Country Life in the Smoky Mountains

Medicine at gunpoint: Seattle mother arrested for "kidnapping" her own baby to seek alternative treatments

2006-06-30T23:21:00.000-04:00

Originally published June 30 2006
Medicine at gunpoint: Seattle mother arrested for "kidnapping" her own baby to seek alternative treatments Public trust in conventional medicine has plummeted to such an all-time low that the industry is now resorting to the threat of violence in order to market its services. Gunpoint medicine is alive and well in Seattle, Washington, where county law enforcement officers, prompted by Child Protective Services (CPS), arrested and jailed 34-year-old Tina Marie Carlsen for her "crime" of rescuing her infant from overzealous hospital staff who demanded they perform kidney surgery on the infant.
Terrorized by the incident, charged with second-degree kidnapping of her own child, and threatened with bail of $500,000, Tina Carlsen was jailed for several days, during which she was unable to provide lifesaving mother's milk to her baby (which is crucial for a child's brain and immune system). She has still not been allowed physical contact with her infant son.
Carlsen's child was taken from her by Child Protective Services after she refused to drug her infant with doctor-prescribed medications in preparation for surgery to implant kidney dialysis devices. She was also reportedly threatened by a nephrologist (a kidney specialist), who, according to relatives, demanded, "You do what I tell you to do, or I will have the police at the door, taking that baby from you."
And that's exactly what happened: The doctor called Child Protective Services, and CPS won a court battle to take custody of the child based entirely on Carlsen's refusal to submit the child to conventional surgery. When Carlsen rescued her own child from the Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, a statewide Amber Alert was issued, which mobilized law enforcement to arrest the mother. Initially, the alert claimed the child was in "imminent danger," but this was later contradicted by hospital staff members who issued a statement admitting the child was not in imminent danger.
"This mother's rights have been annihilated," said Kelly Meinig, the president of Citizens for Safe Birth, a non-profit consumer health organization. "What's so scary is this could happen to any of us. All this family wanted was the ability to make an informed decision."
Gunpoint medicineThis incident is the latest example of state-sponsored medical terrorism where parents who do not submit to narrowly-defined "treatments" promoted by conventional medicine are branded as criminals, arrested at gunpoint, jailed and forcibly separated from their children by Child Protective Services. A previous case of medical terrorism involved a Texas teenager who was kidnapped by authorities and forced to undergo toxic chemotherapy treatments that her parents desperately insisted on avoiding.
See State-sponsored medical terrorism: Texas authorities arrest parents, kidnap their teenage daughter, and force her through chemotherapy against her will.
Conventional medicine, characterized by toxic pharmaceuticals, radical surgical procedures, rampant bribery, corruption and relentless disease mongering and "sick care" profiteering, is increasingly being enforced by gunpoint in the United States. Parents who wish to protect their children from the dangers of chemotherapy, surgery or dangerous prescription drugs may find themselves accused of kidnapping their own children simply by rescuing them from the hands of surgeons and oncologists who stand to profit from every procedure performed.
The threat of violence is not foreign to the promoters of conventional medicine, as the FDA has been the architect of several armed raids against doctors, nutritional supplement companies and even a church. Such raids include the "B vitamin" raid on the clinic of Dr. Jonathan Wright, the "CoQ10" raid on Highland Laboratories, the El Cajon pet food store raid (the owner committed the "crime" of saying that vitamins were good for pets) and multiple, armed "terror-style" raids against the Life Extension Foundation, among many others. The FDA has confiscated "dangerous" products like flaxseed oil, herbal tea, vitamin C and CoQ10, all in its quest to save the public from the terrible dangers of nutritional medicine.
Disrupts profits, go to jailFar from being an industry that seeks to help patients, modern-day medicine is a profit-seeking industry that depends on sustained sickness to generate profits for drug companies, hospitals and diagnostic equipment manufacturers. Police officers, Sheriffs and even U.S. Marshals are routinely recruited by conventional medicine "enforcers" to terrorize selected targets in order to send a message to the rest of the population that they must submit to the treatments of conventional medicine, even when such treatments are provably harmful to patients or based on fraudulent science and deceptive marketing claims.
The tactics of such campaigns mirror those of terrorist cells, which rely on violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political goal.
Similarly, the Bush Administration, through its so-called "New Freedom Initiative on Mental Health" hopes to impose mandatory mental health screening on all U.S. children -- a thinly-veiled attempt to boost Big Pharma profits even further by drugging millions of children with expensive psychotropic drugs, including amphetamines like Ritalin and antidepressant drugs known to promote suicidal behavior.
Consumer backlash gains strengthThe use of these tactics helps explain why critics of conventional medicine describe these times as, "The Dark Ages of medicine." FDA actions are increasingly seen as oppressive and even tyrannical by an increasing number of patients and doctors, and the public's trust of pharmaceutical companies, who have been caught inventing fictitious diseases and misleading federal regulators about drug safety trials, is at an all-time low.
A consumer backlash against the Police State tactics of conventional medicine is gaining momentum as people and lawmakers alike realize that no American is truly free if they are not free to choose a system of medicine that they believe offers them the most effective solutions for health challenges. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) has introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act (H.R. 4282), a bill that would help reign in the censorship of the FDA and finally allow nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about the scientifically-validated health benefits of their products. See FDA tyranny and the censorship of cherry health facts to learn more.
Other health freedom efforts now underway include campaigns to ban direct-to-consumer drug advertising and end the monopoly on drug prices. Organizations such as the Life Extension Foundation and Commercial Alert are supporting grassroots efforts to end the FDA's reign of terror, while many of the FDA's own drug safety scientists like Dr. David Graham are working from inside the agency to affect meaningful reform.
While the arrest and prosecution of Tina Carlsen is a clear example of an out-of-control system of medicine that continues to be enforced at gunpoint, Carlsen may one day be seen as the Rosa Parks of health freedom. She was the mother who dared to rescue her baby from the scalpels of overzealous surgeons, and her incarceration reveals the blatant truth about the motives of hospitals, doctors and the entire system of modern medicine: Comply with our medicine, or we will punish you.
As is being pointed out by many critics of Carlsen's treatment, the idea of whether her baby's condition demanded urgent medical care is not relevant. It is the right and responsibility of every parent to choose what kind of treatment their child should receive, even if certain health experts disagree with such a decision. The State is not the parent, and any State that would use the threat of violence to enforce the profiteering medical treatments of powerful corporations is an unjust State.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NewsTarget.com/terms.shtml

Getting Started With Boating

2006-06-26T11:46:00.000-04:00

Getting Started With Boating

One of the best things about boating is the fact
that there are many boats designed for many
different activities. For the majority of boaters,
a general purpose craft that serves as a fish, ski,
and picnic boat is ideal.

To help you narrow down your search, ask yourself
how you plan to use the boat. Fishing, cruising,
water skiing, watersports, racing, or a bit of
everything . There is a boat out there for you,
all you have to do is find it.

Finding the right size of boat depends on how many
people you'll have boating with you and where you
plan to go. All new boats have an "NMMA capacity
plate" that will tell you how many people you can safely
have on the boat at one time. If you plan to use
a trailer, you shouldn't get a boat bigger than
26 feet in length.

Those who plan to water ski will need more power
while those planning to fish will need less. The
boaters of today will also be able to choose from
new engines that are more efficient in fuel and
very friendly to the environment as well.

There are boats for every type of budget. Many
new boat owners are very surprised to find that they
can get their dream boat for much less than they
ever expected. You can get new or used boats at
a reputable dealership with financing, taking
advantage of low monthly payments.

Boating can be a lot of fun, as you long as you
don't go overboard when you first begin. There is
a lot to know about boats, costs, and types, which
is something you'll learn over time. Always
have fun - and you'll enjoy boating for many, many
years.

