French warplanes struck Islamic State militants in Syria on Sunday, a French government official said, two days after attackers linked to the terrorist group carried out a coordinated assault on Paris that killed 129 people.
Prior to the attack on Paris, France had been sparing in its strikes against targets in Syria
News reports in France said the airstrikes were focused on Raqqa, the city in northern Syria that is the self-proclaimed capital of the Islamic State.
The attackers in Friday’s terrorist assault in Paris communicated at some point beforehand with known members of the Islamic State in Syria, officials on both sides of the Atlantic say, adding evidence to the assertions that the radical group coordinated or helped carry out the attacks rather than simply inspired them.
President Francois Hollande of France has characterized the attacks as “an act of war” carried out by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. He provided no specific information, but the Islamic State released statements on Saturday claiming responsibility for the attacks, part of increasing indications that the group is becoming more capable of extending its reach far beyond its base in Syria and Iraq.
“It is an act of war that was prepared, organized and planned from abroad, with complicity from the inside, which the investigation will help establish,” Hollande said on Saturday. While the information made available so far about the links between the Islamic State and the Paris attackers was not definitive, it suggested at a minimum that the assailants had not acted totally on their own.
Describing the case for the group’s role, American and French officials said the attackers had operated with high levels of sophistication, beyond what would be expected of a plot in which the assailants were merely inspired to act by a radical group rather than trained or equipped by it. The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology, according to European officials who had been briefed on the investigation but were not authorized to speak publicly. It was not clear whether the encryption was part of widely used communications tools, like WhatsApp, which the authorities have a hard time monitoring, or something more elaborate. Intelligence officials have been pressing for more leeway to counter the growing use of encryption.
France will continue strikes in Syria with aim of hitting ISIS, PM Manuel Valls says
The disciplined way some of the attackers handled themselves during the assault and evidence of some military-style training — for example, having one attacker continue shooting while another reloaded his weapon — also suggested that the plot involved considerable planning and input from an organized group, a French official said. Following the attacks, intelligence and law enforcement agencies reviewed intercepted communications and concluded that the attackers had been in touch with members of the Islamic State in Syria, American and French officials said. The Paris attack has forced a broad reassessment in the West of the Islamic State’s strategy and capabilities. The group has also claimed responsibility for the crash of a Russian charter plane carrying vacationers home from a resort in Egypt, killing all 224 people aboard.
On Sunday, President Obama met with other world leaders in Turkey, where containing and fighting the Islamic State was a major topic of conversation.
A French national suspected of planning a terrorist attack in France after returning from the Islamic State group’s Syrian stronghold of Raqqa was arrested last month, officials said Friday.
The man admitted to police that he had been instructed to carry out an attack onFrench soil – “preferably” during a concert – but has denied that he had any intention of following through with the plan, according to a judicial source.
He was not immediately identified by police, but the source told AFP that he was a 29-year-old who had spent one week in Raqqa. He was arrested on August 11 at his home and charged with “criminal association in relation with a criminal terrorist enterprise”.
“This is one of those cases in which individuals want to carry out terrorist attacks,” Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve told reporters during a trip to the northern city of Roubaix on Friday.
The suspect did not have a police record and was unknown to French intelligence services before his trip to Syria, the judicial source said.
A handgun was reportedly found at his home during the arrest.
During questioning, the suspect told police he had spent one week in Raqqa – which became the Islamic State (IS) group’s de facto capital in northern Syria in mid-2013 – where he was injured during combat training.
Before returning to France, he received precise instructions about which route to take back to Paris and about carrying out an attack, the suspect allegedly told police after his arrest.
French police were tipped off to the former jihadist’s presence in France after the arrest of another suspect, on June 15 in Poland. The second man, a Moroccan national, was detained on a Spanish arrest warrant.
Suspected of spending time among IS militants in Syria, the Moroccan confessed he had not travelled to Europe alone – identifying the man now in French police custody.
French in Syria
The fear of Syrian blowback in France – namely, that French citizens who joined the ranks of the IS group could return home to stage terrorist attacks – has gripped the country since the deadly Charlie Hebdo shootings in January.
Cherif and Said Kouachi, the two men who gunned down 12 people at the satirical weekly, received combat training in Yemen under the auspices of al Qaeda.
The French government revealed this week that 1,880 French citizens or residents were directly involved in jihadist networks. It said 133 people had died while fighting, with 491 others still waging war abroad.
France started surveillance flights over IS group-held territory in Syria this month, saying reconnaissance was necessary to prevent future terrorist plans and to inform future air strikes on IS targets.
(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
Date created : 2015-09-18
This has “limited hangout” written into the body. EG: It supports the official story, and hints at French “Incompetence” to act of intelligence. (same cover we saw post Sept 11th)
Iraqi intelligence sent dispatch saying “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi” had ordered an attack on coalition countries fighting against them in Iraq and Syria, as well as on Iran and Russia.
Senior Iraqi intelligence officials warned coalition countries of imminent assaults by the Islamic State group just one day before last week’s deadly attacks in Paris killed 132 people, The Associated Press has learned.
Iraqi intelligence sent a dispatch saying the group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had ordered an attack on coalition countries fighting against them in Iraq and Syria, as well as on Iran and Russia, “through bombings or assassinations or hostage taking in the coming days.”
