Richard Branson (shown), chairman of Virgin Group Ltd., has offered a $25-million prize for the best solution for ending so-called global warming using geoengineering (also called climate engineering), which is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system.
The goal is to “find true breakthroughs and hopefully create new ways of attacking the climate change problem,” Branson said in an interview.
Sir Richard Branson, who was knighted by Prince Charles in 2000 for his “services to entrepreneurship,” founded such firms as Virgin Atlantic Airways and Virgin Mobile, and with an estimated net worth of $4.9 billion is the seventh-richest citizen of the United Kingdom.
During the United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in late June 2012, The New American’s foreign correspondent, Alex Newman, asked Branson what he wanted from Rio+20; he called for planetary carbon taxes and global treaties, supposedly to protect the environment. In a press conference after the day’s events, he reiterated his support for such power-grabbing schemes while lobbying against new oil drilling.
What sorts of climatic engineering might scientists propose who are hoping to claim Branson’s prize? A Bloomberg report on this topic quoted David Titley, a professor in Pennsylvania State University’s department of meteorology, who admitted that tinkering with the earth’s climate may carry more risk than efforts to reduce carbon emissions — the “solution” usually proposed by those who assert that climate change is the result of mankind’s activities.
“Climate intervention involves techniques that are of high and unknown risk,” said Titley. “The risks for mitigation and adaptation are understood and manageable.”
The Bloomberg report noted: “Some proposals are uncontroversial, such as using charcoal to lock carbon dioxide into soil or scattering carbon-absorbing gemstones.”
However, other proposals seem quite bizarre, considering how environmentalists usually are so wary of any human activity that impacts our climate. The report continues:
Other ideas to cool the planet have scientists worried about unintended consequences. There are proposals, untested at scale and with uncertain costs, to block the sun’s rays with airborne particles or seed the oceans with carbon-absorbing iron. That they’re even being considered reveals both frustration over government inaction and skepticism that policy alone will solve the problem.
Those who complain of “government inaction” in the face of climate change that is by all likelihood the result of naturally occurring cycles might do well to recall the story of King Canute, who ruled Denmark, Norway, and England almost a thousand years ago.
According to the story (which may be apocryphal), Canute tired of the flattery poured on him by his courtiers and intended to teach them a lesson about the human limitations of kings. According to one account written by Henry of Huntingdon (the author of a history of England, the Historia Anglorum), Canute set his throne by the seashore and commanded the incoming tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet, wrote Henry, “continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’” Canute then hung his gold crown on a crucifix and never wore it again, “to the honor of God the almighty King.”
However, those who insist that governments take action to reduce climate change obviously do not understand that climate has always changed and always will, since such change is a natural phenomenon, as surely as the rising tides that King Canute demonstrated are impossible to stop.
Bloomberg quoted one such individual, Mark Maslin, a fellow at the U.K.’s Royal Geographical Society, who said: “For the last 20 to 30 years, governments, at the back of their minds, have assumed that mitigation is the main way forward. However, asserted Maslin, researchers now realize that the planet needs “other urgent ways of dealing with CO2.”
Those who reject the theory that climate change, usually described as “global warming,” is anthropogenic (caused by human activity) are often branded as “climate deniers,” even though their ranks include many highly qualified and respected scientists in fields such as meteorology. One such individual, Anthony Sadar, a certified consulting meteorologist and the author of In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic’s Guide to Climate Change, wrote an article for the Washington Times on June 10 about “incessant ad hominem attacks” constantly directed at that those on his side of the debate. He observed:
We witnessed this just recently with Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva’s [D-Ariz.] attack on several prominent atmospheric scientists who dare to defy the authoritarian “consensus” on climate. These veteran scientists include MIT emeritus atmospheric-science professor Richard Lindzen and climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer.
Sadar noted that Alan Carlin, a retired senior Environmental Protection Agency analyst who had challenged the Obama administration’s faulty climate science, in his new book Environmentalism Gone Mad, wrote that those pushing the “global warming doctrine” have almost always “refused to openly debate the scientific issues raised by skeptics but instead derided them or questioned their motives or sources of funding.”
In that book, noted Sadar, Carlin pointed out that the “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” hypothesis, which asserts that rising carbon-dioxide concentrations will dramatically increase average global temperatures, “does not satisfy the scientific method” largely because observed reality has not matched predictions. He asks the reader to consider that, aside from the one surface temperature analysis just released in the journal Science, numerous temperature measurements have revealed that the globe has experienced a relative flatlining of temperatures for nearly two decades, despite man’s best efforts “to stay alive and comfortable with carbon-based fuels.”