Nathan Hull
Low-Cost Web Hosting

Is Your Yard Just a Blank Slate?

2006-04-14T02:37:00.000-04:00

by Stacy Helt

Those of you ready to landscape your yard shouldn't think of it as a blank slate to be "drawn" upon. Any plot of land has many factors which make up an active network. Several things must be taken into account as you make plans for your landscape, even if your space is not very large.

For a residential site, you may not have skyscrapers, fierce traffic, and heavy pollution to account for. Depending on where you live, though, desert conditions, existing plants, lots of shade, or even sea spray may need to be factored in to your site planning. Looking at the entire situation, or context, of your site helps not only to decide what kinds of elements to include (decks, walkways, vines, lawns, etc.), but where they should be placed and how they will interact with each other.

For instance, having your heart set on your favorite rose bush may cause you disappointment if your entire yard is densely shaded. Planting your whole backyard in ivy may save you some lawn maintenance, but if you have young children, where will they play?

Before you even think about taking a major step in landscaping your yard, you or a professional need to look at the following criteria:

site location
size of your space
shape of your yard
contours (change in elevation, dips and hills)
drainage patterns (where does water enter and leave your yard?)
zoning (what things won't you be able to do with the existing ordinances?)
setbacks
utilities (where is that gas line, anyway?)
significant existing features (stumps, sheds, trees)
traffic patterns
views from and into your yard
climate/microclimates within your space
neighborhood patterns (is your corner lot a cut-through?)

Brainstorm; sit in your yard, walk around, and come up with the variables that make your yard unique. Do you have kids who need a place to play? Is there a big utility pole right where you wanted to plant flowers? Does your drain spout empty in a really bad spot? See if there are any unfavorable conditions that can be fixed beforehand; if not, your landscape plan will have to work around, or even improve, these situations.

Good luck on this first step. Next you'll need to make a proportionately-drawn sketch on graph paper, in which you'll insert all of this preliminary information. From there, you can go on to designing your yard, but if you have trouble doing so, you'll at least have all the footwork done so that a designer can take the process from there. Happy landscaping!
Bought to you by: World Wide Information Outlet - http://certificate.net/wwio/, your source of FREEWare Content online.

Stacy Helt is a home business owner who specializes in personalized plant lists and landscape design via the Internet for customers in every region of the United States. She has a five-year degree in Landscape Architecture, and can be reached at designer@yourperfectlandscape.com. Her business web site can be found at http://www.yourperfectlandscape.com. While there, you can sign up for Perfectscapes, the free e-newsletter about gardening and landscaping.

Infant formula warning: The poisoning of infants with formula products, and why breastfeeding is best

2006-04-07T13:14:00.000-04:00

Infant formula warning: The poisoning of infants with formula products, and why breastfeeding is best
Infant formula warning: The poisoning of infants with formula products, and why breastfeeding is best
Over the years, countless studies have shown that when it comes to infant nutrition, breast milk is best. This fact remains true, as there is simply no infant formula product on the market that can match the superior nutrition of mother's milk. In fact, some infant formulas actually contain ingredients that can be harmful to your baby.
Although some formula recipes have improved over time for mothers who must rely on formula to feed their new baby, many products are still loaded with unhealthy and even dangerous ingredients, making breastfeeding the best way to go for new mothers who have the option.

In Massachusetts, public health authorities have taken steps to encourage breastfeeding by restricting the marketing of baby formula in the state's hospital maternity wards.

In many hospitals across the country, new mothers are given complimentary gift baskets during their stay that often contain free samples of infant formula, supplied by formula companies. This is a practice Massachusetts health authorities see as a clever marketing trick, since it implies that the hospital's healthcare providers, in giving new mothers this gift, endorse the use of formula.

To combat the practice, the state has decided that while free formula may be made available to mothers who need it, it will no longer be added to gift baskets for all new mothers. The restrictions are part of a larger state initiative to educate women about the benefits of breastfeeding, reports The Boston Globe.

So, what are some of those benefits? For starters, there is the special infant-mother bond forged through breastfeeding that may not be achieved when a child is fed formula, but, beyond that, there are important health reasons why breast milk is best.

Infants are designed to drink their mother's milk. They are not meant to have cow's milk or anything other than their mother's milk in their early lives. Only breast milk contains the nutrients a healthy baby needs, including 160 fatty acids that are not found in baby formula.

The nutrition a child is given at infancy makes a lasting impression, too. Research shows babies who are breastfed have lower incidences, later in life, of chronic diseases like asthma, diabetes and even cancer, as well as a reduced risk for severe communicable diseases like pneumonia, diarrhea and ear infections.

A mother's own health can benefit from breastfeeding her child, as well. In addition to having a happy and healthy baby, moms who breastfeed often have less bleeding after the birth, lose their pregnancy weight faster and experience better bone strength, with fewer hip fractures later in life. They may also have reduced risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

Although there is some concern that breast milk itself has become contaminated in our modern world, it is still the superior choice, according to research. An analysis of breastfeeding conducted by the Environmental Working Group shows that chemicals like PCBs and PBDEs that accumulate in a woman's body fat are often found in trace amounts in breast milk, since breast milk is made up of fat from a mother's body. However, the levels of chemicals typically found in breast milk pose less of a threat than the risks associated with feeding a new baby formula.

That's because, as mentioned earlier, babies are not designed to drink formula or juice or any other liquids besides mom's milk when they are born, and if they do, poor health consequences can result.

Have you ever looked at the ingredients label on a container of baby formula? Oftentimes, there are things in there that we, as adults, shouldn't even be eating -- hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrup and cow's milk, just to name a few. These are ingredients that promote chronic disease, and yet we are feeding them to our very youngest consumers, who have no say in the matter.

Of particular concern in formula is the ingredient manganese, a neurotoxic chemical found in much higher concentrations in baby formula, particularly soy-based formulas, than in breast milk. According to the EWG, soy-based formulas contain about 80 times as much manganese as mother's milk, while animal-based formulas contain about 30 times more. Elevated manganese levels have been linked to behavioral problems, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) later in life. Babies are not able to absorb and excrete excess manganese during the first year of life, according to the EWG.

Besides the harmful ingredients we know are in baby formula, there are other, less certain risk factors involved with formula feeding, as well.

For example, chemical and bacterial contaminants can come into play when bottle feeding infants. Mixing powdered infant formula with water from the tap, or even bottled drinking water, can open the door to numerous water contaminants, including chlorine byproducts, pesticides, lead, solvents, arsenic or nitrates from fertilizer runoff. Similar contaminants may also be found on bottles, nipples or even in the formula itself.

Some formulas may contain excessive levels of metals like aluminum, cadmium, lead or worse. The Natural Resources Defense Council reports the following: "In the past, (baby formula) recalls have been ordered because of contamination with substances such as broken glass, fragments of metal and salmonella and other bacteria. The fungal toxin aflatoxin has also been detected in some commercial formulas. Although detected levels were very low, this toxin is known to cause cancer and is not present in breast milk."

Infant formula is so unhealthy for babies, the Natural Resources Defense Council directly blames aggressive marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped countries for "an epidemic of infant death from malnutrition and diarrheal illness, a result of the contaminated water used to dilute or reconstitute formula."

The formula industry is an $8 billion a year business, but the price of using infant formula in place of breast milk may reach much higher than that, as it may mean harming young and innocent lives.

Many mothers are choosing not to breastfeed, simply because they see formula as a more convenient option. But are you really willing to sacrifice the health of your new baby for the sake of convenience?

If you are medically unable to breastfeed for any reason, do your homework and find a formula you can trust to be the next best thing for your baby. If you can breastfeed, do. Not only will it forge a special connection between you and your child, but the natural choice is also the best choice for you and your baby's health.

