Name that globalist


Who can name all the globalists in this creation of care picture?


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Doctors Warn Avoid Genetically Modified Food


Doctors Warn Avoid
Genetically Modified Food

By Jeffrey M. Smith
7-22-9


The American Academy of Environmental Medicine states,"Genetically Modified foods have not been properly tested and pose a serious health risk. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation."

Last May the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks." They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling.

AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies."

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods." Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that "children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems" related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become "the experimental animals."

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks-compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color-from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investi-gations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.

Food Designed to Produce Toxins

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt (produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis) has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room. The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India who have handled Bt cotton. In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, "Victims of itching have increased massively this year related to BT cotton farming."

American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, "Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation," in-cluding increase in cytokines, which are "associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation"-all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are "a consistent feature of all the studies." Even Monsanto's own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn. A November 2008 study by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties, GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor-a known soy allergen-and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin most probably Bt-toxin." In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days. Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. Monsanto's own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.

Worst Finding of All-GMOs Remain Inside Us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests. But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists' concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto's vice president.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, "GM foods have not been properly tested" and "pose a serious health risk." Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the "potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants" revealed "that experimental data are very scarce." The author concludes his review by asking, "Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?"

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, "The experiments simply haven't been done and we now have become the guinea pigs." He adds, "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."

Dr. Schubert points out, "If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood-but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their "members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health."

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets-unless it says organic or "non-GMO."

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe-by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, American Academy of Environmental Medicine's non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world's bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don't have the data to show that their products are safe. Spilling the Beans, the institute's monthly column, is available at www.reliabletechnology.org. The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants. Contact American Academy of Environmental Medicine at (734) 213-4901; environmentalmed@yahoo.com; www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.

http://www.sentienttimes.com/09/June_July_09/doctors.html


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism

Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism


Global Research, July 23, 2009













Senator Steve Fielding recently asked the [Australian] Climate Change Minister Penny Wong why human emissions can be blamed for global warming, given that air temperatures peaked in 1998 and began a cooling trend in 2002, while carbon dioxide levels have risen five per cent since 1998. I was one of the four independent scientists Fielding chose to accompany him to visit the Minister.

The Minister's advisor essentially told us that short term trends in air temperatures are irrelevant, and to instead focus on the rapidly rising ocean heat content:



Figure 1: Wong's graph.

This is the new trend in climate alarmism. Previously the measure of global warming has always been air temperatures. But all the satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002. The land thermometers preferred by the alarmists showed warming until 2006, but even they show a cooling trend developing since then.

(Land thermometers cannot be trusted because, even in the USA, 89 per cent of them fail siting guidelines that they be more than 30 meters from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source, and their data is forever being "corrected".)

Ocean temperatures were not properly measured until mid-2003, when the Argo network became operational.

Before Argo, ocean temperatures were measured with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes fired into the water by a gun from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes. Geographical coverage of the world's oceans was poor, XBTs do not go as deep as Argo, and their data is much less accurate.

The Argo network consists of over 3,000 small, drifting oceanic robot probes, floating around all of the world's oceans. Argo floats duck dive down to 1,000 meters or more, record temperatures, then come up and radio back the results.




Figure 2: The Argo network has floats measuring temperature in all of the oceans.




Figure 3: An Argo float descends to cruising depth, drifts for a few days, ascends while recording temperatures, then transmits data to satellites.

The Argo data shows that the oceans have been in a slight cooling trend since at least late-2004, and possibly as far back as mid-2003 when the Argo network started:




Figure 4: Ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0-700 metres. There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows. (This shows the recalibrated data, after the data from certain instruments with a cool bias were removed. Initial Argo results showing strong cooling.)

Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in charge of the Argo data, said in March 2008: "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant".

The ocean data that the alarmists are relying on to establish their warming trends is all pre-Argo, from XBTs. Now that we are measuring ocean temperatures properly, the warming trend has disappeared. And by coincidence, it disappeared just when we started measuring it properly!
Notice how the Minister's graph above shows rising ocean heat content for 2004 through 2006, but the Argo data shows a cooling trend? There is a problem here.

The Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet. There is no official or unofficial website showing the latest ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graph above come from Craig Loehle, who got the data from Willis, analysed it, and put the results in a peer reviewed paper available on the Internet. Given the importance of the ocean temperatures, don't you think this is extraordinary?

If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don't you suppose it would be publicised endlessly?

So what's going on? Our best data, from satellites and Argo, says that both the air and oceans have not warmed for at least five years now. In the short term, some cooling force is overpowering the warming due to human emissions.

Let's look at the long-term trend. The medieval warm period around AD 1000 - 1300 was a little warmer than now: crops grew in Greenland, and there were many signs around the world of extra warmth during that period. That gave way to the bitter cold of the little ice age from 1400 to 1800: animals in Europe died from cold even inside barns, and the River Thames in London would freeze over every winter (it last froze over in 1804).

Global air temperatures have been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since about 1750, as the world recovers from the little ice age:


Figure 5: Reasonable global air temperature data only goes back to 1880. This analysis into a steady rising trend and oscillations is simply an empirical observation, by Dr Syun Akasofu. The IPCC predictions are their widely publicised 2001 predictions.

On top of that trend are oscillations that last about 30 years in each direction:

1882 - 1910 Cooling
1910 - 1944 Warming
1944 - 1975 Cooling
1975 - 2001 Warming

In 2009 we are where the green arrow points in Figure 5, with temperature levelling off and beginning to fall slightly. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of cooling until about 2030.

The long-term trend suggests that the last warming period (1975-2001) was like the previous one (1910-1944), and that once the effects of the little ice age have finally passed, the temperature will get back to where it was in the medieval warm period (which is also where it was during the Roman Optimum, and in the Holocene optimum before that).

What about human influence? Human emissions of CO2 were virtually non-existent before 1850, and were insignificant compared to current levels until after 1945.

It is worth bearing in mind that there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide was the main cause of recent warming—it's only an assumption, and the calculations of future temperature rises derive most of their warming from an assumed water vapor feedback for which there is only counter-evidence.

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.


Global Research Articles by David Evans


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Moxxor, the nutritional secret from New Zealand

The all natural, Eco-Friendly solution to Joint pain and Inflammation:
Moxxor




What is Moxxor?

Moxxor is a brand new health product that combines the two most powerful all-natural supplements in their class-
the preeminent Omega-3 extracted from the New Zealand greenlip mussel, and the most potent antioxidant, extracted from the New Zealand sauvignon blanc grape seed




You'll want to experience Moxxor for yourself to see the benefits it can have in supporting your own health. That's why
Moxxor is backed by a 100% 90-day money-back guarantee to all retail customers. You'll absolutely love Moxxor's positive impact on your wellbeing, or you can return it for a full refund (minus shipping).

What can MOXXOR be taken for?

MOXXOR can help reduce the inflammation process for the following conditions:

  • Joint Problems
  • Skin Disorders
  • Breathing Difficulties caused by inflammation
  • Immune Disorders

heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, depression, dry-eye, psoriasis, crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, migraine headaches, and allergies







What do the top authors, doctors and health experts have to say about the realtionship between omega-3 fatty acids and inflammation?


Moxxor

Product
The science

Quality assurance


Science advisory board

Product frequently asked questions

Opportunity
Financial Opportunity

Compensation plan

Opportunity frequently asked questions

How to get Moxxor Now

Buy it online:

You may buy Moxxor online from myomega3 at $60 per bottle.

Click here to purchase Moxxor now with a 90-day, 100% satisfaction guarantee.

Cost = $60 per bottle

Get a $10 discount on every bottle:

You may get a discount on Moxxor by purchasing Moxxor on autoship. To become a preferred customer, click here to purchase Moxxor now and choose "autoship" when completing your order to receive the $10 discount.

