U.N. Celebrates Obama Re-election by Pushing Global Gun Control, says Second Amendment Foundation

Second Amendment Foundation

Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, President Barack Obama’s administration joined with China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, confirming the worst fears of the American gun rights community.

The vote came at the U.N. General Assembly’s meeting of the First Committee on Disarmament at the world organization’s headquarters in New York City.

“It’s obvious that our warnings over the past several months have been true,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The election was called about 11 p.m. Tuesday and by 11 a.m. this morning, we got word that the United States was supporting this resolution. We have to be more vigilant in our efforts to stop this proposed treaty.”

SAF Operations Director Julianne Versnel, who has been back and forth to the United Nations over this proposal, said the fight is not finished. The measure will be considered for finalization in March 2013.

“We will continue to monitor this issue and oppose any effort to enforce a global gun control measure,” she stated.

Amnesty International issued a statement Wednesday lauding passage of the resolution, saying the treaty will protect human rights.

“The right of self-defense is a human right,” Gottlieb countered, “and in this country, the Second Amendment protects that right.

“Just days ago as he campaigned for re-election,” he concluded, “Barack Obama told his supporters that voting is the ‘best revenge.’ I guess now we know what he was talking about. The revenge he seeks is against American gun owners and their Second Amendment rights.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

10 dire consequences of Obama’s re-election victory

Mike Adams
Natural News
Nov 7, 2012

(NaturalNews) What does an Obama re-election mean for the next four years in America? Now that he's in his second and last term, of course, Obama no longer needs to restrain his actions according to popularity. He can simply unleash any desirable executive order and rule by decree, bypassing Congress as he has frequently promised to do.

This puts America in a very dangerous situation, given Obama's well-demonstrated desire to destroy freedom and liberty in this nation. Remember: Obama is anti health freedom, anti food freedom, anti GMO labeling, anti medical freedom and anti farm freedom. He's the one who issued an executive order claiming government ownership over all farms and farm equipment, in case you forgot that little fact.

He's also the guy who just recently issued an executive order merging Homeland Security with local corporate entities to grant the executive branch of government a power monopoly over the nation, bypassing the courts and Congress. You probably haven't even heard about that one, because he secretly signed it during Hurricane Sandy.

Given Obama's atrocious track record on freedom during his first four years in the White House, here are my top 10 predictions for the next four (if America even lasts that long before ripping itself apart):

#1) Huge expansion of TSA and the surveillance state
Watch for TSA to expand its occupation of America by setting up checkpoints on roadways, sporting events, malls and "surprise" locations. Expect to see TSA agents become even more belligerent and lawless as they ramp up their sexual molestation of innocent victims.

#2) Expansion of secret arrests of American citizens
Obama secretly signed the NDAA, legalizing the secret arrests of U.S. citizens while denying them due process. Obama also authorized secret "kill lists" that claim to authorize the U.S. government to assassinate targeted individuals.
With his re-election in place, expect Obama to start issuing a mass of "kill orders" that will even start targeting political opponents.

#3) Acceleration of national debt blowout and endless fiat currency creation
Under Obama, the national debt experienced a massive blowout where Obama added trillions of dollars to the existing debt: www.USdebtclock.orgRight now, Obama is overseeing a trillion dollars a year in additional debt -- an amount that simply cannot be sustained without running smack into a financial catastrophe. It now appears that financial collapse it going to occur under Obama, not Romney.

#4) Rapid expansion of GMOs and USDA collusion
Monsanto and the biotech corporations have thrived under the Obama administration thanks to USDA collusion and scientific fraud.
Over the next four years, expect GMOs to dominate the U.S. food supply while the Obama White House rejects any effort to try to label GMOs on a national basis.

#5) Increasingly dictatorial government health care
Obamacare will grow like a cancer, pushing Americans into mandatory vaccinations that inject children with mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum.
Look for the Obama administration to wage even more wars against raw milk freedom, farm freedom and food freedom, all while requiring yet more foods to be pasteurized or fumigated under the guise of "food safety."

#6) Immediate surge in sales of guns and ammo
Obama has promised to try to destroy the Second Amendment and deny Americans the liberty to own firearms. With his re-election, expect to see a massive surge in gun sales as more people attempt to stock up in anticipation of gun bans (or government gun confiscation).