Marijuana under attack for causing memory problems, say forgetful drug researchers (satire)

2006-04-07T13:08:00.000-04:00

Marijuana under attack for causing memory problems, say forgetful drug researchers (satire)Marijuana under attack for causing memory problems, say forgetful drug researchers (satire)

Medical researchers are once again warning about the long-term memory effects of smoking marijuana. Toking on the herb for decades apparently makes your memory, well, dopey. That is, if you believe the study which was based on 40 people found in a drug rehabilitation program who said they only smoked marijuana about 20 times in their entire life.
Right. I've never heard of anyone checking into a rehab center after smoking pot only 20 times. And besides, if pot destroys a person's memory as researchers claim it does, how do they know these people haven't smoked pot a thousand times and just can't remember?

Let's face it: Basing research on the personal memories of people who scientists claim have had their memories destroyed is not exactly good science. It sounds more like an agenda that uses science to support the War on Drugs and the continued incarceration of thousands of Americans whose only crime is getting high in the basement of their parents' house.

I'm no supporter of marijuana or any recreational drug, but if using marijuana to feel better is a crime, then why isn't the same standard applied to prescription drugs? If you think marijuana destroys your memory, you should try statin drugs sometime. They can destroy a person's normal brain function in mere months, leaving them in a drug-induced stupor that makes potheads look downright clever.

Or how about the sleeping drug, Ambien, that's causing people to engage in "sleep driving" (sleep walking while driving a car), where they cause major traffic accidents. Here's a paragraph of news about the effects of this drug:

Although medical experts, law enforcement agencies, and individual patients have known for some time that the blockbuster sleep medication Ambien has been responsible for the rather bizarre phenomenon referred to as "Ambien sleepwalking," it was just this week that a federal class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to try to do something about it. For some time now, a significant number of people taking Ambien (zolbidem) have found themselves in a virtual "Twilight Zone" allegedly caused by the drug. A small case study of the unusual effects of the drug on six drivers has caused quite a stir among healthcare professionals and people who use the drug to help them sleep. According to Liddicoat, drivers under the influence of unusually high doses of Ambien have crashed their cars and then had absolutely no memory of the accident. The sleeping pill apparently continued to impair drivers even after they have attempted to sleep off the effects. - From NewsInferno.com

Even though Ambien is clearly far more dangerous than marijuana, you don't see people being arrested for taking Ambien. You don't see our prisons packed top to bottom with people who possessed Ambien. And you don't see doctors -- who sold the drug to patients -- charged with dealing drugs.

That's because when it comes to dangerous drugs, there's a clear double standard: All prescription drugs, no matter how dangerous to individual health or public safety, shall remain legal. All drugs that are not controlled by Big Pharma, on the other hand, shall be made illegal.

And that's how the system works. Again, I'm not supporting marijuana. You probably already know that I use absolutely no drugs, not even the psychoactive drug used by 53% of Americans (caffeine). But when I see loony, pseudoscientific attacks on marijuana that demonstrate a clear double standard in our national drug policy, I simply have to point it out. In my view, we should be arresting and locking up the Big Pharma executives and corrupt FDA officials who continue to push dangerous drugs that KILL 100,000 Americans each year. If you really want to protect the public from dangerous drugs, start arresting and prosecuting the truly dangerous drug dealers -- the ones operating under the FDA protection racket.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NewsTarget.com/terms.shtml

Two New Studies on Aspartame and Diet Drinks Confirm Source of Obesity, Cancer/Malignant Brain Tumor Epidemics

2006-03-28T23:52:00.000-05:00

Two New Studies on Aspartame and Diet Drinks Confirm Source of Obesity, Cancer/Malignant Brain Tumor Epidemics (press release)

The Cancer Research Center of the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy reported this week that a long-term study to evaluate the potential carcinogenic effects of aspartame demonstrates the chemical sweetener "induces an increase in lymphomas and leukemias in female rats." The research will be presented at a September international scientific conference, "Framing the Future in the Light of the Past: Living in a Chemical World."
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock M.D. commented: "The new study released in the European Journal of oncology by Morando Soffritti and co-workers should terrify mothers and all those consuming aspartame sweetened products. This was a carefully done study which clearly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in several types of lymphomas and leukemias in rats. Both of these malignancies have increased significantly in this country since the widespread use of aspartame.

"This study confirmed the previous study by Dr. Trocho and co-workers, which also found the formaldehyde breakdown product of aspartame to be damaging to cellular DNA and that this damage was accumulative. The type of damage was a duplicate of that associated with cancers. Along with this most recent study, this means that drinking a single diet cola sweetened with aspartame every day could increase one's risk of developing a lymphoma or leukemia.

"They also found an increased incidence of malignant brain tumors, even though it was not statistically significant. This does not mean there is no association to brain tumors, since only the animals exposed to aspartame developed the tumors. With children and pregnant women drinking the largest amount of diet colas, this puts their children at the greatest risk of developing one of these horrible diseases . Their study found that even low doses of aspartame could cause these malignancies; yet, the higher the dose, the more cancers that were seen.

"Since aspartame can increase obesity and may even cause the metabolic syndrome that affects 48 million Americans, there is no reason to ever consume this product. At the least it should be immediately banned from all schools."

Dr. Blaylock wrote the Miami Herald to counteract propaganda by the Calorie Control Council, an aspartame front group: "It is known that the amount of toxic phenylalanine reaching the baby is twice as high as that in the mother's blood because the placenta concentrates the toxin. In addition, numerous metabolic breakdown products of aspartame are known to damage the developing infant's brain, including methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid, diketopiperizine and phenylacetate.

"Aspartame has been shown by several studies to damage DNA, which can lead to cancer and degenerative brain disorders later in life. The risk of increased brain tumors in such a child would be enormous. Similar mechanisms of damage would be expected in these with liver disease. Studies on aspartame safety have shown that the product increases tumors throughout numerous organs, especially the brain. It was shown that brain tumor incidence increased over 47 times in animals exposed to aspartame.

"With the public concern over childhood obesity and diabetes few are being told of the overwhelming evidence that early exposure to excitotoxins as found in aspartame consistently produce gross obesity and insulin resistant diabetes, just as we are seeing in our youth. The promoters of aspartame use have been lying from the beginning and continue to use their money and political clout to cover up the real and present dangers of this toxic product." Astonishingly the Miami Herald ignored Dr. Blaylock's lifesaving cry of alarm. "Clout" in Miami means advertising dollars!

The Division of Clinical Epidemiology of the University of Texas Health Center at San Antonio just reported a study by Sharon Fowler, MPH, that reviewed eight years of data confirming a diet soda link to obesity. She said: "Something linked to diet soda drinking is also linked to obesity.

An earlier study found weight gain among 78,694 women using artificial sweeteners: Stellman SD, Garfinkel L: "Artificial Sweetener Use and One-Year Weight Change Among Women. Prev Med 1985: 15: 195-202.

Joe Stalin said: "One man's death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Consider the tragedy of an 8 year old child who consumed aspartame products as told by Dr. H. J. Roberts in his 1038 page magnum work "Aspartame Disease, an Ignored Epidemic". "In two years she developed marketed swelling of one shoulder which then involved the neck. Her arm almost tripled in size. ... Numerous physicians and consultants diagnosed histiocytic leukemia. The patient received large doses of Prednisone. Of particular interest is there was dramatic clinical improvement and virtual normalization of the blood changes when the mother eliminated additives. Prednisone was stopped. The patient subsequently ate several bowls of an aspartame cereal. Marked swelling of the checks developed, coupled with recurrence of the aforementioned features. When aspartame was discontinued, the swelling receded without Prednisone.