Cost = $50 per bottle

Earn affiliate commissions by recommending Moxxor:

You may also choose to participate in Moxxor's multi-tier affiliate program, which earns you affiliate fees on the sale of Moxxor supplements that you introduce to others. Click here to enroll with myomega3 now or use the following contact information to reach jesse:

Phone: 413 687-4286
Click here to email

Cost = $50 per bottle, with potential for weekly earnings from multi-tier affiliate program

Listen to the Audio that explains this earnings potential:

Click here to listen now
(MP3 file by Mike Adams)

Read the article on Moxxor
by the Health Ranger

Listen to the Moxxor introduction audio
by the Health Ranger



Natural News Moxxor team

Once you join our team, you'll be invited to our LIVE weekly audio meetings online, where you can listen to Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, provide strategies for success with Moxxor. You can even email your questions in real time, and Adams spends time each week answering those live questions.

You'll also have access to all our other NaturalNews marketing tools that can help you rapidly grow your Moxxor binary tree well beyond the numbers mentioned in this projection. All those tools are available to you free of charge. You will get your own personalized versions of these tools:

Video presentation

Health benefits article

Financial Opportunity article

Ready to get started?

Click here to enroll now with myomega3.



What is in Moxxor?

MOXXOR includes a concentrate of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA's) extracted from Perna Canaliculus (the New Zealand greenlip mussel). The omega-3 fatty acids found in greenlip mussels are up to 250 times more effective than other omega-3 oils in the market. An essential component of Moxxor, these omega-3s are of such a high concentration and natural balance that it would take 247 capsules of salmon oil for example to equal just 1 capsule of MOXXOR. Numerous studies have linked the omega-3s in greenlip mussels to measurable health benefits, including a study at the University of California which linked these omega-3s to reduced arthritic symptoms. (See Allerg Immunol (Paris), Sept. 2000;32(7):272-8). A 2003 study at the Yonsei Medical Clinic validated the clinical effectiveness of greenlip mussel extract given to patients with osteoarthritis. (See Allerg Immunol (Paris). June 2003;35(6):212-6.) For related studies visit our Articles and Research section.

MOXXOR MUSSEL OIL HAS AN ANTI-INFLAMMATORY VALUE THAT IS
158 times more effective than Salmon Oil
247 times more effective than Fish Oil
316 times more effective than Evening Primrose Oil
395 times more effective than Flax Oil


An antioxidant is a biochemical that can neutralize harmful molecules in our bodies known as free radicals. Free radicals are produced during normal metabolism and cell function, as well as pollutants in our air, water and food, and have the ability to oxidize and damage our body's cells. It is for this reason that scientists believe that 5 to 8 servings per day of antioxidant rich fruits and vegetables can benefit your health, but consuming this much on a daily basis can be a challenge at our modern pace of life.

The antioxidants found in MOXXOR comes from New Zealand's award winning Sauvignon blanc grapes, from the South Island of New Zealand where the unique atmospheric conditions cause the seed to have greater levels of super antioxidant OPC (oligomeric procyanidin compounds) than any known fruit or berry, and are free from genetically modified material, heavy metals, arsenic, toxins, and pesticides. A standard known as ORAC (oxygen radical absorption capacity) is often used to compare the relative strength of antioxidants. The acai berry has received considerable attention as a naturally potent antioxidant in recent years, yet as you will see below, it rates significantly lower on the ORAC scale than the MOXXOR grape seed extract.

SUPERFRUITS - 1 Gram ORAC VALUE
MOXXOR Grape Seed Extract 12,000 units/g
Acai Berry 3,800 units/g*
Mangosteen 3120 units/g*
Goji Berry 253 units/g*
Pomegranate 105 units/g*

MOXXOR GRAPE SEED EXTRACT HAS AN ORAC VALUE THAT IS
3 times more effective than Acai Berry
4 times more effective than Mangosteen
47 times more effective than Goji Berry
114 times more effective than Pomegranate


Many illnesses can be attributed in part to inflammation. Man-made anti-inflammatory products have proven themselves to be potentially dangerous. Doctors, researchers and scientists around the globe are recognizing and embracing the significance of Omega-3s for heart health, joint strength, brain function development, and overall well-being. Studies have shown that diets high in Omega-3 can safely assist to reduce pain and illnesses associated with heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, depression, dry-eye, psoriasis, and allergies. New Zealand greenlip mussels are shown to have the highest concentration of Omega-3 essential oils on the planet.