The dispatch said the Iraqis had no specific details on when or where the attack would take place, and a senior French security official told the AP that French intelligence gets this kind of communication “all the time” and “every day.”
However, six senior Iraqi officials corroborated the information in the dispatch, a copy of which was obtained by the AP, and four of these intelligence officials said they also warned France specifically of a potential attack. Two officials told the AP that France was warned beforehand of details that French authorities have yet to make public.
Among them: that the Paris attacks appear to have been planned in Raqqa, Syria — the Islamic State’s de-facto capital — where the attackers were trained specifically for this operation and with the intention of sending them to France.
The officials also said a sleeper cell in France then met with the attackers after their training and helped them to execute the plan.
There were 24 people involved in the operation, they said: 19 attackers and five others in charge of logistics and planning.
The officials all spoke anonymously because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The Islamic State group claimed responsibility on Saturday for the gun and bomb attacks on a stadium, a concert hall and Paris cafes that also wounded 350 people, 99 of them seriously. Seven of the attackers blew themselves up. Police have been searching intensively for accomplices.
Iraq’s Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, also told journalists in Vienna on Sunday that Iraqi intelligence agencies had obtained information that some countries would be targeted, including France, the United States and Iran, and had shared the intelligence with those countries.
Officials in the French presidential palace would not comment, and U.S. officials didn’t immediately comment when contacted by The AP.
Every night, the head of French counterintelligence goes to bed asking ‘why not today?’ the French security official said.
The Iraqi government has been sharing intelligence with various coalition nations since they launched their airstrike campaign against the Islamic State group last year. In September, the Iraqi government also announced that it was part of an intelligence-sharing quartet with Russia, Iran and Syria for the purposes of undermining the militant group’s ability to make further battlefield gains.
A third of Iraq and Syria are now part of the self-styled caliphate declared by the Islamic State group last year. U.S.-led coalitions in Iraq and Syria are providing aerial support to allied ground forces in both countries, and they are arming and training Iraqi forces. The U.S. said it is also sending as many as 50 special forces to northern Syria.
Official Palestinian paper publishes op-ed claiming Israel behind Paris attacks
The Swedish foreign minister has caused a stir in Jerusalem with statements she said in response to Friday night’s terror attacks in Paris.
In an interview with Swedish television network SVT2T, hours after the attacks on November 13, Margot Wallström said that “to counteract the radicalization we must go back to the situation such as the one in the Middle East of which not the least the Palestinians see that there is no future: we must either accept a desperate situation or resort to violence,” suggesting that the attacks were rooted in the frustration of Muslims in the Middle East.
Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reacted strongly Monday and released a statement in which it said, “The words of the Swedish foreign minister are shocking in their audacity. The Swedish Minister is systematically biased and one-sided against Israel, demonstrating hostility when she points to the connection between attacks in Paris and difficulties between Israel and the Palestinians.”
“Anyone who engages in a foolish attempt to create a link between the attacks of radical Islam and the difficulties between Israel and the Palestinians is deceiving himself, his people and the international public opinion,” the statement continued.
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely responded to Wallström’s remarks saying, “The Foreign Minister’s words border on anti-Semitism, and the squalid manner in which it links the attacks in France and Israel is no less of a blood libel.”
Wallström condemned the attacks Saturday in an official statement posted to the Swedish Foreign Ministry website.
“Sweden condemns yesterday’s despicable terrorist attacks in Paris. They targeted and killed innocent citizens, and our thoughts go to the victims and their families. These acts of terrorism are an attack on democracy and our open societies,” the statement read.
“They must and will be met with resolve; terrorism must be opposed and those responsible must be called to account. We also need to tackle the underlying causes of terrorism, taking a long-term approach, and to strengthen our efforts against extremism and fanaticism. Together we must stand up for democracy and for humanistic values,” it continued.
It is not the first occasion that Wallström’s words have angered Israeli officials. An October tweet from Wallström about the wave of terror in Israel also drew criticism from Jerusalem.
“Escalating violence in Jerusalem. Attacks against civilians unacceptable. Bring perpetrators to justice. Leaders must act responsibly,” Wallstrom wrote.
Israeli diplomats were unhappy that Wallstrom failed to mention that the victims were Israeli. A diplomatic source in Jerusalem said: “It is most regrettable that the Swedish foreign minister is unwilling to state in a clear and unequivocal way that the terrorists are Palestinian, and that the victims are Israeli. We wish that her messages would be much clearer and correspond to the reality of the situation.”
Relations between Israel and Sweden hit a low point in January when Wallström said that Israel had angered close allies with its harsh response to her country’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state in October last year.
“It is unacceptable how they have been talking about us and everybody else,” the foreign minister said.
“It has not only irritated us, but the Americans and everyone who has anything to do with them right now.”
Wallströn also said in the interview that Sweden supports Israel, Palestine and peace, but was sharply critical of Israel’s policies. “Israel has been extremely aggressive,” she said.
Official Palestinian paper publishes op-ed claiming Israel behind Paris attacks
An opinion piece published Sunday in an official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper blamed Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency for the deadly terror attacks that rocked Paris on Friday night.
The article in the daily al-Hayat al-Jadida paper suggested that Israel played a part in orchestrating the attacks in order to undermine new European moves promoting a two-state solution as well as the labeling of produce from Israeli West Bank settlements.