"Several months later, the girl was given aspartame chewing gum without the mother's knowledge. Swelling of her entire body, recurrent enlargement of the liver and spleen, a dramatic increase of bone marrow histiocytes, and severe pain in many joints ensued. Total abstinence from aspartame again effected the disappearance of her symptoms and blood abnormalities within 6 months. At the time of Dr. Roberts last discussion with her mother, the child had minimal enlargement of the liver, and was receiving Prednisone in low doses only intermittently.

"The patient had two sets of head x-rays, three CT scans of the brain, two spinal punctures, four bone marrow studies, two electroencephalograms, two heart monitoring studies, two baraium enemas, and a host of other studies. Her mother estimated the medical costs at $750,000." [Page 476]

Statistics? Says Dr. Betty Martini: "There are millions of victims like this little girl! Once documented reports like hers were received as field research by medical professionals. That time has long passed. Today her near-murder is just an "anecdote", a statistic! What unspeakable torture to visit upon an innocent child by these heinous mass poisoners: the chemical sweetener cartel! I've sent thousands of case histories to the FDA and could as well be talking to the Egyptian pyramid of Cheops. The price of medical treatment in the USA means most American families are but a single serious illness from financial destruction. The agony, disablement, death and family ruination wrought by aspartame wrecks our land with a trail of devastation exceeding category 5 hurricanes! With incomparably greater cost and pain!"

Continued Dr. Martini, founder of Mission Possible International, a worldwide volunteer force which for 14 years has exposed chemical sweeteners: "How shall we count aspartame atrocities? Our FDA once listed them, named 92 symptoms from more than ten thousand volunteered complaints by American consumers. Their Buchenwald list included four kinds of seizures, blindness, sexual dysfunction, mental destruction and death. Then FDA shut the report window and no longer take and tabulate reports. I've sent them more cases than they listed, but you can't get the deathlist now; they deny it existed. Think of FDA simply as the branch office of the pharmaceutical industry in Washington!"

Martini states: "There's a war going on in our schools. A war for their health, their futures, their lives. It's a covert war, unannounced by the media, unknown by those to be sacrificed or their guardians. Our schools are dope houses. Millions or our children are on Ritalin, et al. Aspartame and toxic MSG are dumped on their lunches. An ever greater list of vaccines is commanded to contaminate their blood. The chemical cartel is insatiable! And what the harvest? Are our kids healthier, fitter, better balanced and more secure than we were generations ago? We don't understand health! Every normal physical condition has become a malady treatable, not curable, only by medication, for life. Dr. Gary Null reported on his 6/5/05 interview with Dr. Peter Rost, Pfizer Marketing VP, who candidly revealed the unbelievable drug company profits: Retail price of 100 Prozac 20mg tablets is $247.47. The active ingredient in ALL these is eleven cents! Jesus spoke of those who devour widows houses. Who could say it better?

"But in some states a minuteman call is going out: Ditch the drugs, void the vending machines packed with poisoned potions. A school system in Wisconsin set the pace, reported by the Finegold Association, whose mission includes generating awareness of the role of foods and additives in student learning, health and behavior problems. Dr. Martini explained this in a letter to the Alabama Board of Education who recently met July 12 to decide about pop: "Aspartame has been proven to destroy brains, trigger psychiatric and behavioral problems, cause eye disorders ( including blindness ), addict and trigger brain tumors." http://www.wnho.net/alabama_boe_meeting.htm

Betty Peters, of the Alabama Board of Education asked for an amendment to remove all soda pop from Alabama schools, but this was reduced to simply revise the current system and allow diet drinks, this with full knowledge that diet drinks cause more obesity. The vending machine proposal was gutted to appease the soft drink industry. But where was the concern for the children?

Dr. Roberts reviewed the Italian study, concluding: "It's now incumbent upon researchers of leukemia and lymphoma to inquire about the use of aspartame products routinely in such patients. And its also highly relevant, the striking increase of primary brain lymphoma which I reviewed in my books and articles. You are dealing with a unique lymphoma of the brain. which most neurologists had not seen before the availability of aspartame. In view of the unequivocal induction of brain tumors and of leukemia/lymphoma in experimental animals the intent of the Delaney Amendment should be invoked. This justifies aspartame as an imminent public health hazard and should be removed from the market as I've emphasized for two decades. "

In the "Journal of Advance in Medicine" Vol 4 #4, winter '91 article: "Does Aspartame Cause Human Brain Cancer" Dr. Roberts said: "The increasing frequency of primary brain lymphoma of B cell derivation - including reticulum cell sarcoma, microglioma and histiocytic lymphoma - also requires explanation because this subset was previously rare. Eby et al reported a nearly threefold rise in its incidence among immunologically normal persons in the l982-l984 SEER data, which they could not explain. Specifically, the rate increased from 2.7 to 7.5 cases per ten million population ( p=0.001 ) in the time periods l973-l975 and l982-l984, respectively. The age-adjusted rise was more striking among women which increased from 4.9 per ten million in l979-l981 to 8.9 per ten million in l982-l984. http://www.dorway.com/betty/brainc.txt

Again Dr. Roberts tells us "Hockberg and Miller reported a tripling of incidence of this tumor in non-immunosuppressed persons during the 5 year interval between l980 and l984."

Dr. Blaylock is author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health & Nutrition Secrets to Save Your Life and Cancer Strategies, ( www.russellblaylockmd.com ) He also has a newsletter that keeps you up-to-date on these matters: https://www.newsmaxstore.com/newsletters/blaylock/action.cfm

How was aspartame ever approved by FDA? For 16 years it was rejected. FDA even asked the Department of Justice to prosecute the manufacturer, G.D. Searle Co. for submitting fraudulent test data on aspartame. Two prosecutors were appointed, but the defense lawyers hired both of them and the case expired with the statute of limitations. When the Godfather hires the District Attorney don't expect a conviction. Next Don Rumsfeld, CEO of G D Searle, returned to Washington and a new FDA commissioner was appointed immediately who approved aspartame over the objections of the FDA scientific board. This new commissioner was under investigation for conflict of interest when he switched to take $1,000/day consulting job with the public relations firm that represented NutraSweet. All in the family! The plague loosed on humanity by this chicanery is also known as Rumsfeld's Disease. Hear attorney James Turner explain it in this clip from the documentary: "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/Rumsfeld2.html www.docworkers.com

The Italian study press release says the results demonstrate for the first time aspartame is a carcinogenic agent -- "As recognized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) of the World Health Organization, results of long-term bioassays conducted on rodents ( rats and mice ) are highly predictive of carcinogenic risk for humans. In light of this fact, the results of the CRC/ERF study on aspartame call for urgent reconsideration of regulations governing its use as an artificial sweetener in order to better protect public health, in particular that of children."

This is the most recent of many projects which confirms aspartame's toxicity beyond controversy. FDA & Searle have always known aspartame is a Class A Carcinogen. The late FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that aspartame, beyond a shadow of a doubt can produce brain tumors and brain cancer, and violates the Delaney Amendment which forbids anything in food which causes cancer. His last words to Congress: "If the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public?" Ten thousand tombstones show that only a concerned citizenry can achieve save itself from all the 92 symptoms FDA once listed.

To children aspartame is murder. It's an abortifacient and teratogen; causing abortions, birth defects and retardation. If a live child is born aspartame may have heinously damaged its DNA for generations to come. Our schools are so inundated with problems that today the norm is "abnormal". Only eradication of this poison will eliminate aspartame's physical, behavioral, psychiatric maladies and learning disabilities. Industry's greed is keeping it schools to addict our children for life. They even got FDA to approve new deadly chemicals: Splenda and Acesulfame Potassium. See: "The Lethal Science of Splenda" http://www.wnho.net/splenda_chlorocarbon.htm

Two New Studies on Aspartame and Diet Drinks Confirm Source of Obesity, Cancer/Malignant Brain Tumor Epidemics (press release)
See more articles and news on aspartame
Track news on aspartame at AspartameFactor.org.
Track news on obesity at ChildNutrition.info.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NewsTarget.com/terms.shtml

The raw foods diet: The taste alone is worth it!