#7) Accelerated erosion of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties
Under Obama, civil rights, human rights and the Bill of Rights will be rapidly eroded. This goes hand in hand with the cancerous growth of government. As government expands its power and confiscates more economic resources, it simultaneously destroys individual liberties and due process.
This isn't to say that Romney would have been any better, of course. Both candidates were philosophically invested in the rapid expansion of Big Government.

#8) Continued destruction and looting of the U.S. economy
Under Obama, the financial looting of the U.S. economy by the global bankster elite will continue. The same would have been true with Romney, by the way.
Under Obama, America's unemployment rate will continue to head skyward, entitlements will be expanded, and the USA will be plunged into a tyrannical welfare state dominated by mindless zombies who have no cognitive grasp of reality.

#9) A "giant sucking sound" of employers leaving America
Ross Perot was right! That "giant sucking sound" is the sound of employers leaving America in droves, hiring offshore workers instead of creating jobs in the USA. And why? Because employers can't afford to pay Obamacare mandates and still stay competitive in the global marketplace.

#10) Stepped-up attacks on veterans and preppers
Returning U.S. veterans will continue to be vilified by the Obama administration, to the point where even more veterans will be arrested as "terrorists" for engaging in fundamental preparedness strategies such as storing food, water, medicine and ammo.
Watch for the liberal media to join the White House in painting veterans as "dangerous" individuals needing psychiatric medications. Never mind the fact that the media owes preppers a huge apology in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Source : http://www.naturalnews.com/037872_Obama_election_predictions.html#ixzz2BYlHRtC2

Support for Kill List and NDAA make Obama and Romney unfit for office Read more: Support for Kill List and NDAA make Obama and Romney unfit for office.

Thomas Mullen
Washington Times Communities
Friday, November 2, 2012

TAMPA, November 2, 2012 – It wasn’t so long ago that the following statement could only appear in a dystopian novel or movie script:

The U.S. President has killed an American citizen without due process, without even charging him with a crime. His decision to do this has been challenged by members of neither party.

While the media-fueled frenzy goes on about how supposedly different Romney and the conservatives are from Obama and the liberals, no one even raises an eyebrow about this terrifying political development.

Not even the left, which quite correctly howled at passage of the Patriot Act and the Bush administrations’ other assaults on freedom.

Bush and the Republicans committed egregious crimes against liberty, but did not go near this far in violating the even more important right to life.

The president makes a mockery of the term “due process” by claiming that the requirement is fulfilled by a panel of his own self-appointed czars and cronies reviewing the case. This doesn’t even pass the constitutional test. The panel is exclusively comprised of members of theexecutive branch of government. Judicial power is explicitly denied to the executive by the plain words of the constitution.At any previous time in American history, a summary execution by the executive without due process would have been considered cold blooded murder and an act of tyranny. Yet, it has happened in the light of day and neither the political class nor the citizenry has batted an eye.

If even this does not rouse American citizens to stand up to their government, to what would they conceivably say “no?”Given Romney’s endorsement of the president’s action, there is a well-worn term that applies to both candidates for president. “Unfit for office” has been wasted in the past on extramarital affairs or scandals involving some misappropriation of funds in private business. Like the cry of “wolf!” its impact has been eroded by overuse.However, it is a gravely serious charge. It denotes a fundamental moral failing that puts a candidate completely beyond consideration.

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney are unfit for office due to their support for the presidential kill list. Regardless of where they stand on economic policy, foreign policy or social issues, this position alone should disqualify them in any civilized society.

So why hasn’t it?

The only possible answer is that the American public has become so numb to the exercise of arbitrary power that they are unable to even raise a bleat while being led to the slaughter.

It is almost anti-climactic to point out that if you are not summarily executed by either a Romney or Obama administration, you may be arrested by the military without a warrant and held indefinitely without charges, recourse to a writ of habeas corpus or any appeal to an impartial judge. This provision is part of the last NDAA bill which the president signed and which Romney stated he would have signed as well. It is the law of the land.

So was the Reichstag Fire Act in 1930’s Germany. That did not make it right. Without exaggerating, that is where we are right now.Anyone who watched the first Third Party Debate could not have helped but notice that the various candidates were as different from each other individually as they were collectively from Romney or Obama. Green Party candidate Jill Stein is so far left on economic policy that she makes Obama look like Warren G. Harding. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is so laissez faire that he makes Romney look like Woodrow Wilson.