“It is not a coincidence that human blood was exploded in Paris at the same time that certain European sanctions are beginning to be implemented against settlement products, and while France leads Europe in advising the [UN] Security Council that will implement the two-state solution, Palestine and Israel — which the Israelis see as a warning of sudden danger coming from the direction of Europe, where the Zionist, occupying, settling endeavor was born…” reads the opinion piece.
“The wise and correct thing is to look for who benefits. In short: They need to search the last place reached by the octopus arms of the Mossad… It is clear that its ‘Mossad’ will burn Beirut and Paris in order to achieve [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s goals. He, who challenged the master of the White House, hides in his soul enough evil to burn the world,” it continues.
The op-ed was translated by Palestinian Media Watch, a media monitoring group.
Philippe Huguen (AFP)
“A woman lays flowers during a minute’s silence in Lille, tribute to the victims of the Paris attacks, on November 16, 2015”
The worst terror attack in French history has stunned the capital, less than 11 months after jihadists struck satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket, killing 17.
France was to observe a minute’s silence at midday (1100 GMT), which the European Union has called on all member states to respect. In the United States, the Stars and Stripes will fly at half-mast at the White House until sunset Thursday.
President Francois Hollande will observe the silence at the Sorbonne University, in recognition of the large toll of young people among the 129 dead. Another 352 were injured, scores of them seriously.
French warplanes pounded Islamic State’s Syrian stronghold Sunday in the nation’s first retaliation against the jihadists.
The raid destroyed an IS command post, a recruitment center, a munitions depot and a “terrorist” training camp in Raqa, the defense ministry said.
The operation was coordinated with US forces by a dozen aircraft which took off from Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, it said.
Hollande has denounced the Paris attacks as an “act of war” and vowed to hit back against IS “without mercy”.
France has declared a national state of emergency and tightened borders after at least 120 people were killed in a night of gun and bomb attacks in Paris. Eighty people were reported killed after gunmen burst into the Bataclan concert hall and took dozens hostage. The siege ended when security forces stormed the building. People were shot dead at bars and restaurants at five other sites in Paris. Eight attackers are reported to have been killed.
The BBC has also released a graphic indicating at least 5 separate locations where the attacks unfolded, while other media organizations have reported that both bombs and small arms were employed, including military rifles.
How Did France’s Expanding Surveillance State Miss This?
On a scale significantly larger than the previous Paris terror attack carried out against several targets across the capital in January of this year ending in the death of 12, the Western media is already assigning blame to the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL) or those “inspired” by ISIS.
The new law will allow authorities to spy on the digital and mobile phone communications of anyone linked to a “terrorist” inquiry without prior authorisation from a judge. It forces internet service providers and phone companies to give up data upon request. Intelligence services will have the right to place cameras and recording devices in private homes and install so-called keylogger devices that record every key stroke on a targeted computer in real time. The authorities will be able to keep recordings for a month and metadata for five years. One of the most contentious elements of the bill is that it allows intelligence services to vacuum up metadata, which would then be subject to analysis for potentially suspicious behaviour. The metadata would be anonymous, but intelligence agents could follow up with a request to an independent panel for deeper surveillance that could yield the identity of users.
Despite having allegedly lacked these capabilities before the “Charlie Hebo attack,” it would be revealed shortly after that indeed, French security agencies were extensively familiar with the attackers years beforehand – letting the suspects “drop from their radars” just 6 months before the attack occurred, precisely the amount of time generally required for planning and executing such an attack.
Kouachi was arrested in January 2005, accused of planning to join jihadists in Iraq. He was said to have fallen under the sway of Farid Benyettou, a young “self-taught preacher” who advocated violence, but had not actually yet traveled to Iraq or committed any acts of terror. Lawyers at the time said he had not received weapons training and “had begun having second thoughts,” going so far as to express “relief” that he’d been apprehended.
Western intelligence officials are scrambling to learn more about possible travel of the two Paris terror attack suspects, brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, with new information suggesting one of the brothers recently spent time in Yemen associating with al Qaeda in that country, U.S. officials briefed on the matter told CNN. Additional information from a French source close to the French security services puts one of the brothers in Syria.
The U.S. provided France with intelligence showing that the gunmen in the Charlie Hebdo massacre received training in Yemen in 2011, prompting French authorities to begin monitoring the two brothers, according to U.S. officials. But that surveillance of Said and Chérif Kouachi came to an end last spring, U.S. officials said, after several years of monitoring turned up nothing suspicious.
It is abundantly clear that the “Charlie Hebo attack” suspects were dangerous terrorists, tracked by the government because of this fact, but inexplicably allowed to continue on with their activities until they inevitably carried out a deadly act of terrorism on French soil – an act of terrorism quickly exploited to ramrod through unpopular security bills and further perpetuate France’s unpopular role in America’s various extraterritorial military adventures abroad, including the West’s proxy war in Syria.Those involved in this most recent attack will also likely be revealed to have been tracked by French security agencies long before the attacks – this is because the attacks will, by necessity, need to be linked to the Syrian conflict to justify the recent appearance of France’s largest warship, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, off the coast of Syria, and the much larger Western military intervention needed in order to save a proxy war that has been all but lost by the West.
State Sponsorship – But Which State? Gladio Extra
As the refugee crisis expanded in Europe, it was warned that it would be purposefully manipulated to create maximum hysteria to justify more direct military intervention in the West’s losing proxy war in Syria.