2006-03-28T23:50:00.001-05:00

The raw foods diet: The taste alone is worth it!

The raw foods diet: The taste alone is worth it!
Why would a person make raw foods part of their diet? There are a number of reasons, but perhaps the most important is the health benefit of eating raw foods. There is nothing healthier for the human body than the natural foods it was designed to consume. So, what was it designed for? Was it designed to consume liquid candy in the form of soft drinks, deep fried potatoes, Big Macs and Doritos? Of course not. Those things have only existed for a very short period of time, a few decades, whereas the human body has evolved over a period of at least 500,000 years.
What foods existed over all that time? Foods provided by nature -- raw, uncooked and unprocessed berries, nuts, seeds, vegetables, roots, fruits and so on. This is what was available to the body, so it only makes sense that raw foods offer perfect compatibility with the human body. That's one reason people might choose to eat raw foods, but it's not the only reason.

You might also decide to pursue a raw foods diet because of the taste experience. Even if you don't care about health benefits, the taste experience is incredible. A raw foods diet is not about eating salads, carrots and celery sticks all day long. It's nothing of the kind. A raw foods diet is about making cuisine -- like smoothies and blended recipes -- that you have never experienced in your life.

These experiences go way beyond what cooked foods, processed foods or restaurant foods offer. If you think about snack foods, processed foods and fast foods, you will realize that all those foods taste terrible unless the manufacturer adds chemical excitotoxins to enhance their taste. That's why manufacturers add monosodium glutamate (MSG), yeast extract, sugar and salt to their foods. These ingredients are specifically used to give some kind of taste to foods that otherwise taste dead and boring because the life has been cooked out of them or because the depth of taste has been milled out of them during the grain processing. Processed foods taste nothing like real food from nature. When foods are processed, cooked or put on a shelf in a grocery store, they're little more than a shadow of the original food.

If you think you've tried all kinds of foods before and you've never tried raw foods, you have no idea what you're missing. You're missing out on a whole universe of taste experience that goes beyond anything you've ever dreamed of. The first time you put raw foods cuisine in your mouth, you begin a whole new adventure. You take a journey into a new realm of food experience that will expand your reality because it's like nothing you've ever tasted before.

You might try a raw foods diet because you want to experience tastes you've never experienced before. I always find it funny when people who are addicted to restaurant foods and junk foods say, "You eat such a clean diet, Mike, but I can't live without my Big Mac!" From my perspective, I'm thinking, a Big Mac tastes awful compared to the foods I'm eating on a daily basis. And many of the foods I consume are raw foods.

Raw foods: the most exciting foods in the world
People think that when I eat healthy, I'm somehow living on really boring, drab foods all the time. But they're completely wrong about that. I'm living on the most exciting foods in the world. I'm living on foods that make all the processed, junk foods taste like dirt.
I'm not giving up anything by living a super-healthy lifestyle. In fact, I'm gaining in every area. The taste experience is more interesting and more expansive. The health benefits are phenomenal. The expanded awareness happens automatically. I'm not giving up anything at all! You might say, "Well, you're giving up a Big Mac, French fries, ice cream and pizza." So what? Once you've tried raw foods cuisine, everything else seems irrelevant.

I wonder, "Why would anybody eat junk food or restaurant food when they could have this raw foods cuisine? Why would you spend your money on a Big Mac when you could have a raw cacao smoothie made with avocadoes, real chocolate from Peru, chia seeds and stevia that tastes like the most delicious chocolate ice cream mint milkshake you've ever had in your life?" That's the level I'm living at with the raw foods diet, and, believe me, it is a whole different level that goes far beyond subsisting on junk foods, processed foods or restaurant foods.

I grew up in the Midwest, and the Midwest isn't exactly known for its cuisine. I used to think that ground beef and potatoes, with Velveeta melted on top, was a good meal. Years ago, that was the limit of my taste experience. Today, I know that that's just a tiny, little dot on the map of taste experience. Now, I'm living way out on the edge of that map, exploring new realms of taste experience with raw foods cuisine. These are foods that awaken your senses. I believe they actually enhance your intelligence, because having sensory complexity is the most effective way to create new connections in your brain. The taste experience can be an enlightening experience, and that's what you get with raw foods.

To learn more about raw foods, check out books like Raw In 10 Minutes, or Dr. Gabriel Cousens' Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine. You can find books and raw foods ingredients from RawFood.com, my top recommended source for raw foods via the internet.

By the way, my diet is currently about 50% raw foods. I make sure to eat a raw food element with every meal, and I drink at least one raw foods smoothie (blended with live sprouts that I grow myself) every day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NewsTarget.com/terms.shtml

Iraq, Iran: Following Orders Is No Excuse

2006-03-27T02:18:00.000-05:00

"A hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council."
That is how Secretary of State General Colin Powell's February 2003 Iraq WMD speech to the UN was described last Friday (Feb. 3) on PBS by one who ought to know, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary Powell.
In a February 2005 interview with Barbara Walters on ABC News "20/20" program, Powell himself declared his UN Iraq speech to be a blot on his reputation. Since departing the Bush administration, both Wilkerson and Powell have made it completely clear that they had serious doubts about the "evidence" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and malevolent Iraqi intentions that was loaded by the White House into Powell's UN speech, a speech designed by neoconservatives to initiate the invasion of Iraq. Both Powell and Wilkerson knew that the "evidence" was greatly overstated if not an outright fabrication. What if Secretary Powell had shared his doubts with the UN? What if instead of reading the Speech of Lies Powell had addressed the UN as follows:
"As a loyal soldier following orders I came here today intending to deliver the Bush Administration's evidence against Saddam Hussein. Now that I am standing here before you, I find myself caught in conflict between following orders and doing the right thing. I should have resolved this conflict before I arrived. I do so now by delivering the speech to you in its written form -- here it is -- but I refuse to deliver it out of my mouth. I cannot participate in an act of deception against the United Nations Security Council, the international community, and the American people. I have no confidence in the evidence in the speech. Under the Nuremberg Standard established by the United States in the trials of Nazi war criminals, following orders is no excuse. I will not participate in the war crime of naked aggression against another state. I hereby resign as Secretary of State of the United States."
Related book:Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on IraqThe book includes a glossary-"Propaganda: A User's Guide"- and resources to help Americans sort through the deceptions to see the strings behind Washington's campaign to sell the Iraq war to the public... continues...(Concept: Iraq)
Powell would have saved the world from a strategic blunder, the disastrous consequences of which are only beginning to unfold. The maelstrom set in motion by the treachery of the neoconservatives, people who Powell has described as "crazy," has already cost tens of thousands of dead and wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed America's reputation, and radicalized Middle East politics.
If Powell had refused three years ago to deliver the Speech of Lies, we would not now be watching an identical duplicity being rolled out against Iran. The ultimate cost of the deception being practiced on the American people will dwarf the terrible price that has already been paid. Why didn't Powell do the right thing? His own reputation would have been forever secure as a man of integrity. Why did he sacrifice his integrity to the crooked scheme of his commander in chief?
Alas, that is the way our generals are bred. In the politicized US military, no officer can advance beyond the rank of Lt. Col. unless he toes the political line. The game is played to advance in rank as high as possible, collect the pension, and be rewarded for compliant behavior with consultancies. Real leadership means making waves, and that is not tolerated. Even in rare instances of a real man, concerned with the honor of his country and the safety of his troops, reaching the top, he is powerless to prevent disastrous mistakes of the ignorant civilian authorities.
Consider the fate of US Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, who correctly informed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that the US invasion force was not sufficiently numerous to successfully occupy and subdue Iraq once the pitched battles were over.
Shinseki was fired for telling the truth -- as was Secretary of the Army Thomas White, Lt. Gen. John Riggs, and four-star general Kevin P. Byrnes.
Riggs was framed, demoted, and retired for saying that the US army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.
Byrnes, who was in charge of Army training, was framed on adultery charges for objecting to bottom of the barrel recruitment policies that accepted criminals and immigrants with a lack of English proficiency.
Nothing like having an army that can't understand orders.
The only way a military can constrain their civilian masters from cooking up a war is to resign en masse. If every general and colonel had resigned, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.
But this would require a military with leadership and a tradition of sticking together. A military in which promotion is the highest virtue is powerless to prevent disastrous mistakes, such as the invasion of Iraq.
The Bush administration went to war on the basis of its fantasy that if merely a few US troops marched into Iraq, the regime would collapse and the population would welcome Americans as liberators with flowers and kisses. It was to be a "cakewalk war."
No general officer in the US military believed that. Yet few spoke out (Marine General Anthony Zinni was a notable exception). The entire US military command could only produce a handful of men to warn of the looming catastrophe. Who can forget the orchestrated media dismissals of "over-cautious generals" that greeted these few?
The reason Colin Powell disgraced himself is that he could not free himself of the conditioning that breeds success in the US military.
Who today will stand up to stop the potential Armageddon of a US attack on Iran?
Dr. Roberts is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions
Related articleThe Downing Street Memos: piecing together the political puzzle(Concept: military)
Stay informedReceive instant email alerts when we publish new articles or reports on the topics you choose:
100% free of charge. Unsubscribe anytime.
Absolutely no spam. We respect your privacy.
Choose from topics like natural health, renewable energy, the environment, emerging technology and more.
Receive a free instant download of our $29 Secret Sources guide that reveals top sources for little-known health and diet solutions. Click here to subscribe now (it's free!)

