Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops
Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety
Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops
IMMEDIATE RELEASE (November 13, 2008)
(Los Angeles, CA.) - A long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.
Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.
In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.
The corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal toxin, as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.
A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning. Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.
The principle GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. GM sugar from sugar beets will also be introduced before year’s end.
Mr. Smith, who is also the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology says, “GM foods are likely responsible for several negative health trends in the US. The government must impose an immediate ban on these dangerous crops.” He says, “Consumers don’t need to wait for governmental action. They can download a free Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.HealthierEating.org.”
Monsanto press offices in the UK and USA were unable to provide a comment on the findings for journalists yesterday.
The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.
The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs and provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.
The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world about the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops
The Internet is abuzz with news that a US Senate committee has approved a bill that apparently gives the President authority to shut down the Internet. According to TechWorld.com, “A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.”
The report continues by saying, “The bill, introduced earlier this month [by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thomas Carper, D-Delaware], would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electric grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.”
See the report at:
A PrisonPlanet.com report says this about the bill: “President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday [June 24] and now moves to the floor.
“The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.
“Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.”
The report continued by saying, “Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic [communist] China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.
“‘Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,’ Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.
“While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet.”
See the report at:
Of course, pro-family groups have long lobbied Washington lawmakers to pass regulations restricting objectionable material on the Internet. But Senator Lieberman’s bill does more than restrict content on the Internet; it gives the federal government the power to completely shut it down.
My friends, if you have any love for liberty left in your heart, one thing is critical: the Internet must remain free–absolutely, totally unrestricted and free.
I realize that many upstanding, well-intentioned people believe that the federal government should restrict the content of the Internet. But Lieberman’s bill should provide ample warning for anyone who believes that the federal government can be trusted with ANY authority it is granted beyond that which is rightly ascribed to it via the US Constitution. Plus, given the propensities of the federal government these days, how long before the definition of “objectionable content” includes your freedom of speech and mine? In plain language, the federal government has no business restricting anything that the Constitution does not permit it to. If we cede the authority to restrict and regulate the content of the Internet to the federal government, we are also ceding to it the power to completely shut down the Internet. And this is exactly what Lieberman’s bill does.
The fact is, the Internet is the last bastion of free and unfiltered news and information. And, yes, I understand that there is much misinformation on the Internet. But that is the price of freedom. The individual must be given the liberty to discern right from wrong for himself. As a Christian, I believe this is why God provided the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. And I for one do not need the federal government to try and replace either. And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for! Good grief! It is bad enough that the federal government has turned into Big Brother; are we going to allow it to become Big Momma and Big Daddy as well?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is essential that the free flow of information be allowed to continue over the Internet. The major news media is a finely filtered, tightly controlled medium that works harder at blocking news and information than it does at delivering it. Virtually every major television and radio network, along with the nation’s major newspapers, is an equal opportunity news-suppressor.
Just ask yourself, what would you have known regarding the MIAC report in Missouri had it not been for the Internet? What would you have known about the fiasco in Hardin, Montana, had it not been for the Internet? What would you know about the NAFTA superhighway without the Internet? If not for the Internet, would you ever have learned about the CFR’s plans for a North American Community? Where would the Tea Parties be today without the Internet? Where would Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 have been without the Internet? Virtually everything you’ve learned regarding the State sovereignty momentum that continues to build across this country you’ve learned from the Internet. Except for a few courageous independent radio talk show hosts, and newspaper and magazine publishers, the vast majority of extremely relevant and critical information relative to freedom is gleaned from the Internet–not to mention the speed with which news and information is able to travel, thanks to the Internet.
It is no hyperbole to suggest that the Internet is the modern patriots’ version of the colonists’ Committees of Correspondence that sounded the clarion call for liberty and independence at the time of America’s founding. And now, power-mad elitists in Washington, D.C., are attempting to provide the federal government with the power and authority to shut it down at will.
What is even more disturbing is the way that private companies and special interest groups are willing to prostitute themselves before the federal government in order to get their own “piece of the pie.” Think of it: just about every freedom-grabbing, Big-Government action taken by these modern Machiavellians in Washington, D.C., is facilitated by willing CEOs from Big Business. They gladly assist Big Brother when he wants to spy on us, read our emails, listen to our phone calls, etc. They happily help Big Brother when he wants to eavesdrop inside our homes, examine our financial records, or snoop on our private lives. When Big Brother says, “Jump!” they ask, “How high?” Then–like these hypocrites in Washington, D.C.–they have the audacity to wave the flag on Independence Day and shout, “America: the land of the free!” As if they are blameless in freedom’s demise.