What is taking form is a controlled strategy of tension, where far-right groups are being arrayed against the migrants and their European supporters, to create hysteria and eventually violence that will be leveraged by those who orchestrated it.
Permissive immigration policies and self-imposed quotas ensured a virtual tidal wave of migrants coming into Europe, while long-cultivated racist and xenophobic political groups – holdovers from NATO’s notorious “Gladio” Cold War stay-behind networks – attempted to create backlash and hysteria in the streets regarding a migrant “invasion.”
All that was left to complete the equation was an incredible act of galvanizing violence that would create the long-absent public support the West needed to justify further meddling in Syria – public support that the narratives of “helping freedom fighters,” recycled lies regarding “weapons of mass destruction,” and tales of “barrel bombs” failed to generate.
Among the targets in this most recent attack was a football stadium hosting a French-German match attended by French President François Hollande himself – which is particularly important to note since foreknowledge of Hollande’s location would have required significant planning and preparations. The choice of attacking a football stadium is also significant, considering that undoubtedly the primary demographic attending the football match would have been those most vocally opposed to the expanding refugee crisis. In other words, it was an attack designed specifically to provoke French public opinion into supporting action.
The scale of the attack is that of a military operation. It would have required a large group of well trained militants, well armed and funded, with experience in planning and executing coordinated military operations, moving large amounts of weapons clandestinely, experts in the use of weapons and explosives, as well as possessing intelligence capabilities used to somehow circumvent France’s increasingly colossal surveillance capabilities.
Like the terrorists and their supply lines pouring out of NATO-territory into Syria itself, clearly with immense state sponsorship behind them, those involved in the most recent attacks in Paris are also clearly the recipients of state-sponsored funding and training.
While France will undoubtedly try to use this attack to justify further intervention in Syria to topple the government in Damascus, it was most likely France’s own allies in Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and even Paris itself who were directly or indirectly involved in the training, arming, and funding of those who spilled blood on Parisian streets this week.
Conveniently, the French flagship, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was just sent to Syria’s coast last week. It is now poised to take part in any expanded military campaign predicated on the attacks that just unfolded in Paris.
The first and most important question in examining any great crime is “cui bono?” or to whose benefit? Attacking Paris, and in particular a football match full of nationalists already increasingly violent and hysterical seems to only benefit a government seeking further justification to wage wider war abroad – a war it is currently losing and a war it currently lacks wide public support to continue fighting. It now, all so conveniently, has the support it was looking for.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.
The text for the climate and trade treaties have been recently released. The TPP has had a lot of attention and most people have heard of it. I would strongly urge everybody to do research into this text. There are many concerns related to intellectual property rights, internet control, and an unelected tribunal appointed by multinational corporations to oversee trade compliance. This tribunal will have authority over a country’s laws. The law of the United States of America is the Constitution.
Even the establishment friendly Huffington Post admits the newly revealed treaty is “critics’ worst fears”. That headline scares me because I have read some of the worst fears.
Assistant Professor Blayne Haggart of Brock University wrote about the TPP. His article can be viewed here.
The Climate Treaty is less familiar. The debate on anthropogenic climate change aside, the nefarious attempt at an international governing body with authority over sovereign nations is unacceptable. As if this was not bad enough to oppose the treaty, it is a massive financial burden on developed countries. This is revealed in the text recently released. The text can be viewed here.It seems the brackets give the text a multiple choice template.
[Developing country Parties are eligible for support in the implementation of this Article][Developed country Parties shall provide developing country Parties, taking into account the need of those that are particularly vulnerable, with long-term, scaled-up, predictable, new and additional finance, technology and capacity-building, consistent with relevant provisions of the Convention, to implement urgent, short-, medium- and long-term adaptation actions, plans, programmes and projects at the local, national, subregional and regional levels, in and across different economic and social sectors and ecosystems][Developed countries [shall][should] transfer technology, in particular for early warning systems through United Nations mechanisms, in order to make it accessible for all].
Here is where we come in!
[Public funds, distinct from Official Development Assistance, will be the main source of financing, noting that sources may include a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral as well as additional sources.] 5. [Parties recognize the importance of the Green Climate Fund and other multilateral mechanisms for] The mobilization of climate finance [that] [shall][should][other] be scaled up [in a predictable and transparent manner] [from USD 100 billion per year] from 2020.] 5bis. [The provision and mobilization of financial resources by developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II shall represent a progression beyond their previous efforts, and financial resources shall be scaled up from a floor of US$100 billion per year from 2020, including a clear burden-sharing formula among them, and in line with needs and priorities identified by developing country Parties in the context of contributing to the achievement of the objective (Article 2/XX) of this Agreement.
Did you see the ‘floor’ of the cost proposed? climate finance [that] [shall][should][other] be scaled up [in a predictable and transparent manner] [from USD 100 billion per year.
Who is going to oversee such a prodigious sum of money? An entity you and I do not get to vote for or against.
The Financial Mechanism established by Article 11 of the Convention, including [the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility for] its operating entities shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.
Not only is this international welfare, it, like the TPP oversees intellectual property rights and transfer of technology!