Find natural health solutions at the HealthRanger.com online communityGet instant access to message boards, members-only articles, downloadable health reports, a monthly newsletter and more. Click here to find out more.
See more articles on Iraq military Iraq warWant to reprint this article? Contact us for easy permission.Want to contribute your own article? Contact us for article submission guidelines.
This site is part of the NewsTarget Network ©2004,2005 All Rights Reserved. Privacy Terms All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing International, LTD. has full ownership of and takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no health or nutritional products and earns no money from health product manufacturers or promoters. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published here. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

Are you really in charge?

2006-03-27T02:15:00.000-05:00

Have you taken the Gullibility Factor test yet?
Find out if you're really in charge of your own thoughts and decisions. Take it online now at:
http://www.newstarget.com/gullibility.html

2006-03-27T01:53:00.000-05:00

Charlie Sheen: 'Challenge Me On the Facts'Actor's first response since media firestorm over 9/11 comments
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com March 24 2006
Charlie Sheen has responded publicly for the first time since the media firestorm over his comments by challenging his detractors to debate him on the evidence of 9/11 and not issues relating to his personal life.
"I am an American citizen that loves my country and as a citizen with my passion for this great country I demand that I be challenged on the facts not on immature behavior from twenty years ago," said Sheen.
"If they continue to attack me personally it only gives credence to our side of the argument."
Sheen elaborated on how developments during the course of the week had unfolded and his reaction to them.
"All I can say is wow! Wow! this has been some kind of week I can tell you."
Sheen tipped his hat to A.J. Hammer and CNN's Showbiz Tonight for having the guts to cover the story and give 9/11 skeptics a balanced platform on which to discuss the issues. He called the CNN poll showing around 82% support his stance on 9/11 an "inspiration" and "staggering" but Sheen also outlined the fact that he was not entirely surprised by the outcome. Sheen said he was encouraged by the support shown on blogs and message boards across the Internet.
The poll directly contradicts a line of attack used on a Hannity and Colmes piece Thursday night which claimed that Sheen's views didn't reflect the mainstream of America. If we are to treat an 82% majority as the mainstream then that accusation is completely fraudulent.
Sheen addressed the attack pieces generated from his comments.
"The majority of them, in fact 90% of them, were attacking me personally, were attacking my credibility, were attacking my observational or talents of insight or observance and what they did not attack is the specific points that you and I raised, the points that generate the most controversy about the events," Sheen told the Alex Jones Show.
"For anyone to have any kind of opinion on something that warrants an opinion I guess you have to be squeaky clean."
Sheen made the point that the hit pieces singled out his quotes relating to his first reaction to 9/11, and in particular the suspicious collapse of the buildings, but deliberately avoided the hardcore evidence he later presented, making him appear uninformed when in fact he had documented why he had serious doubts about the official story.
"I was vilified for expressing my feelings about what I saw and I was demonized for expressing my gut reaction to what I saw."
Even so, both Dan Rather and Peter Jennings' gut instincts were that the collapse of the buildings looked like controlled demolition so Sheen is hardly on a skinny branch in simply stating what common sense told him at the time.
"When they pigeon-hole me into the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy knuckle-head brigade they don't mention those quotes by Peter Jennings and Dan Rather," said Sheen.
Sheen responded to the claims made by National Geographic producer Nicole Rittenmeyer aired by CNN on Wednesday night. Rittenmeyer insinuated that her conclusions on 9/11 were credible simply due to the fact that the series she produced had high viewing figures.
"This woman based all of her credibility on the ratings that the show received and I find that ludicrous because what that speaks to is people's interest. Whether you believe the official story or you're curious about an alternate viewpoint so she kind of shot herself in the foot talking about 'this is the base of my credibility', 'this is why I'm right, because a lot of people watched it', you know I could say the same thing about the reaction to my comments this week....but I'm not saying that I'm just here to remind people that the only credibility that I need is what I have and that is as an upstanding taxpaying American citizen who loves his country and who refuses to stand by as this level of insanity is blanketed over obvious truths."
Sheen reiterated his main focus as being on what caused Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, to become only the third steel building in history to collapse from fire damage (the other two being the twin towers). Photographs taken prior to the building's collapse show minor fires before it falls in a textbook demolition fashion.
"If there's a problem with Building 7 then there's a problem with the whole damn thing and guess what? There's a serious problem with Building 7," said Sheen.
Sheen demanded that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, explain what he meant when he told a September 2002 PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' that the decision was made to "pull" the building, which is a demolition term for deliberate implosion.
"When someone makes a statement like that I think it warrants a follow up response," said Sheen.
"In fact you know what I'll come right out and say that I'm personally requesting a direct answer from Mr. Silverstein about what he meant....give him my number tell him to call me I'm just curious. Tell him to call CNN tell him to call somebody because you cannot make a statement like that and not follow it up, and not back it up and not explain it."
"Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say 'yes, that is a random event caused by fire' really needs psychiatric evaluation," said Sheen.
Sheen challenged the mainstream media to run a poll on Building 7 asking if viewers believe from video evidence that the building was brought down by means of controlled implosion.
Sheen again underscored his challenge to his detractors to debate him on the evidence and not idle gossip about his private life and his family.
"I ask that they look at the evidence and they debate myself, yourself, people that support us on those specific issues. Not about me personally, not about what they think about me personally not about what they think they know about me personally, just about the facts. I issue that challenge."
Sheen expressed his excitement at the response that his stance received and hinted that this was only the beginning of the journey.
"It feels like you and I have started the revolution and God bless America," said Sheen in closing.
------------------------------------------
Click here to listen to Sheen's interview.