Mark it down: if the federal government ever shuts down the Internet, it will be business as usual for Washington, D.C., and its fellow travelers in Big Business; but We the People will be out of business, and so will freedom. Regardless of what side of any issue you and I may come from, it is critical that the Internet remains absolutely and totally free.
Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults see the government today as a threat to rights. Thirty-seven percent (37%) hold the opposite view. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
Most Republicans (74%) and unaffiliateds (51%) consider the government to be a threat to individual rights. Most Democrats (64%) regard the government as a protector of rights.
Additionally, most Americans (52%) say it is more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth. Just 31% say promoting economic growth is more important. But again a sizable number (17%) of Adults aren’t sure which is more important.
This nationwide survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 18-19, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Men strongly believe it is more important for the government to protect individual rights, while women are almost evenly divided on the question.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of whites feel the emphasis should be on protecting individual rights. African-Americans are closely divided over which is more important.
There is little partisan disagreement when it comes to individual rights versus economic growth.
Data released earlier this week shows that 62% believe politicians want the government to have more power and money. At the same time, 58% think most voters want less power and money for the government.
This gap helps explain why just 21% believe that government today has the consent of the governed.
The Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted among men to protect certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court said the constitutional right to bear arms binds states and cities, as well as the federal government, in a decision that raises questions about gun laws around the country.
The ruling, while not creating an unlimited right for individuals to carry weapons, restricts the power of cities and states to regulate firearms. A 5-4 majority said Chicago went too far by banning handguns even for self-defense in the home. The Chicago ordinance is now unenforceable, its mayor said, though the law stays in effect pending lower court proceedings.
The ruling said states and cities can ban possession by convicted felons and mentally ill people and enforce laws against bringing guns into schools or government buildings.
Chicago is the only major city with a blanket handgun ban, after a 2008 Supreme Court decision struck down a similar ban in Washington, D.C., a federal enclave. Jurisdictions with narrower weapons restrictions, including New York City, may now face new legal challenges.
The right to bear arms “is fully binding on the states and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
Right to Bear Arms
The justices said a constitutional amendment approved after the Civil War protects the right to bear arms as a key freedom, shielding it from state and local interference.
“It is clear that the framers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” Alito wrote.
Today’s ruling broadens the sweep of the court’s 2008 ruling interpreting the Constitution’s Second Amendment as protecting the rights of individuals, rather than just those of state-run militias. It’s a victory for the National Rifle Association, which joined a group of Chicago residents in challenging the city’s laws.
The ruling “is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending,” Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive vice president, said in a statement.
Gun Control Advocates
Gun control advocates said the ruling isn’t likely to lead to the widespread invalidation of gun laws.
“The gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said he was “disappointed but not surprised.” He said the ruling made his city’s 28-year- old ban “unenforceable.”
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement that the two high court rulings mean that “we can work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.” The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.
Today’s decision, which came on the last day of the court’s nine-month term, divided the justices along lines that have become commonplace. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined Alito in the majority.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer faulted the majority for “transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the states to the federal government.”
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor also dissented.
The high court’s 2008 decision said the right to bear arms had limits. Alito wrote that today’s decision reaffirmed those limits, saying the ruling “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”
Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was originally aimed only at the federal government. The Supreme Court in the 19th century refused to apply the Second Amendment to the states.
More recently, the court has said that some, though not all, of the rights in the first eight amendments are so fundamental that they are “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, which binds the states.
“Given that other fundamental rights - the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and so on - limit both state and national governments, it would have been strange for the court to rule otherwise here,” said Rick Garnett, associate dean and constitutional law professor at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana.
In saying that the Second Amendment is incorporated as well, the court declined to usher in a major doctrinal shift, as some litigants had sought. Advocates across the ideological spectrum urged the justices to rely on the privileges-or- immunities clause, a long dormant provision in the 14th Amendment.
Such a step might have reinforced established constitutional rights including abortion and opened the door to broader protection of other guarantees, including property rights.
The case “is likely the last great incorporation battle,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. “In one sense, this is the last battle of the Civil War. The 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that all Americans enjoyed the same fundamental rights, including the right to bear arms. Now the Second Amendment applies to everyone.”