.…developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to address barriers created by policies and intellectual property rights (IPRs) and facilitate access to and the deployment of technology, including, inter alia, by utilising the Financial Mechanism and/or establishing a funding window under the GCF to meet the full costs of IPRs of environmentally sound technologies, know-how and such ADP 2-11 – Draft agreement and draft decision on workstreams 1 and 2 15 of 34 technologies will be provided to developing country Parties,free of cost, in order to enhance their actions to address the adverse effect of climate change.
Here is where the massive gathering of all information is applied. Read this next section carefully!
Developed country Parties shall report information related to their actions and provision of support to developing countries in accordance with the provisions of the Convention and relevant decisions of the COP mutatis mutandis under the Agreement, in their national communications, biennial reports and annual inventory reports. All of that information will be verified through a robust technical review process followed by a multilateral assessment process, and result in a conclusion with consequences for compliance;
…a robust technical review process followed by a multilateral assessment process, and result in a conclusion with consequences for compliance
Consequences for compliance? Are you wondering what that means? Well, page 19 will tell us more.
An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as [A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.
The TPP and the UN Climate Treaty are gross violations of national sovereignty and liberty. These agreements are an affront to the God given rights recognized, but, not given by, the Constitution. An overpowering, European authoritarian regime that gave us no representation but taxed us heavily, led to the American revolution. American soldiers have fought for centuries to keep the freedom that we established when we defeated the British Empire.
So, I ask the veterans, is this what you fought for? Is this what the sacrifice was for? Whether it be physical, mental, financial, family, or all of the above, every veteran made a sacrifice to keep their oath. Despite Hillary Clinton’s feeble attempt to convince us otherwise, the Federal government failed to keep our commitment to care for the veterans. Over300,000 vets died waiting for help. Now the politicians are allowing everything that they fought for disappear with the stroke of a pen and a self congratulating ceremony.
The veterans are appreciated and I thank you again for your service. However, your service is not over. Instead of foreign combatants you now face corporate lawyers. Instead of bullets, you must avoid treaties and agreements meant to undermine our plight. The battlefield is here and the stakes are high. The urge for world domination hasn’t gone away. It has changed tactics. This time you are not out fighting for us; we ask you to fight with us.
If you know the facts, share them. If you don’t know them, please, learn them. Our country has been kicking tyranny’s ass for over 200 years. Let us not lose the war against evil by treaty. The lives of fallen veterans would be in vain. We will not allow that to happen.
Happy Veteran’s Day. Enjoy it; you have earned it.
(NaturalNews – Phil Pepin) A shocking statistic was found in a report from the U.S. Geological Survey, a study of pesticide and herbicide use from 1992 to 2012. During the two decades, an estimated 2.6 billion pounds of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide was used on America’s agricultural land. It’s been the primary herbicide used with genetically engineered crops since mid-1990s when Monsanto introduced their “Roundup Ready” corn and soybeans.
A time-lapse video with a map of United States, used in the Environmental Working Group (EWG) article “2.6 Billion Pounds of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Sprayed on U.S. Farmland in Past Two Decades,” shows the dramatic spread of the use of Roundup.
This is very troubling considering the mounting evidence of serious health risks associated with exposure to glyphosate. A Huffington Postarticle from April 2013 covered a study that showed a wide range of health risks possibly linked to Roundup. The list included various cancers, Parkinson’s and infertility.
The EWG time-lapse video shows that Roundup use is especially heavy in the Midwest. I checked to see if there was any evidence of higher rates of cancer in that region. According to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, “breast cancer incidence rates are highest in the Northeast, followed by the Midwest and the South. But death rates from breast cancer are highest in the Midwest.”
A June 2015 Reuters article stated that “personal injury law firms around the United States are lining up plaintiffs for what they say could be ‘mass tort’ actions against agrichemical giant Monsanto Co that claim the company’s Roundup herbicide has caused cancer in farm workers and others exposed to the chemical.”
An August 2015 article in The Guardian stated, “Retail outlets across Europe are taking glyphosate – the main ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup – off their shelves, despite government officials declaring it safe to use.”
Monsanto et al. Mislead Public Using Every Trick in the Book
GMO scarecrow in cornfield. Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Gareth Williams / Flickr, David Prasad / Flickr
With a debate raging over whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe, it seems reasonable that people would look toward the media, academia and scientists for answers. But major biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Dow know this, too, and seem to be engaged in an effort to rig the results.
GMOs are produced by recombinant DNA technology. How it works sounds like science fiction, or something out of a horror movie. Imagine: Genes from an insecticide are inserted into the genome of the corn plant, thus producing a crop that resists insects. The insecticide is made from the protein of a bacteria closely related to anthrax, and it works by making the guts of the insect explode.
Critics, such as the Center for Food Safety, say that GMOs are insufficiently tested and may be dangerous. There are high-profile campaigns in three Western states to label GMOs as such, so that consumers can know what they are buying and eating. At the same time, food businesses have been scrambling to ban, or remove, the warning labels.
Are GMOs dangerous? For answers to such questions, we normally turn to reputable scientists associated with reputable universities. Surely we can trust them to give us objective information. Or can we? It turns out that biotech heavyweights like Monsanto, Bayer et al have been paying reputable people from reputable institutions to swing the debate in their favor.
A treasure trove of emails — obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by a US non-profit and acquired by The New York Times —reveals that academia is infested with professors who are paid to vigorously promote GMOs on behalf of the biotech industry, which also includes trade associations such as CropLife America.