Consumer Alert

2006-03-06T02:36:00.000-05:00

NewsTarget Network CONSUMER SAFETY Alert (www.NewsTarget.com)---------------------------------------------------------------(Please forward to others who may benefit)Unsubscribe instructions at bottom (Please forward to family and friends in the U.S.) Urgent: Stop the National Uniformity for Food Act (H.R. 4167) beforeit wipes out hundreds of food safety labeling laws Keep up the pressure on your lawmakers to stop passage of H.R. 4167,a bill heavily supported by junk food manufacturers that would --believe it or not -- make it ILLEGAL for States to protect theircitizens from food products containing heavy metals, cancer causingchemicals, aspartame and other dangerous ingredients. For example, California currently operates under a law calledProposition 65, which requires food manufacturers to listcancer-causing or birth defect-causing ingredients on their foodlabels. Washington lawmakers, with the full support of food giantslike Kraft, Heinz, Nestle, and Sara Lee now wants to eliminate thatlaw and actually make it illegal for California to require suchwarnings. The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) and its membersessentially want to censor the truth about dangerous food ingredients,keeping customers in the dark about the real dangers of theirmanufactured food products. This effort is a "de-labeling" proposalthat would tell consumers even less about the manufactured foodsthey're buying and eating. In other words, this is a bill that stands for ignorance. Keep peopleignorant, and they'll never know what's really in their food. That'sexactly the way the food industry wants to keep Americans:Under-informed and over-fed. URGENT: If we don't raise our voices right now, this bill has a goodchance of becoming law! It has a whopping 226 co-sponsors (lawmakerswho have sold their souls to food companies at the expense of publichealth), including 59 Democrats. We need your help in fighting thisbill, or it could easily become the law of the land, thereby wipingout literally hundreds of state laws that protect consumers fromdangerous food ingredients. ACTION: If you live in the United States, contact your Congressionalrepresentative Monday morning by phone or fax (email is not aseffective) and let them know you strongly oppose HR 4167, the foodlabeling uniformity proposal. You must take action on Monday morning,because a House vote is imminent. Call 202-224-3121 and ask for yourCongressional representative. This bill is a perfect example of the genuine tyranny of Washington.That Washington lawmakers would attempt to undermine States' sovereignrights to protect their own populations from dangerous ingredients isbeyond absurd, it enters the realm of blatant oppression. What rightdoes Washington have to tell California that it cannot require foodcompanies to warn consumers when their products contain knowncancer-causing ingredients? Washington has no such right. Violates the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights----------------------------------------------------------This tyrannical effort by sell-out lawmakers in Washington is alsounconstitutional, by the way. It clearly violates the Tenth Amendment,which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people. There's no doubt that the U.S. Constitution does not specificallygrant the federal government the power to overrule state lawsconcerning food safety. Therefore, these powers rest solely with theStates which have never delegated such powers to the federalgovernment. People forget that the U.S. government was GRANTED powers by thepeople and the States. Technically, the federal government has no morepower than that allowed by the grantors. But over the last severaldecades, the federal government has centralized power, violated theConstitution, and forgotten the people. Today, the U.S. federalgovernment is a tyrannical kingdom that now effectively delegatespowers to the States (and takes away powers from the States wheneverit wants). And the people? They have been all but forgotten. Sincewhen did the U.S. government answer to the people? Today's lawmakers operate as traitors to the Constitution--------------------------------------------------------------The fact that this food labeling law is even being contemplated makesit clear that today's Washington lawmakers are traitors to thiscountry. In a different time, they would have all been arrested andpublicly hanged for crimes against their country. But today, it'sbusiness as usual as lawmakers continue to sell their souls topowerful corporations (food giants like Kraft) that increasingly writethe laws. To say that Washington is run by a mob of criminals is notan exaggeration; it is an accurate description of what's happeningright now. Yes, there are a few honest lawmakers like Rep. Ron Paul(Texas), but they are clearly the minority. You can still make a difference, though. Thankfully, lawmakers stillpay some attention to voters who call and voice their opinions onlegislation. That's why it is absolutely crucial that you join thetens of thousands of Americans who have unleashed a barrage ofcriticism against this bill over the last week. Join the growingvoices of dissent and DEMAND that Washington keep its hands off foodsafety labeling laws across the country. Contact your Congressional representative at 202-224-3121(switchboard) or reach them online through: http://www.organicconsumers.org/rd/labeling.cfm This is absolutely your last chance to make a difference with thislaw. A vote is expected early next week. If this law passes, foodcompanies will be able to put any poisons or cancer-causingingredients they want into their foods, as long as they can convincethe FDA that such ingredients are safe (and remember, the FDA isalready in bed with food and drug companies, so that's easy). Stateswill no longer have any rights to warn their people about mercury infish, or nitrites in meat, or even aspartame in diet soft drinks.States will be silenced, the public will be harmed, and food companieslike Kraft will have pulled off the biggest coup in the history ofprocessed foods. Remember, lawmakers are lined up right now, ready to sell their soulsand vote for passage of this bill. If we don't stop this bill now, itsaftershocks will harm the health of our children for generations tocome. If we don't stop this bill, the United States of America willfurther descend into a nation of tyrannical centralized power, whereStates have no rights, the people have no voice, andcorporate-controlled Washington lawmakers dictate to everyone. - the Health Ranger P.S. This action alert warning is also viewable at:http://www.newstarget.com/019184.html

The forums are up and running on countrylife.

2006-02-14T03:42:00.000-05:00

WoooHooo!!! The Community Forums page is up and running at the http://www.Countrylife.newportwebsites.com website . There are all kinds of subjects to post on so get over there and let your knowledge be known..:)

Former Naval Physicist: Government Can Control Hurricanes

2005-10-20T22:44:00.000-04:00

Former Naval Physicist: Government Can Control Hurricanes
Former Vet "Made it Rain" During Vietnam War

Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson | 14 Oct 2005

Alex Jones was joined on air yesterday by weather modification expert Ben Livingston.

Livingston discussed in detail proven evidence of hurricane control and his research and experiences with cloud seeding and weather weapons used in the Vietnam war.

Related: Ben Livingston: Cloud physicist has eye on hurricane control

Many scoff at the possibility of weather control and simply refuse to believe it exists. Attempting to even engage such people in conversation on the subject is fruitless because their mind is set. Yet the reality is that weather modification has been in operation and continual development since the 1960s.

Livingston, now 77, has a master's degree in cloud physics from the Naval Weapons Center and Navy Post Graduate School in California, a degree he later used in the battlefields.

According to a recent report "He seeded clouds and dramatically increased rainfall in his theater of war, creating impassably muddy roads, slowing down the Vietnamese and Korean troops, and saving lives and entire towns from occupation."

Livingston was even invited to the White House where he briefed President Lyndon B. Johnson on the effectiveness of weather control activities. Livingston asserts that hurricane control was a national priority of the government in the 60s and they had the ability to do it at that time. That was 40 years ago.

He now works with scientists and pilots at Weather Modification Inc., in Fargo, N.D. His research of hurricane control has been confirmed by the Stanford Research Institute.

He has personally flown on 265 missions into the eyes of hurricanes and has gone on record as "most disgusted" with Hurricane Katrina because he knows that the storm itself could have been minimized.

Livingston revealed that to reduce or redirect a category 4 hurricane would not be that difficult:

"A hurricane is made up of energy sails and each of those sails adds to the ferocity of it. It was proven in 1974 by an international project that these energy sails exist and that they are the reason that hurricanes can develop and grow move and cause damages. So there's no reason to attack the hurricane in total but just to fly in to the right front quadrant primarily relative to the direction the storm is moving in and seed those energy sails that are converging and making the rain and wind velocity increase in the front part of a hurricane." Livingston asserted.