However, all of them agreed on one thing. The basic protections of personal freedom and security guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are not open to negotiation. That is the “red line” over which the government may not tread. That line is the one tangible thing that has made America different from the worst tyrannies of history.

A vote for Obama or Romney on November 6^th is worse than wasting your vote. It is surrendering not only your liberty but your very life to the discretion of the all-powerful state. It is accepting a station even lower than a slave’s.

Fortunately, you do have other choices. Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in at least 47 states. Many of the other candidates may be on your ballot as well. Florida’s ballot will provide twelve choices for president. Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein will debate again on November 5^th, one day before the election.

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, you will find among these choices a candidate that you agree with at least as much as you agree with Romney or Obama. What you will not find is a candidate that claims arbitrary power over your life.

Do not give your consent to a candidate that does.

Source: Support for Kill List and NDAA make Obama and Romney unfit for office | Washington Times Communities 

Sandy Is Katrina 2.0

Melissa Melton

Infowars.comNovember 5th, 2012



On October 24^th, the news came that Sandy had been officially upgraded to a hurricane. The following day, the Washington Post reported that newly declared Hurricane Sandy had “experienced a stunning increase in size and intensity” overnight that had not been previously forecast. Throughout the week that followed, it became more and more apparent the hurricane could potentially make landfall on America’s densely populated East Coast. Sandy finally slammed ashore on the evening of October 29, the eye hitting just south of Atlantic City, New Jersey.

By October 30^th, establishment media outlet The New York Times was already celebrating FEMA‘s ability to save the day. If anyone or anything should be prepared for such a disaster, it should be FEMA, right? Its acronym does, after all, stand for Federal Emergency Management Agency.

So why are stories coming out that FEMA failed to plan ahead on Hurricane Sandy, leaving millions of people without so much as fresh water?

FEMA knew for at least a week, as we all did, that this hurricane could be devastating, that millions could end up without power or basic necessities, and that a large portion of those people left in Sandy’s wake would be woefully unprepared and relying on the agency to come in and save them.

In reality, FEMA knew for over seven years what Sandy could do; if anything, Hurricane Katrina should have taught the agency a thing or two about preparation and providing disaster relief following a major hurricane.

In the 72 hours after Sandy ravaged the coast literally leaving millions in the dark without electricity, stories of unfolding social collapse spread, from martial law being declared in one New Jersey town, to state troopers being called in to monitor violence over the last remaining fuel at gas stations, to New York deploying over a thousand National Guard troops to prevent looting. The death toll has now risen to over 110.

While FEMA’s official Sandy webpage declares the “Federal Family” is continuing to “lean forward” to support response efforts (not coincidentally a throwback to Obama’s presidential campaign slogan), reports have come out that the agency is completely failing to live up to its promises yet again.

FEMA’s website alludes to supplies stored up across the country in case of a catastrophe. We know FEMA used taxpayer money to buy up $1 billion in storable food in 2011, for example. The presumption is this food would be used to provide relief to American disaster victims should the need arise.

Apparently FEMA’s food supply went elsewhere. While reports are coming out of unprepared, starving people actually dumpster diving in New York in Sandy’s wake, why are we just now seeing not one, but threeFEMA solicitation requests on the FedBizOpps.gov website (here, here, and here) for a total of 4 million meals ready-to-eat to be delivered to New York and New Jersey this coming week?

The hurricane hit on Tuesday and the first solicitation for food didn’t even get posted until Friday, with the other two posted yesterday. In addition, why is Breitbart reporting that FEMA solicited for 2.3 million gallons of bottled water for which bidding was not set to close until November 3^rd?

Hurricane Irene even hit the same area last year. Warning after warning after warning, and FEMA failed to prepare.

The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have been called the most powerful agencies within the U.S. government, with the power to turn the U.S. into a police state at any time. Big government isn’t here to save anyone.

Sadly, Sandy is turning into Katrina 2.0 and FEMA has zero excuse for its grand failure redux.

After Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard was similarly called in to break up looting and civil unrest among starving, desperate storm victims following FEMA’s slow disaster response time. Relief didn’t come for weeks, and some people died waiting for the agency to save them. Guns were confiscated from law-abiding owners on dry land. As Prison Planet previously reported, FEMA actually hindered relief in the wake of Katrina, reportedly cutting communication lines; turning away outside agency supplies such as three truckloads of bottled water and Coast Guard fuel deliveries; and commandeering buses that would’ve allowed some people to leave New Orleans, thus gaining total control over the situation.