And some academics have even sabotaged the efforts of others to publish facts that contradict the claims of these professorial shills for GMOs.
“We are all bad-ass shills for the truth. It’s a pleasure shilling with you.” Or, as Folta himself put it: “I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like.”
But to learn how deep the problem goes, you would need to find the links to those emails, and dig through layer upon layer of them.
Of course, if you don’t have time for that, you always can rely on The New York Times to give you the low-down on Big Food’s propaganda efforts. Or can you? The Times — whose motto is “All The News That’s Fit to Print” — has published a curiously tame and seriously incomplete version of what is buried in those emails.
At first sight, the Lipton article is impressive. He exposes a number of individuals from various institutions, but focuses mainly on Kevin Folta — Chair of the Department of Horticulture at the University of Florida.
Folta secretly took expenses, and $25,000 of unrestricted money, from Monsanto to promote GMO crops. And Lipton reports a damning quote showing Folta’s close relationship with Monsanto, something he had previously denied:
“I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment,” Folta wrote after receiving the $25,000 check.
Lipton also mentions Folta’s participation, with other academics, in a website run by the biotech industry, GMO Answers. A PR firm hired by the industry provided questions from the public, such as, “Do GMOs cause cancer?”
But, as Lipton reports, Ketchum, the PR firm, did more than provide the questions — it also provided answers which Folta used nearly verbatim.
NO SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT?
In the scientific community, none of this was exactly news. The basic facts had already been revealed in a leading scientific journal, Nature, by Keith Kloor, who also had access to the emails.
It is odd that this was first reported by Kloor, a pro-biotech journalist who works for a pro-biotech publisher. Or perhaps not so odd, given that Kloor went on to state that the emails “do not suggest scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta” — even after Folta was on record as denying he had received any biotech funding.
Not disclosing such funding is definitely considered scientific misconduct. So why did Kloor rush to exonerate him?
Was Kloor’s story a pre-emptive strike to defuse the issue of wider biotech corruption of academia? Was Lipton’s?
The damning emails originally came to light earlier this year, when a newly-formed activist group called US Right to Know (USRTK) set in motion Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests directed at 14 (now 43) prominent public-university scientists. These academics were suspected of working with (and being paid by) the biotech industry and/or its PR intermediaries. (The emails released via FOIA — reputedly totalling in the tens of thousands — are the source of Kloor’s and Lipton’s highly selective reporting.)
One might think that if these 43 scientists had nothing to hide, such a request would have generated little attention outside academia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin says global warming is being used as an economic weapon against his country.
He characterized climate change as a “fraud” used to prevent Russia from tapping its vast oil and natural gas reserves.
Greenpeace claims 85 percent of CO2 equivalent emissions in Russia come from its energy industry.
According to a political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky, Putin believes “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries, including Russia.”
“We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited,”Andrey Illarionov, Putin’s senior economic adviser in the early 2000s, told The New York Times. “It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.”
In September Putin’s top adviser on global warming dismissed criticism of Russia by Climate Action Tracker, a group of climate research groups linked to the United Nations and the World Wildlife Fund (Windsor), and a Rockefeller funded NGO. The group said Russia has a worse record of carbon emissions than China, the United States and the European Union.
Two top senators are probing use by the Internal Revenue Service of secret cellphone tracking systems that are more often utilized by federal or local law enforcement agencies.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen admitted this week that the agency does use the technology, known as cell-site simulators, or StingRays. The admission came after a report by The Guardian that indicated the IRS has spent more than $71,000 to upgrade a version of the device and to receive training from a company that manufactures the devices.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Patrick Leahy on Thursday sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew demanding answers about the use of the technology by the IRS.
“We were surprised to learn that IRS investigators may be using these devices,” Mr. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Mr. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, wrote in the letter. “While the devices can be useful tools for identifying the location of a suspect’s cell phone or identifying an unknown cell phone, we have previously expressed concerns about the privacy implications of these devices.”
Cell site-simulators work by mimicking cellphone towers to trick cellphones to connect to them, enabling investigators to obtain identifying information about the phones and their locations. Law enforcement officers often deploy the suitcase-sized StingRays by hauling them around in vehicles as they drive through neighborhoods looking for a suspect’s phone, scooping up data on the cellphones of any passers-by in the process.
Mr. Koskinen testified Tuesday before the Senate Finance Committee that the devices are only used in criminal investigations and not for any civil matters.
Cities scramble to upgrade “stingray” tracking – Cops hid use of phone tracking tech in court documents at feds’ request
Can America survive another eight years of liberal/neocon domination of Washington, D.C.? (would we want to?)
The past seven presidential administrations (Bush, Sr. – Obama) and congresses (Republican and Democratic) have taken the United States to the brink of oppression–and maybe destruction. That’s 28 years (counting 2016) of continuous domination by liberal Democrats and neocon Republicans. And make no mistake about it: there is virtually NO DIFFERENCE between liberal Democrats and neocon Republicans. They work in tandem. Best buds. Same agenda. Twins. Same parties. Same golf outings. Same clubs. Same money-grubbing. Controlled by the same people. Ad infinitum.