As we write, the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change is taking place in Washington, D.C. Organized by the Heartland Institute, the conference is sponsored by several conservative organizations including the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the John Locke Foundation. This year’s theme is “The New Science and Economics of Climate Change.” Among the conference’s keynote speakers are William Harper, professor of Physics at Princeton University, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
Speaking on June 11, Inhofe told attendees that he agreed with former French President Jacques Chirac’s statement that global warming “is the first component of authentic global governance.”
“The United Nations is the reason that this all came along. We all know that,” Inhofe said.
“They want independence. They don’t want to be accountable to anybody, to the United States or any other country,” the senator continued, explaining that global climate change policies would give the United Nations its own funding source and make it unaccountable to its member countries.
Inhofe also said that the UN’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol is “about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide,” and if bureaucrats control carbon emissions, “you control life.”
Hillary Clinton celebrated the opening of the first Planned Parenthood clinic in America 99 years ago, when the U.S.’s largest abortion provider began its long career in the open pursuit of eugenics.
The Democrat 2016 candidate tweeted out her congratulations and support of the organization that is currently under several congressional investigations following the release of videos exposing its apparent practices of harvesting the body parts of unborn babies for sale:
As pro-life group Live Action notes, Margaret Sanger — Planned Parenthood’s founder – held firmly to eugenics – the philosophy that the human race can be improved by controlled and selective breeding. Sanger promoted the sterilization and use of birth control for those – mainly minorities – with qualities she considered less desirable for the human race.
Sanger’s philosophy has continued to this day. The Guttmacher Institute reported black women are five times more likely to undergo an abortion than white women. Similarly, last year, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Office released a report that revealed more black babies are aborted than are born in that city. Yet New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio pledged to partner with Planned Parenthood to expand his city’s abortion businesses and to wipe out pro-life pregnancy centers.
Additionally, a study released last year demonstrates the obvious racial disparity where abortion is concerned in the United States. Dr. James Studnicki at the University of North Carolina and his colleagues found that for whites, abortions in 2008 contributed to 59% of total years of potential life lost while, for blacks, abortions contributed 76% of the same. The researchers concluded that “induced abortion is the overwhelmingly predominant contributing cause of preventable potential lives lost in North Carolina,” and blacks are disproportionately affected.
Clinton, however, and feminists of her generation cling to Sanger’s elevation of birth control as somewhat of a “sacrament” of the feminist movement. Sanger wrote:
We now know that there never can be a free humanity until woman is freed from ignorance, and we know, too, that woman can never call herself free until she is mistress of her own body. Just so long as man dictates and controls the standards of sex morality, just so long will man control the world.
Birth control is the first important step woman must take toward the goal of her freedom. It is the first step she must take to be man’s equal. It is the first step they must both take toward human emancipation.
More recently, however, black pro-life leaders and Republican members of Congress have demanded that Sanger’s bust be removed from a “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery where it is displayed.
In a letter sent to the director of the gallery, Ministers Taking a Stand, led by president Bishop E.W. Jackson, stated:
Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well-documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
In an interview with Breitbart News, Jackson said his group received a response from the gallery that referred to Sanger as a person who struggled for justice because she tried to make birth control and reproductive freedom available to poor women.
“We responded back that this was not Sanger’s motivation,” Jackson asserted. “Her motivation was stopping people whom she considered ‘defective’ from having what she would call ‘defective children.’
source:Mike Maharrey tenth amendment center
BURLINGTON, Vt. – The Burlington police department unilaterally decided to sever ties with a U.S. Department of Defense program that allows law enforcement agencies to procure surplus military equipment, freeing the department from one significant form of federal influence and control.
A Burlington TV station reported on the move, saying the department had obtained two night vision devices through the program before deciding not to participate.
“There are times when military-style equipment is essential for public safety, but they are very rare,” Burlington Police Chief Brandon del Pozo said. “We have the resources to handle all but the most inconceivable public safety scenarios. Amassing a worst-case scenario arsenal of military equipment results in officers seeing everyday policework through a military lens. When I realized what a small role the military played in equipping our police, I concluded it was better to return the items.”
FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY
Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military grade weapons, including automatic assault rifles, body armor and mine resistant armored vehicles – essentially unarmed tanks. Police departments can even get their hands on military helicopters and other aircraft.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) runs the “Homeland Security Grant Program,” which in 2013 gave more than $900 million in counterterrorism funds to state and local police. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”
COMMAND AND CONTROL
“Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the Founders,” Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said, echoing del Pozo’s thoughts. “They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’”
In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”
By stripping state and local police of this military-grade gear and requiring them to report on their acquisition and use, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships.
THE WAY FORWARD
Very few police chiefs have the moral clarity demonstrated by del Pozo. We can’t rely on local police departments to turn their backs on all the free gear dangled in front of them by the feds. The vast majority won’t – not on their own.
But state and local governments can stop militarization of their police departments through laws and ordinances.
Earlier this year, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill into law requiring law enforcement agencies to get approval from a local government body before applying for military equipment. This creates a transparent process and gives area residents an avenue to stop militarization altogether through local action.
Montana took things a step further, passing a law prohibiting police agencies from procuring certain types of military equipment at all.
Local governments don’t have to wait for the state to act. They control their local police departments, and they can generally restrict or even ban militarization on their own initiative.
To take action to push back against federal militarization of police in your state, click HERE.
Eve Robinson,against the wall
Why the Federal Reserve is Not What it Says on the Tin
There are two simple things that the name ‘Federal Reserve’ implies: the fact that it is federal and the fact that it is a reserve. The truth of the matter however is that it is neither of these things and has been pulling the wool over the public’s eyes. In reality it is a private company rather than a federal entity, owned by stockbrokers. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that only Congress is permitted to issue money and regulate its value, meaning that it is illegal for privately held corporations to do so. The Federal Reserve is therefore in direct breach of the Constitution and relies upon deceiving the masses in order to get away with this.
It has even been proven in a court of law that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation as opposed to an actual federal reserve. In 1982, during the case of John L. Lewis versus United States of America, the court ruled that the Federal Banks are ‘independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations’ and stated that there was insufficient ‘federal government control over “detailed physical performance” and ‘day to day operation”’ of the Federal Bank for it to be classed as a federal entity. In short, the Federal Reserve has more in common with a commercial bank that advertises low interest rates and the cheapest loans than it does with a federal agency. The Centre for Research on Globalisation describes it as a ‘privately owned financial institution’, which is exactly what it is. The Federal Reserve even states on its website that ‘the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations’.
The fact that the Federal Reserve is a profit-orientated company just like any other means that its primary purpose is to fill the pockets of greedy bankers. The Reserve has even offered banks higher interest rates if they keep their funds parked at the Federal Banks as opposed to loaning the money to the country’s people, which is an incredibly harmful thing to do when there are businesses in the community that are credit-starved. The difference between the greed of the Federal Reserve and the greed of a standard, run-of-the-mill company is that the Federal Reserve has more power over the way in which the American economy performs than any other entity. It controls the supply of money, sets the interest rates and hands out bailouts to banks, meaning that its clout in the financial arena is second to none.
Even more worryingly, foreign banks and governments own significant ownership interests in the member banks that effectively own the Federal Reserve. This means that the company that has the highest level of power over the US economy is influenced by organisations based in foreign countries and is not even fully controlled by the US. The exact ownership shares of the Federal Reserve are yet to be revealed so it is currently unknown to what extent it is foreign-owned but anybody with a modicum of common sense can see that no country can benefit from having the control of its economy dictated in part by people who do not even live there.
The FED is a Dictatorship
You would think that any organisation that possesses this much power would be accountable to the US people but this is simply not the case. The US public are not able to vote those who are in charge of the Reserve out of office if they are not satisfied with what they are doing because the Federal Reserve is not a democracy. Okay so the president might appoint the people that run the Reserve but he is also aware that if he does not stay on their good side then he will be unlikely to get the money that he needs from the big Wall Street banks to fund his next election campaign.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that the Federal Reserve is conning the US people. It is relying upon their misguided belief that it is a federal agency to take advantage of them and further the interest of its members. At the end of the day, how can anybody trust the FED to take care of the American economy when even its name is fraudulent? It is an organisation run by conmen and swindlers, who are taking the American people for fools.