What did FEMA do after it gained control? The agency packed tens of thousands of traumatized people inside the New Orleans Superdome like sardines, where reports of rape, violence, murder and suicide followed, including news that people who attempted to leave the Superdome were shot and killed.

The agency has proven its prime concern is not the well-being of American citizens but the well-being of the government itself.

As we’ve previously noted, only a small amount of the money allocated to FEMA goes to any actual disaster relief. The majority of FEMA’s funding is funneled into black ops and the Continuity of Government mandate. A 1992 Cox Newspaper Group study found that $243 million of FEMA’s budget in the prior decade went to disaster relief, while a whopping $2.9 billion went to black ops.

There’s a “Federal Family” all right; the majority of Americans simply aren’t a part of it.

FEMA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification report actually states the $789.12 million the agency is requesting “reflects FEMA’s priority to manage resources more effectively.” Really?

In 2006, the bipartisan Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs presented its findings on an investigation into the government’s response following Katrina entitled, “Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared”. The report broke down four major components that contributed to the failure:

1. Long-term warnings went unheeded and government officials neglected their duties to prepare for a forewarned catastrophe;

2. Government officials took insufficient actions or made poor decisions in the days immediately before and after landfall;

3. Systems on which officials relied on to support their response efforts failed; and

4. Government officials at all levels failed to provide effective leadership.

It’s now more than half a decade later: does any of this sound familiar?

Source: http://www.infowars.com/sandy-is-katrina-2-0/

Police Officer Tasers 10 year old boy for refusing to clean his police vehicle.

(www.courthousenews.com)

SANTA FE, N.M. (CN) - A New Mexico policeman Tasered a 10-year-old child on a playground because the boy refused to clean his patrol car, the boy claims in court.     

Guardian ad litem Rachel Higgins sued the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and Motor Transportation Police Officer Chris Webb on behalf of the child, in Santa Fe County Court. Higgins claims Webb used his Taser on the boy, R.D., during a May 4 "career day" visit to Tularosa New Mexico Intermediate School. 

"Defendant Webb asked the boy, R.D., in a group of boys, who would like to clean his patrol unit," the complaint states. "A number of boys said that they would. R.D., joking, said that he did not want to clean the patrol unit. "Defendant Webb responded by pointing his Taser at R.D. and saying, 'Let me show you what happens to people who do not listen to the police.'"  Webb then shot "two barbs into R.D.'s chest," the complaint states.  "Both barbs penetrated the boy's shirt, causing the device to deliver 50,000 volts into the boy's body.  "Defendant Webb pulled the barbs out [of] the boy's chest, causing scarring where the barbs had entered the boy's skin that look like cigarette burns on the boy's chest.     

"The boy, who weighed less than 100 lbs., blacked out.  "Instead of calling emergency medical personnel, Officer Webb pulled out the barbs and took the boy to the school principal's office," the complaint states. Higgins says the Tasing gave the boy post-traumatic stress syndrome, and that "The boy, R.D., has woken up in the middle of the night holding his chest, afraid he is never going to wake up again." She adds: "No reasonable officer confronting a situation where the need for force is at its lowest, on a playground with elementary age children, would have deployed the Taser in so reckless a manner as to cause physical and psychological injury."     

She seeks punitive damages for the boy for battery, failure to render emergency medical care, excessive force, unreasonable seizure, and negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention.     Higgins and R.D. are represented by the Kennedy Law Firm, of Albuquerque.

Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/30/51809.htm

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Declan McCullagh

(www.cnet.com)

October 30, 2012

In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.

CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras" in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.

This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans' privacy rights are protected by law. In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.

Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," Callahan wrote.

Two defendants in the case, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis., have been charged with federal drug crimes after DEA agent Steven Curran claimed to have discovered more than 1,000 marijuana plants grown on the property, and face possible life imprisonment and fines of up to $10 million. Mendoza and Magana asked Callahan to throw out the video evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, noting that "No Trespassing" signs were posted throughout the heavily wooded, 22-acre property owned by Magana and that it also had a locked gate.

(Credit: U.S. Department of Justice)

U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property "does not violate the Fourth Amendment."