Under these liberal Democrats and neocon Republicans, the United States has become the most spied on country in the history of mankind. The brute-force of Washington, D.C., has all but expunged the Natural Law principles that founded this nation. Pulpit and pew; people and priest; magistrate and citizen; professor and student; newscaster and viewer: for the most part, they have all fallen in lockstep with the establishment Democrat and Republican parties. Hardly anyone understands the principles upon which our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were founded–including, and especially, the miscreants in Washington, D.C.
Beyond that, liberal Democrats and neocon Republicans have taken America into a perpetual state of war. Take down those yellow flags, folks, because our troops aren’t EVER coming home.
Not only have the liberal/neocon miscreants in D.C., made enemies out of virtually every country on the planet, they seem determined to make enemies out of the American citizenry. Just listen to the things our FBI and Justice Department spokesmen are saying about US–We the People. They seem to consider US more of an enemy than our enemies. Just like in banana republics, our prisons are filled with people who should be regarded as political prisoners. At the same time, sure-enough real criminals such as G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton enjoy the lifestyle of kings and queens.
Add tens of millions of illegal aliens who have absolutely no understanding of constitutional government, who respect nothing but raw power, and who see government as nothing more than something to give them stuff, and the problem is exacerbated exponentially. Yet, both liberal Democrats and neocon Republicans are facilitating this invasion of illegal aliens that is taking place–and will continue to take place if Paul Ryan and most of the Republican and Democrat leadership have their way (which they probably will).
In addition, the vast majority of our elected representatives and senators in D.C., appear drunk with power and personal ambition. It truly seems that hardly any of them give a hoot in hell what the Constitution says. They are in it for themselves–the country be damned!
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives had an opportunity to do something truly significant to reverse the power of the neocons over politics in D.C., by electing a genuine anti-establishment conservative. Sadly, they chose instead to elect another royal neocon, Paul Ryan, as Speaker. Republican House members could not have made a WORSE choice.
Paul Ryan has a Cumulative Freedom Index Score of 58% by the New American Magazine–which offers one of the more accurate assessments of a congressman or senator’s voting record.
Ryan voted for TPA, the horrific jobs-killing NAFTA-type trade bill–also called Obamatrade. He voted for Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act, which repealed the requirements for Country of Origin labeling (which keeps Americans in the dark about where their food is coming from) and ceded authority over food-related regulations to the World Trade Authority (WTO).
Ryan voted for the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act (NCPA). Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) rightly warned, “These bills violate the Fourth Amendment, override privacy laws, and give the government unwarranted access to the personal information of potentially millions of Americans.”
Paul Ryan voted against a bill that would have prevented U.S. taxpayer dollars from being given to “Syrian rebels.” Those Syrian rebels, of course, are ISIS terrorists. Ryan is simply another warmongering neocon like Dick Cheney, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain.
Ryan voted against a bill that would have prevented the further militarization of our local and State police agencies by prohibiting the U.S. military from supplying local police departments with combat military equipment, such as drones, armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and bombs. These military utensils are more fitted for the military occupation of a hostile territory–which apparently is the way Paul Ryan and his fellow liberal/neocons in Washington, D.C., must view the American homeland.
Paul Ryan voted against an amendment that would have prevented the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. “Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the indefinite military detention of any person detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force authority in the United States, its territories, or possessions by providing immediate transfer to a trial and proceedings by a court. It also would strike language that would provide for mandatory military custody of covered parties.
“The House [with John Boehner and Paul Ryan’s leadership] rejected Smith’s amendment. Indefinite military detention is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment, and an executive who can wield such powers is akin to a monarch or dictator. As Rep. Smith said during consideration of the amendment: ‘That is an enormous amount of power to give the Executive: to take someone and lock them up without due process. It is an enormous amount of power to grant the Executive, and I believe places liberty and freedom at risk in this country.’”
The Conservative Review also gives Paul Ryan an “F” grade on their scorecard. They note that Ryan voted to fund Planned Parenthood. Ryan also voted against killing Obama’s amnesty deal for illegal aliens.
Amnesty for illegals is one of Ryan’s priorities. He “promised” conservatives in the House that he would delay amnesty until 2017 (BIG DEAL), but everyone knows Ryan will most definitely ram an amnesty deal through the House. On this issue, Ryan is WORSE than Boehner.
“On Monday the Remembrance Project, a group which honors the memory of Americans killed by illegal aliens, hosted a press conference. Breitbart News spoke exclusively to many of the victim’s family members about their thoughts on House Republican leadership.
“‘We don’t want Paul Ryan whatsoever. He’s worse than Boehner. We’ve seen what he will do [if he’s elected Speaker]’ said the Remembrance Project’s founder, Maria Espinoza.
“A newly-aired PBS documentary shows how that Paul Ryan and Mick Mulvaney labored with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to push Rubio’s amnesty agenda through the House of Representatives. Rush Limbaugh has warned that if Ryan is Speaker and Rubio is President, ‘Then in the first 12 months of the Rubio…administration, first 12-to-18 months, the donor-class agenda is implemented, including amnesty and whatever else they want. That is the objective here.’
“‘All of us are against Ryan [as Speaker] and Marco Rubio [for President] because we’re against amnesty,’ Mary Ann Mendoza told Breitbart News exclusively.”
Just recently, the neocon Mitt Romney admitted what most of us knew all along (but what he vehemently denied on the presidential campaign trail in 2012): that he supports Obamacare and proudly helped pave the way for it. And, of course, who did Neocon Romney choose as his running mate? Neocon Matt Ryan.