The Chicago ban was challenged by four residents, including Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old homeowner in the Morgan Park neighborhood on the city’s South Side.
McDonald, who says his home has been broken into at least three times, says he wants to keep a handgun by his bed for protection.
The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, 08-1521.
As noted in the N.Y. Times piece Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror, the Supreme Court’s “conservatives,”
In a case pitting free speech against national security, … on Monday upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, even if the help takes the form of training for peacefully resolving conflicts.In dissent, Justice Breyer said the majority had drawn a false analogy between the two kinds of assistance.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law’s prohibition of providing some types of intangible assistance to groups the State Department says engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment.
“Money given for a charitable purpose might free up other money used to buy arms,” Justice Breyer said from the bench. But the same cannot be said, he continued, “where teaching human rights law is involved.”But even though the decision is disturbing, even the conservative majority did not go as far as Solicitor General—and now Supreme Court nominee—Elena Kagan, wanted:
Chief Justice Roberts said the government had advanced a position that was too extreme and did not take adequate account of the free-speech interests at stake.The common assertion by democrats, and even by some libertarians who buy into the left-right paradigm, that liberals are better on civil liberties is obviously mistaken. (For more: see Liberals on Free Speech and Finance Campaign Laws; Slate Liberals: ‘Let’s see your scrotum if you want to get on an airplane,’ ha ha; Re: War and Civil Liberties Under Obama.)
“The government is wrong,” the chief justice wrote, “that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct” and not speech protected by the First Amendment. But he went on to say that the government’s interest in combating terrorism was enough to overcome that protection.
In his written dissent, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Breyer said the majority had been too credulous in accepting the government’s argument that national security concerns required restrictions on the challengers’ speech and had “failed to insist upon specific evidence, rather than general assertion.”
We Are Change groups from MD, VA and DC have joined together to hold an End The Fed protest in Washington DC in honor of Independence Day. The event will be on Saturday, July 3rd and the permits are already in. We Are Change groups have been putting up banners in the local area for the coming event. It is important not to lose momentum and to continue the energy that has sprung up around the notion of abolishing the Federal Reserve. With more and more public awareness as to what the Federal Reserve Bank is and how it operates, common people from the left or right have been getting behind this revolutionary idea.
Please come and join We Are Change in Washington D.C. this July 3, 2010 to take a stand for liberty. If you cannot make it to D.C. and would like to organize your own Federal Reserve protest, contact your local End the Fed group in your area by going to http://endthefedusa.ning.com/ or your local Campaign for Liberty chapter at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Don’t let up, don’t back down, don’t allow the children of the future to wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered. If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. For more information visit http://www.wearechangedc.org/.
The Federal Reserve is a cartel of private banking corporations which lend money to the United States. It is touted as if it were a Government Agency. IT IS NOT. The Federal Reserve Bank, through its inflation of the money supply and the distortion of free markets resulting from its intervention, is responsible for the current financial and economic crisis. The current round of “bailouts” and federal government nationalization of large segments of the financial sector further inflates the US dollar and disrupts the proper functioning of the markets and will ultimately serve to plunge the nation into an even more severe crisis, quite possibly even into a serious depression. Our goal is to educate Americans so we can have a sound monetary system in this country, and not be held at gunpoint by a private banking cartel who pretends to be a government entity.
Donovan Hubbard WAC-VA
Heidi Humphrey WAC-MD
Pop quiz: Which of the following Republican primary candidates is Sarah Palin most likely to endorse?
(A) A solid conservative with the backing of local Tea Party groups and a track record of supporting limited government and lower taxes;
(B) A pro-life woman;
(C) Anyone remotely connected to John McCain.
If you answered "A," you haven't been keeping up with Palin's recent rash of endorsements. Despite her image as the maverick queen of the Tea Party movement, Palin has passed on a number of conservative standard-bearers in favor of candidates with better connections to either McCain, the Republican Party or the Susan B. Anthony List.
Her willingness to choose individuals over issues hasn't gone unnoticed by the Tea Party faithful.
"The bloom's off the rose," said Shelby Blakely, a member of the national leadership council of Tea Party Patriots, the nation's largest such group. "She's a company girl. She's a Republican, and not in a good way."
The expectation among many Tea Partiers was that Palin would use her star power to ignite the campaigns of principled but lesser-known conservatives. Even after she endorsed John McCain in his contested primary bid against Tea Party favorite J.D. Hayworth, few were worried, given that she owed McCain for making her his vice-presidential pick in 2008.