He went on to explain exactly how to minimize and control the hurricane:

" We would be trying to destroy or at least grossly reduce the velocity in these individual energy sails by seeding the clouds with silver iodide in the top part of the cloud... and those tops would then have so many small droplets in them that the prevailing wind just blows them away and so an energy sail would be neutralized until it can regroup which may be several hours later."

The seeding process may sound complicated but it is not at all. There would be no need for more than two small aircraft at a time to safely fly upwards into the hurricane.

"We're carrying more cloud seeding material on one airplane now, over 800% more on each plane than we had during Project Storm Fury" (The project set up by the US Government to discover how to control hurricanes in the 60s). Livingston added.

Alex put the question to Livingston, if it is so simple to do and the government knows how to do it and has been doing it since the 60s then why did they not attempt to minimize hurricane Katrina?

"This is a long story with a deep history. Back in the mid 50s, 1954 or so, the government allotted the first amount of money for weather modification and weather control practices to the US weather Bureau to the tune of about 30 million dollars." Livingston said.

"Their charge was to employ the most brilliant scientists around the world, and meteorologists and physicists, to work out a concept for reducing damages from hurricanes. What brought that on was that we had three tremendous hurricanes in 1953 and '54 that affected the twelve northeastern states... Basically The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was formed to take that responsibility." He went on to say.

Mr Livingston went on to describe how Project "Storm Fury" of which he was a national director was then set up in the mid 60s. Much of the research was carried out on hurricanes in the Atlantic at that time.

Project Storm Fury was shut down on the logic that the data was not good enough to use in statistical studies. Many believe that the research then became part of a black operation on weather modification.

Upon recently writing to verify what the national policy is on hurricane research, Livingston received the following response:

"The approach of NOAA with regard to minimizing the impact of hurricanes on US citizens is to improve our forecast on the tracking and intensity of storms and to better warn those in harm's way. It is no longer the policy of NOAA to support or conduct weather modification research."

So there is effectively no official government budget for weather modification of any kind. This would not however prevent the hiring of private companies such as Weather Modification, Inc. to carry out the relatively simple work for around $25 million for the hurricane season. This is a small amount when considering the billions spent on rebuilding and clearing up after hurricanes.

"The situation is as I see it that the Federal Government and NOAA have a tremendous job to do and they're doing a tremendous job. But their interest is in statistical data...where as people who are concerned about hurricane damages are interested more in results or empirical data." Livingston added.

Dr Livingston went on to read a statement from the Stanford research Institute who were brought into Project Storm Fury in the late sixties as a third party, which stated conclusively that knowledge of how to stop hurricanes had been uncovered and that they would be directly liable should a hurricane hit and cause extensive damage and loss of life.

Livingston revealed that on the 18th August 1969, five seedings at two hour intervals on Hurricane Debbie, researchers deduced that the wind speed had decreased from 115mph to 80 mph. That is a 30% reduction and a 45% reduction in damages. On August 20th a second seeding decreased the wind speed again to just under 100 mph, a reduction of around 15%. Some scientists involved wanted more research and to uncover clearer patterns so they brought in Stanford as a third party, who determined that more seeding should be done for damage reduction.

Of course, during the Vietnam war the goal for Livingston and his colleagues was to actually strengthen adverse weather, to inflate and exacerbate the monsoon season in order that the Vietnamese get bogged down. So not only is prevention possible, but also creation of harsh weather conditions.

Dr Livingston was assigned in 1966 from the Naval weapons research Laboratory to a marine fighter squadron in Vietnam. Instead of guns, the aircraft under Livingston's control were fitted with cloud seeding equipment.

"My mission was to find clouds and seed them for maximum precipitation value" he commented.

Cloud seeding is the process of spreading either dry ice (or more commonly, silver iodide aerosols) into the upper part of clouds to try to stimulate the precipitation process and form rain. Since most rainfall starts through the growth of ice crystals from super-cooled cloud droplets (droplets colder than the freezing point, 32 deg. F) in the upper parts of clouds, the silver iodide particles are meant to encourage the growth of new ice particles.

Check Out this local Government web page on Weather Modification. It's Amazing how people still believe that this science does not exist!

Airborne hygroscopic flares emit water-attracting particles into cloud updrafts during a recent cloud-seeding project in Mexico.

Alex went on to ask Dr Livingston whether it was dangerous flying into hurricanes, and whether that was a factor that could have prevented operations going ahead.

"A good part of the time you're out in the most beautiful VFR weather you've ever seen. If it's night you can see the stars, the moon, if it's daytime the sun or whatever. So you can not only see what you're going to seed, you can analyze it on your radar... generally speaking its not very hazardous flying." Livingston answered.

Dr Livingston puts beyond doubt the reality of weather modification. His take on Hurricane Katrina is that it was not prevented for political reasons.

For the Love of Freedom

2005-10-20T18:46:00.000-04:00

Former CIA Analyst: Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism
A Government openly promoting torture, A President acting like a King cannot be trusted, must be impeached

Prisonplanet.com | October 19 2005

Ray McGovern, former CIA Analyst during the Regan and Bush 41 regimes, joined Alex Jones on his daily radio show Monday 17th October as part of a round table discussion of issues surrounding the Iraq war and the "war on terror".

McGovern launched straight into the War in Iraq and suggested that over the last few months there has been a "sea change" in public opinion, and now over two thirds of Americans, according to major opinion polls, are against the war and can now see through the Neo-con Propaganda that so clouded their judgment in the lead up to the war.

McGovern went on to comment that there has built up an ignorant attitude amongst more well to do Americans that the troops dying everyday are expendable. There has been a shut down in the minds of people who cannot place themselves in the shoes of the families who's sons and fathers and brothers are being needlessly slaughtered for a corrupt elite agenda.

Mr McGovern stated that the war

"has nothing to do with democracy or freedom or defending "our way of life", it is to do with enriching the pockets of those who support this administration."

Alex then put it to Mr McGovern that Congressman Ron Paul had recently been on the show and said that The Bush Administration was openly trying to set up a martial law police state in America. McGovern responded in the affirmative:

"Well it does seem that those who have his (Bush's) ear are hell bent on giving away or providing wider responsibilities to our military. Witness what they are talking about now with giving the military primary responsibility for catastrophes, for hurricanes and so forth. Our military has been built up as an instrument of power but has never existed with this kind of potency before, and so we all need to look at this because there are laws against using the military in law enforcement capacities and we need to get to our Congressmen and Senators and say "look enough of this stuff."

McGovern then moved on to talk about terrorism and the fact that if there was another major attack in the US, it would mean a martial law state (According to General Tommy Franks) and a breakdown in our freedoms.

He amazingly went on to suggest that if another attack took place we should not accept what the government tells us because it could be them carrying out the terror.

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

McGovern said he would not put it past the Government to "Play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag.

Last week we revealed how a major terror alert in New York was outed as a fake, and magically boosted Mayor Bloomberg's ratings.

Mr McGovern then went on to reveal his opinions on the possible upcoming indictments within the Bush Administration, siding with the view that the truth will out and the Administration will come toppling down because of the way it has continually forged a bedrock of lies to justify the War In Iraq.

But he warned that we have to stay vigilant and continually expose the lies because we no longer have a free mainstream press. If we stop looking they will get away with anything they want.

Mr Govern Stressed that the founders wrote the Constitution with far sighted possibilities in mind, and we may now be at that juncture. The founders provided us with the ability to impeach any Government should it take away our liberties or any President, should he attempt to act like a King or an Emperor.

At this very moment we have a President about to veto a ban on torture. Even at the height of the British Empire torture was still outlawed because it was recognized as the pinnacle of human rights violations. What more does this Administration have to do before we remove it from power?
---------------------------------------------

Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv - CLICK HERE.