Callahan based his reasoning on a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States, in which a majority of the justices said that "open fields" could be searched without warrants because they're not covered by the Fourth Amendment. What lawyers call "curtilage," on the other hand, meaning the land immediately surrounding a residence, still has greater privacy protections.

"Placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice Department prosecutors James Santelle and William Lipscomb told Callahan.

As digital sensors become cheaper and wireless connections become more powerful, the Justice Department's argument would allow police to install cameras on private property without court oversight -- subject only to budgetary limits and political pressure.

About four days after the DEA's warrantless installation of surveillance cameras, a magistrate judge did subsequently grant a warrant. But attorneys for Mendoza and Magana noticed that the surveillance took place before the warrant was granted.

"That one's actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society's concept of privacy," wrote Brett Reetz, Magana's attorney, in a legal filing last month. "The owner and his guest... had reason to believe that their activities on the property were not subject to video surveillance as it would constitute a violation of privacy."

A jury trial has been scheduled for January 22.

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542510-38/court-oks-warrantless-use-of-hidden-surveillance-cameras/

Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys given standard doses of popular vaccines develop autism symptoms

Ethan A. Huff
(naturalnews.com)
May 06, 2012



If vaccines play absolutely no role in the development of childhood autism, a claim made by many medical authorities today, then why are some of the most popular vaccines commonly administered to children demonstrably causing autism in animal primates? This is the question many people are now asking after a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh (UP) in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research developed autism symptoms.

For their analysis, Laura Hewitson and her colleagues at UP conducted the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted -- but never has -- for such regimens. And what this brave team discovered was groundbreaking, as it completely deconstructs the mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism.

Presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, the findings revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys' sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

Included in the mix were several vaccines containing the toxic additive Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others. Also administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children (http://www.greenhealthwatch.com)

"This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children," said Lyn Redwood, director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. "SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen."

Vaccine oversight needs to be taken from CDC and given to independent agency, says vaccine safety advocate

Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.

"The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal," said Wrangham. "But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency."

Be sure to read this thorough analysis of the study by Catherine J. Frompovich of VacTruth.com:
http://vactruth.com/2012/04/29/monkeys-get-autism/

Sources for this article include:

http://vran.org

http://www.safeminds.org/

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035787_vaccines_autism_monkeys.html

New GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow tumors, 70% of females die early

Mike Adams
naturalnews.com
September 19, 2012

Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That’s the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto’s genetically modified corn.


The study has been deemed “the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats.” News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors… tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.

“Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in ‘shocking’ new cancer study” wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsanto-weedkiller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article

It reported, “Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.”

The Daily Mail reported, “Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM-foods-French-study-finds-rats-fed-controversial-crops-suffered-tumours-multiple-organ-failure.html

It goes on to say: “The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.”

The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs. You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GM corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.

The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.

Findings from the study

Here are some of the shocking findings from the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.

• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.

• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organic damage including liver damage and kidney damage.

• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

The Daily Mail is reporting on some of the reaction to the findings:

France’s Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s commission for agriculture and known as a fierce opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorizations of GM crops. ‘This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes,’ he said in a statement. ‘National and European food security agencies must carry out new studies financed by public funding to guarantee healthy food for European consumers.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM-foods-French-study-finds-rats-fed-controversial-crops-suffered-tumours-multiple-organ-failure.html

Read the study abstract

The study is entitled, “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.” Read the abstract here: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

That abstract include this text. Note: “hepatorenal toxicity” means toxic to the liver.

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

Here are some quotes from the researchers:

“This research shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.” – Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist, King’s College London.

“We can expect that the consumption of GM maize and the herbicide Roundup, impacts seriously on human health.” – Dr Antoniou.

“This is the first time that a long-term animal feeding trial has examined the impact of feeding GM corn or the herbicide Roundup, or a combination of both and the results are extremely serious. In the male rats, there was liver and kidney disorders, including tumors and even more worryingly, in the female rats, there were mammary tumors at a level which is extremely concerning; up to 80 percent of the female rats had mammary tumors by the end of the trial.” – Patrick Holden, Director, Sustainable Food Trust.

Source:  http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

Spread the word: GMOs are toxic!

See the "What is a GMO" video by Nutiva:
http://www.youtube.com/user/nutiva?feature=watch

Watch the new video on GMOs by Jeffrey Smith:
http://www.geneticroulettemovie.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html#ixzz2AxqoLCui