Tougher to justify was her May 6 endorsement of Carly Fiorina in the California Republican Senate primary. The race has a proven conservative in state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who lacks money and name recognition but has the backing of local Tea Party organizations and Republican Sen. Jim DeMint.
Too bad. Fiorina has the credentials that matter to Palin: She's a pro-life woman and she served as an advisor to the McCain presidential campaign. Fiorina may have waffled in the past on whether she was a Republican, and did not have voted for most of her adult life, but she says she's a conservative now, and that's good enough for Palin. DeVore, meanwhile, spent years in the trenches doing battle with the Democratic legislative majority.
In her announcement, Palin added another caveat: She called Fiorina the "conservative who has the potential to beat California's liberal senator Barbara Boxer in November." The implication was that Fiorina, with her millions, has a better shot than DeVore of winning the general election against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. And it's probably true--but that's the sort of calculation that matters to the professional election-watchers of National Republican Senatorial Committee, not the political rogues who make up the Tea Party.
Palin veered back into the Tea Party's corner with her backing of Rand Paul in the Kentucky Republican Senate primary over GOP establishment candidate Trey Grayson. She threw her support behind Nikki Haley, a Tea Party pick who's also one of Palin's pro-life "mama grizzlies," in the South Carolina Republican gubernatorial contest. She's backing former Washington Redskin and Tea Partisan Clint Didier in the Washington Senate primary, although her endorsement came before GOP favorite Dino Rossi entered the race.
But she found herself at odds with Idaho Tea Partiers when she endorsed Vaughn Ward, the GOP establishment pick, over Raul Labrador in the 1st Congressional District primary. A state legislator with a staunchly conservative voting record, Labrador had the backing of Tea Party Boise--but Ward was Nevada state director of the McCain 2008 campaign. Again, Palin's debt to McCain trumped all other considerations. Labrador went on to defeat Ward in the May 25 primary.
In some ways, Palin remains a political maverick, only now it's because nobody can predict which candidate she'll endorse next. The more she strays from her base, however, the less valuable her support becomes.
As Blakely puts it, "If you keep endorsing the wrong people, after a while nobody's going to pay attention."
(NaturalNews) An advisory panel to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that every person be vaccinated for the seasonal flu yearly, except in a few cases where the vaccine is known to be unsafe.
"Now no one should say 'Should I or shouldn't I?'" said CDC flu specialist Anthony Fiore.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 11-0 with one abstention to recommend yearly flu vaccination for everyone except for children under the age of six months, whose immune systems have not yet developed enough for vaccination to be safe, and people with egg allergies or other health conditions that are known to make flu vaccines hazardous. If accepted by the CDC, this recommendation will then be publicized to doctors and other health workers.
The CDC nearly always accepts the advisory committee's recommendations.
Current CDC recommendations call for the yearly vaccination of all children over the age of six months, all adults over the age of 49, health care workers, people with chronic health problems and anyone who cares for a person in one of these groups. These recommendations cover 85 percent of the US population.
Excluded are adults between the ages of 19 and 49 who do not come into close contact with people in high-risk groups. The new recommendation, if adopted, would close that gap, bringing an end to a 10-year campaign by supporters of universal vaccination. In the past, the advisory committee has been reluctant to recommend universal vaccination for fear that it might produce vaccine shortages that place members of higher risk groups in danger. Yet even with current recommendations, only 33 percent of the public gets vaccinated every year, leaving millions of doses to be disposed of.
The H1N1 swine flu scare of the past year played a major role in the committee's about face, both because the disease killed many people falling outside the current recommended vaccine demographic and because it raised public awareness of and demand for vaccines.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
When I stopped by the Georgia Guidestones on Monday June 7th 2010 I noticed signs and surveillance cameras had been installed at the Georgia Guidestones. This is probably due to numerous acts of vandalism on the Guidestones. Americans don’t like the fact there’s a big stone monument on American soil that promotes eugenics, one world religion and language, and an overall reduction of humanity down to 500,000,000.
In this photo facing the south you can see one to the southwest with a warning sign.
you can see the stones do promote killing off over 80% of the human population. This photo is just my response to the Ted Turner style eugenics these stones promote.
In this photo facing the south you can see one to the southwest with a warning sign.
To learn more about the elites plan to kill off over 80% check out: http://www.endgamethemovie.com/
Zombie America is exercising the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law.