Just this week, the new incoming House Speaker Paul Ryan is supporting John Boehner and Barack Obama as they collaborate together to remove another debt ceiling limitation for the current federal spending bill. As a Breitbart.com report said the deal “effectively writes lame-duck President Obama a blank check to rack up debt.”
And, as I have told you before, the Gun Owners of America (GOA) has warned that a Ryan speakership would be “Boehner on Steroids.” GOA also said that a Ryan speakership “would be disastrous for gun owners.”
Replacing John Boehner with Paul Ryan is like trading a fox for a coyote. Neither one had or has any intention of guarding America’s constitutional hen house.
I tell you the truth: the ONLY thing that stands between us and open oppression is tens of millions of gun owners in this country. Our national media (and much of our local media–especially in big cities) is no help. In fact, they are enthusiastic supporters of our demise. Our institutions of higher learning are no help. And our pastors and churches have almost totally capitulated. For the most part, they provide no help for the cause of liberty. NONE.
How long is it going to take for our State governors and legislatures to realize that, like it or not, sooner or later the only way to preserve liberty will be to follow the example of our patriot forebears and separate from an out-of-control, power-mad American Crown–which is exactly the way D.C., is behaving. If an abused wife has the legal and moral right to separate from an abusive husband, abused states certainly have a legal and moral right to separate from an abusive federal government.
Of the current crop of presidential candidates, the only one that I think has a true grasp of the Constitution (even if he doesn’t always act like it) is Rand Paul. But his campaign is already on life-support.
For example, I live in what might be the strongest Ron Paul county in America. One still sees Ron Paul bumper stickers all over the place. So far, I have not seen one single Rand Paul bumper sticker. Not one! That is as big a testament to Rand’s inability to excite the Ron Paul revolutionaries and constitutionalist/libertarians as one could ever find.
Donald Trump is successfully taking on the establishment unlike anyone is modern politics. I see that as a huge net positive. Frankly, I like a lot of things he is saying. But other things he says concern me greatly. And maybe what I’m concerned about the most is what he is NOT saying–I haven’t heard him say anything about the Constitution.
As for the rest of the candidates, I don’t trust any of them–including Ben Carson and Ted Cruz.
Ben Carson’s emphatic promotion of government-forced vaccinations is anathema to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge and appreciation for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. His support for forced-vaccinations portrays a vast constitutional ignorance. Plus, I see Carson as extremely weak on the Second Amendment. His initial belief was that people who live in big cities should not be allowed to own semi-automatic firearms. After entering the presidential race, and taking fire for his statements from GOP constituents, he seems to have changed his position. But I don’t trust that this is as much him “seeing the light” as it is him “feeling the heat.” As brilliant a mind as he has for medicine, I see Carson as constitutionally challenged.
Ted Cruz is just another rabid neocon when it comes to foreign policy. The neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East would undoubtedly continue unabated (and probably even escalate) under a Cruz presidency. No thanks.
Jeb Bush is the neocon’s neocon. He is the quintessential establishment insider–and his list of contributors reflects this fact. In spite of the support Bush is receiving from establishment insiders, his campaign is floundering. If Jeb withdraws, establishment support will most likely fall to Marco Rubio’s campaign. Rubio is an establishment player through and through. In fact, as noted above, Rubio would be as bad as Barack Obama when it comes to amnesty for illegals. It does appear that the globalists are posturing a Rubio/Ryan team to take America into the New World Order.
Regardless, I am convinced of one thing: when the meltdown, or breakup–or whatever else you want to call it–happens, I am EXACTLY where I want to be. Like Switzerland in the middle of WW II, this region of the country will NEVER surrender its guns or its liberties. If the East Coast and West Coast want to dive headlong into oppression, let them. The Redoubt isn’t budging. Our resolve is as fixed as our mountains.
I hope Texas can hold out too.
I ask again: Can America survive another eight years of liberal/neocon domination of Washington, D.C., because that’s probably what we are looking at.
Maybe the better question is, Can your State and region survive?
P.S. As I said last week, I am pleased to announce that James Jaeger’s brand new film, “Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law,” will be premiered on Friday, November 6, 2015, from 6pm through 11pm Mountain Time. Distinguished luminaries such as Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and several others are featured in this film. I am honored to also be featured.
I invite readers to go to my website on Friday evening, November 6, and watch the premiere of this outstanding film. And please tell your friends. DVDs of the film will also be available the night of the premiere via my website. Watch the film here:
TOTAL FIX JOB: Included Blackmail, Extortion, and Bribery to get it done!
Republicans officially nominate TPP lobbyist Paul Ryan for House speaker | 28 Oct 2015 | House Republicans on Wednesday nominated Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, long seen as one of the party’s brightest stars [but, in actuality, another Grade ‘A’ sociopath], to become their next speaker and standard-bearer. The internal party vote to choose a successor for outgoing Speaker John A. Boehner took place behind closed doors in an afternoon meeting. According to a tally announced inside the room, Ryan won support from 200 of the 247-member GOP conference. A House floor vote to select the new speaker is set for Thursday morning, bringing an end to a five-week scramble to find Boehner’s replacement.
“Paul Ryan is responsible for the House passing bailouts for Wall Street… he voted to bail out Wall Street in 2008 (TARP)