Were relentlessly told that we must never forget the Six Million victims of Hitler and the Nazis. But we hear far less about the vastly greater number of victims of Lenin and Stalin, and the grim legacy of Soviet Communism. Some 20 million people perished as victims of the Soviet regime, historians acknowledge. Jews played a decisive role in founding and promoting the egalitarian-universalist ideology of Marxism, in developing the Marxist political movement, and in brutally establishing Bolshevik rule in Russia. With the notable exception of Lenin, who was one-quarter Jewish, most of the leading Marxists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews, including Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Radek. The Bolshevik killing of Russias imperial family is symbolic of the tragic fate of Russia and, indeed, of the entire West.Were relentlessly told that we must never forget the Six Million victims of Hitler and the Nazis. But we hear far less about the vastly greater number of victims of Lenin and Stalin, and the grim legacy of Soviet Communism. Some 20 million people perished as victims of the Soviet regime, historians acknowledge. Jews played a decisive role in founding and promoting the egalitarian-universalist ideology of Marxism, in developing the Marxist political movement, and in brutally establishing Bolshevik rule in Russia. With the notable exception of Lenin, who was one-quarter Jewish, most of the leading Marxists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews, including Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Radek. The Bolshevik killing of Russias imperial family is symbolic of the tragic fate of Russia and, indeed, of the entire West.Were relentlessly told that we must never forget the Six Million victims of Hitler and the Nazis. But we hear far less about the vastly greater number of victims of Lenin and Stalin, and the grim legacy of Soviet Communism. Some 20 million people perished as victims of the Soviet regime, historians acknowledge. Jews played a decisive role in founding and promoting the egalitarian-universalist ideology of Marxism, in developing the Marxist political movement, and in brutally establishing Bolshevik rule in Russia. With the notable exception of Lenin, who was one-quarter Jewish, most of the leading Marxists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews, including Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Radek. The Bolshevik killing of Russias imperial family is symbolic of the tragic fate of Russia and, indeed, of the entire West.Were relentlessly told that we must never forget the Six Million victims of Hitler and the Nazis. But we hear far less about the vastly greater number of victims of Lenin and Stalin, and the grim legacy of Soviet Communism. Some 20 million people perished as victims of the Soviet regime, historians acknowledge. Jews played a decisive role in founding and promoting the egalitarian-universalist ideology of Marxism, in developing the Marxist political movement, and in brutally establishing Bolshevik rule in Russia. With the notable exception of Lenin, who was one-quarter Jewish, most of the leading Marxists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews, including Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Radek. The Bolshevik killing of Russias imperial family is symbolic of the tragic fate of Russia and, indeed, of the entire West….
The co-pilot of a hijacked Ethiopian Airlines flight surrendered to Swiss authorities in Geneva on Monday after commandeering his aircraft to seek asylum in Switzerland, police said.
The plane’s second-in-command, who was not carrying a weapon, took control of the plane when the pilot left the cockpit to use the toilet. After landing, he left the aircraft via a cockpit window, without harming passengers or crew, police spokesman Pierre Grangean told a news conference.
“Just after landing, the co-pilot came out of the cockpit and ran to the police and said, ‘I’m the hijacker.’ He said he is not safe in his own country and wants asylum,” Grangean said.
As passengers left the plane, which was parked near the end of the runway, they were checked by police as they held their hands on their necks, a Reuters witness said.
source : the guardian
Picture the scene. You’re pottering about on the internet, perhaps idly looking up cake recipes, or videos of puppies learning to howl. Then the phone rings. It’s your internet service provider. Actually, it’s a nice lady in a telesales warehouse somewhere, employed on behalf of your service provider; let’s call her Linda. Linda is calling because, thanks to David Cameron’s “porn filter”, you now have an “unavoidable choice”, as one of 20 million British households with a broadband connection, over whether to opt in to view certain content. Linda wants to know – do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography?
How about information on illegal drugs? Or gay sex, or abortion? Your call may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes. How about obscene and tasteless material? Would you like to see that? Speak up, Linda can’t hear you.
The government’s filter, which comes into full effect this month after a year of lobbying, will block far more than dirty pictures. That was always the intention, and in recent weeks it has become clear that the mission creep of internet censorship is even creepier than campaigners had feared. In the name of protecting children from a rotten tide of raunchy videos, a terrifying precedent is being set for state control of the digital commons.
Pious arguments about protecting innocence are invariably marshalled in the service of public ignorance. When the first opt-in filtering began, it was discovered that non-pornographic “gay and lesbian” sites and “sex education” content would be blocked by BT. After an outcry, the company quickly changed the wording on its website, but it is not clear that more than the wording has been changed. The internet is a lifeline for young LGBT people looking for information and support – and parents are now able to stop them finding that support at the click of a mouse.
