, said Essam al-Erian, the senate leader of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood political wing that backed his candidacy.

“The choice is of negotiations, and cooperation,” he told AFP. “It will happen.”

If talks fail, Egypt could resort to international arbitration, said Hatem Begato, the legal and parliamentary affairs minister.

Ethiopia has already begun diverting the Blue Nile some 500 metres (yards) from its natural course to construct the dam.

The Blue Nile joins the White Nile in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to form the Nile, which then flows through Egypt.

Egypt says its “historic rights” to the Nile are guaranteed by two treaties from 1929 and 1959 which allow it 87 percent of the Nile’s flow and give it veto power over upstream projects.

But a new deal was signed in 2010 by other Nile Basin countries, including Ethiopia, allowing them to work on river projects without Cairo’s prior agreement.

Pope Francis lamented that a “gay lobby” was at work at the Vatican in private remarks to the leadership of a key Latin American church group — a stunning acknowledgment that appears to confirm earlier reports about corruption and dysfunction in the Holy See.

The Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious — the regional organization for priests and nuns of religious orders — confirmed Tuesday that its leaders had written a synthesis of Francis’ remarks after their June 6 audience. The group, known by its Spanish acronym CLAR, said it was greatly distressed that the document had been published and apologized to the pope.

In the document, Francis is quoted as saying that while there were many holy people in the Vatican, there was also corruption: “The ‘gay lobby’ is mentioned, and it is true, it is there … We need to see what we can do …” the synthesis reads.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Tuesday the audience was private and that as a result he had nothing to say.

In the days leading up to Pope Benedict XVI’s Feb. 28 resignation, Italian media were rife with reports of a “gay lobby” influencing papal decision-making and Vatican policy through blackmail, and suggestions that the scandal had led in part to Benedict’s decision to resign.

The unsourced reports, in the Rome daily La Repubblica and the news magazine Panorama, said details of the scandal were laid out in the secret dossier prepared for Benedict by three trusted cardinals who investigated the leaks of papal documents last year. Benedict left the dossier for Francis.

At the time, the Vatican denounced the reporting as defamatory, “unverified, unverifiable or completely false.”

Francis’ remarks on the matter, as reported by the CLAR leadership, were published Tuesday in Spanish on the progressive Chilean-based website “Reflection and Liberation” and picked up and translated by the blog Rorate Caeli, which is read in Vatican circles.

In the synthesis, Francis was quoted as being remarkably forthcoming about his administrative shortcomings, saying he was relying on the group of eight cardinals he appointed to lead a reform of the Vatican bureaucracy.

The document quoted him as saying: “I am very disorganized, I have never been good at this. But the cardinals of the commission will move it forward.”

In its statement, CLAR said no recording had been made of Francis’ remarks but that the members of its leadership team — a half-dozen men and women — together wrote a synthesis of the points he had made for their own personal use.

“It’s clear that based on this one cannot attribute with certainty to the Holy Father singular expressions in the text, but just the general sense,” the statement said.

Of the 115 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 years employed in the worst forms of child labor, such as those involving heavy loads, contact with chemicals and a long working hours, 60% are employed in agriculture and the 7% in industry and 26% in services.

Sub-Saharan Africa more than a third of children working. “Child labor is both a cause and consequence of poverty and social problems,” said James Guerrera, President of UNICEF Italy. “In developing countries – he added – many children are forced to work because they are orphaned or separated from their families, or because they have to support the family income. The global financial crisis has further pushed the children to start early to work, especially towards forms of work more dangerous.

And for girls, the situation is even more serious, because in addition to work, they have to take care of household chores and caring for younger siblings, giving up the school. If it is true that poverty is the seed of the problem, we must intervene to break the vicious circle of poverty-child labor-ignorance-poverty. “Against Child Labour, UNICEF concentrates its efforts on education, judged the best weapon to ward off the specter of an ignorance that is in the first place not aware of their rights and of their own potential, and the dissemination of the culture of Corporate Social Responsibility. For UNICEF, the “Corporate Social Responsibility is to protect the rights of children clutching so effective partnerships with governments as with businesses in order to promote the one hand the responsibility of States to ensure that the other companies to respect and uphold the rights of children in the workplace, in the marketplace and in the community.