Sexual control and social control are usually co-occurring. Sites that were found to be inaccessible when the new filtering system was launched last year included in some cases helplines like Childline and the NSPCC, domestic violence and suicide prevention services – and the thought of what an unscrupulous parent or abusive spouse could do with the ability to block such sites is chilling. The head of TalkTalk, one of Britain’s biggest internet providers, claimed that the internet has no “social or moral framework”. Well, neither does a library. Nobody would dream of insisting a local book exchange deployed morality robots to protect children from discovering something their parents might not want them to see. Online, that’s just what’s happening, except that in this case, every person who uses the internet is being treated like a child.
1. “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.
2. “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of “liberalism” they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, for many years U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate.
3. “Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government – a bureaucratic elite.” Senator William Jenner, 1954
4. “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991
5. “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933
6. “The depression was the calculated ‘shearing’ of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market….The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.” Curtis Dall, FDR’s son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law
7. “The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive ‘policies’ and ‘Plans’ of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word ‘socialism’, but what else can one call it?” H.G. Wells The New World Order 1939
8. “Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.” President George Bush Texas A&M University 1989
9. “Under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner. . . .” Fabian Socialist Bernard Shaw in his Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at email@example.com.
11. “National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.” Adolph Hitler during World War II
12. “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” President Woodrow Wilson 1916
13. “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Ford
14. “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” – Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets
15. “Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
16. “It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go….We are living in the end of the sovereign states….In the great struggle to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish….Countless people…will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.” – H.G. Wells, in his book, “The New World Order”, 1940 17. “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” – Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization
18. “We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. . . Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. . . . We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electronic stimulation of the brain.” Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School, Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974.
19. “One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order.” From The National Educator, K.M. Heaton
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.
The draft text of the law, which has already been amended several times due to a huge backlash from gardeners, is viewable here.
“This law will immediately stop the professional development of vegetable varieties for home gardeners, organic growers, and small-scale market farmers,” said Ben Gabel, vegetable breeder and director of The Real Seed Catalogue. “Home gardeners have really different needs – for example they grow by hand, not machine, and can’t or don’t want to use such powerful chemical sprays. There’s no way to register the varieties suitable for home use as they don’t meet the strict criteria of the Plant Variety Agency, which is only concerned about approving the sort of seed used by industrial farmers.”
Virtually all plants, vegetable seeds and gardeners to eventually be registered by government
All governments are, of course, infatuated with the idea of registering everybody and everything. Under Title IV of the proposed EU law:
Title IV Registration of varieties in national and Union registers The varieties, in order to be made available on the market throughout the Union, shall be included in a national register or in the Union register via direct application procedure to the CVPO.
Gardeners must also pay fees to the EU bureaucracy for the registration of their seeds. From the proposed law text:
The competent authorities and the CPVO should charge fees for the processing of applications, the formal and technical examinations including audits, variety denomination, and the maintenance of the varieties for each year for the duration of the registration.
While this law may initially only be targeted at commercial gardeners, it sets a precedent to sooner or later go after home gardeners and require them to abide by the same insane regulations.
Government bureaucracy gone insane
“This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control,” says Ben Gabel. “All this new law does is create a whole new raft of EU civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while killing off the seed supply to home gardeners and interfering with the right of farmers to grow what they want. It also very worrying that they have given themselves the power to regulate and licence any plant species of any sort at all in the future – not just agricultural plants, but grasses, mosses, flowers, anything at all – without having to bring it back to the Council for a vote.”
As a hint of the level of insane bureaucracy that gardeners and vegetable growers will be subject to under this EU law, check out this language from the proposed EU law:
Specific provisions are set out on the registration in the Union variety register and with regard to the possibility for the applicant to launch an appeal against a CPVO decision. Such provisions are not laid down for the registration in the national variety registers, because they are subject to national administrative procedures. A new obligation for each national variety examination centre to be audited by the CPVO will be introduced with the aim to ensure the quality and harmonisation of the variety registration process in the Union. The examination centre of the professional operators will be audited and approved by the national competent authorities. In case of direct application to the CPVO it will audit and approve the examination centres it uses for variety examination.
Such language is, of course, Orwellian bureaucraticspeak that means only one thing: All gardeners should prepare to be subjected to total government insanity over seeds, vegetables and home gardens.
RealSeeds.co.uk warns about any attempt to actually try to understand the law by reading it:
You cannot just read the first 5 pages or so that are an ‘executive summary’, and think you know what this law is about. The executive summary is NOT what will become the law. It is the actual Articles themselves that become law, the Summary has no legal standing and is just tacked on as an aid to the public and legislators, it is supposed to give background information and set the proposed legislation in context so people know what is going on and why.
The problem with this law has always been that the Summary says lots of nice fluffy things about preserving biodiversity, simplifying legislation, making things easier etc – things we all would love – but the Articles of the law actually do completely the opposite. And the Summary is not what becomes the law.
For example, the Summary of drafts 1, 2 & 3 talked about making things easier for ‘Amateur’ varieties. But the entire class of Amateur vegetables – which we have spent 5 years working with DEFRA to register – was actually abolished entirely in the Articles right from the start. Yet the Summary , and press releases based on it, still talked about how it will help preserve Amateur varieties! The Summary is completely bogus. Do not base your views of the law on it!
So, be warned. By all means, read it yourself. But you have the ignore the Summary as that is not the Law, and does not reflect what is in the Law.
As you might suspect, this move is the “final solution” of Monsanto, DuPont and other seed-domination corporations who have long admitted their goal is the complete domination of all seeds and crops grown on the planet. By criminalizing the private growing of vegetables — thereby turning gardeners into criminals — EU bureaucrats can finally hand over full control of the food supply to powerful corporations like Monsanto.
Most heirloom seeds to be criminalized
Nearly all varieties of heirloom vegetable seeds will be criminalized under this proposed EU law. This means the act of saving seeds from one generation to the next — a cornerstone of sustainable living — will become a criminal act.
In addition, as Gabel explains, this law “…effectively kills off development of home-garden seeds in the EU.”
This is the ultimate wish of all governments, of course: To criminalize any act of self-reliance and make the population completely dependent on monopolistic corporations for their very survival. This is true both in the USA and the EU. This is what governments do: They seize control, one sector at a time, year after year, until you are living as nothing more than a total slave under a globalist dictatorial regime.
An online petition has already been started on this issue and has garnered nearly 25,000 signatures so far.
NOAH’S ARK and 240 other organizations from 40 European countries have also initiated an “open letter” appealing to Brussels bureaucrats to stop the insanity. Click here for a translated version of their petition.
I saw this coming
By the way, I am on the record predicting this exact scenario. Read Chapter Three of my fiction book, “Freedom Chronicles 2026.” (Read it FREE, online.) It depicts a seed smuggler living in a time when seeds are criminalized and people earn a living as professional seed smugglers.
In my book, a woman uses a specially-crafted breast prosthesis to smuggle seeds to “underground gardeners” in full defiance of laws crafted by Monsanto. A vast underground network of grassroots gardeners and scientists manage to put together a “seed weapon” to destroy GMOs and take back the food supply from evil corporations.
Mark my words: Seeds are about to become contraband. Anyone who grows their own food is about to be targeted as a criminal. The governments of the world, conspiring with corporations like Monsanto, do not want any individual to be able to grow their own food.
This is about total domination of the food supply and the criminalizing of gardeners. And this is what big government always does after centralizing sufficient power. All governments inherently seek total control over the lives of everyone, and if you don’t set boundaries and limits for government (i.e. the Bill of Rights), it eventually runs roughshod over all freedoms and liberties, including the freedom to grow your own food.
U.S. and British Intelligence Officials Admit they Don’t Know Whether the Syrian Government Or Rebels Used Chemical Weapons
A U.S. State Department spokesman admitted yesterday that the U.S. doesn’t know whether a low-level, rogue Syrian official is responsible for the chemical weapons attacks.
Today, the wheels came off the war wagon altogether.
An intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are “undeniable,” U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.
Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.
In other words, the U.S. hasn’t yet ruled out that possibility … but only hopes to.
The New York Times writes:
American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack
It appears that the public presentation of the Syria evidence will be limited. Instead of the theater of Mr. Powell’s 2003 speech — which included satellite photographs, scratchy recordings of conversations between Iraqi officials and a vial of white powder meant to symbolize anthrax — American officials said the intelligence assessment they are preparing to make public will be similar to a modest news release that the White House issued in June to announce that the Assad government had used chemical weapons “on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”
Except that – last time there was a chemical weapons attack in Syria – it turned out to have been the rebels who launched the attack.
Similarly, the Guardian notes that British officials say there is not 100% certainty of who carried out the attacks, and that the conclusion of government culpability is not based on hard evidence, but a series of assumptions.
See this for background on the crisis in Syria