Looking to provide a complete world-class wellness product, the preeminent antioxidant has been added. The world's most powerful antioxidant comes from within the sauvignon blanc grape seed husk found only in the Marlborough region. Researchers have shown that antioxidants effectively combat free-radicals and aging.


Omega 3's and grape seed extract in the news


Here's what Moxxor users have to say about it

"I have been struggling with hip bursitis for over two years. The pain was so bad that it would even wake me up in the night. Since the ibuprofen did not seem to help, my doctor said the next step would be steroid injections. After taking Moxxor for three weeks I am pain free! I have also noticed an immense improvement with my concentration and overall skin health. The product is amazing beyond words!" - Eric, UPS driver, Michigan

"The pain is completely gone!

"For the past two years I've had pain in both my elbows and left rotator cuff. (Due to old injuries) The pain in my shoulder was severe. I've tried many different health formulas that were guaranteed to work, nothing helped. I was skeptical when I read about Moxxor on NaturalNews.com, but I know Mike Adams does a thorough investigation before the product is introduced to his readers so I decided to give it a try. I've been using Moxxor for almost a month the pain in my elbows is completely gone and my shoulder is at least 90% improved. Moxxor truly is a remarkable product." - Darla Tatman, Founder of Go-Organic-Now.com, Indiana

"Decreased pain and increased energy"

"The first day I took Moxxor, I noticed less pain and more energy. In less than two weeks, I was able to walk my dog for over an hour, when before I could barely make it 15 minutes. One evening, I twisted my wrist. I planned to go the next morning to get a wrist brace. After taking my Moxxor the next morning, I noticed that the pain had disappeared, so I didn't need a brace. I have continued to have decreasing pain and increased energy while taking Moxxor." - Pam Dibbern in Houston, Texas

"Can finally play racquetball!"

"Less than a month ago I was introduced to Moxxor. I started taking it daily in place of my favorite brand of fish oil containing primrose for women. Immediately I experienced an energetic alertness on just one capsule. I was so excited that I wanted to see what two capsules would do. Amazingly, after a few exercise regimens there was no longer any burning pain lingering in my shoulder that was badly injured 19 years ago. Taking Moxxor has not only eased my shoulder joint movement but has also enabled me to endure more rigorous and extended exercises. Now I'm really anxious to finally learn how to play racquetball!" - Tina Gunther

"Added over 20 yards to my golf drive!"

"My husband of almost 50 years, Jerry, also a Moxxor distributor, is amazed at the changes Moxxor has made. He was a plumber all his working life and it paid a huge toll on his body. He's also had diabetes for 60 years. He's been on Moxxor for less than 2 months but noticed these changes with 2 weeks. He's standing straighter, walking better (no more electric carts at Wal-Mart) and has more energy overall. But, the best thing, according to Jerry, he's added over 20 yards to his golf drive. This is after a summer of deciding to quit golf for good. He's back in the game and we're both loving it. As for myself, my golf drives are much better because my shoulders don't hurt. Moxxor is an amazing product. Thank you Mike for making this possible for both of us." - Gail Rollo

"Sleep has improved greatly!"

"After taking Moxxor for three days I notice a big difference, I'm real clear headed, I just full so much lighter and my overall wellbeing has improved greatly. I'm able to absorb the data from books and other reading materials. At work it's easier to resolve solutions to different problems, come up with better ideas. I feel my over all brain function has improved greatly. My sleep has improved greatly; I sleep much sounder and I'm able to wake up more refreshed. My, hair and skin is much healthier and seems to glow. My wife has had pain in her side and after a week of taking Moxxor, the pain is completely gone. We are all so very lucky that John and Noel Turner have come up with this great product. I have always been the type of person to try something for myself. When I tried Moxxor and it worked, it seemed amazing and that's why I decided to become a distributor; not only for the financial opportunity but also the opportunity to help others achieve greater health. I'm very pleased to be associated with such an ethical group of people, from John and Noel Turner as well as the entire Moxxor team. I also want to personally thank Mike Adams and the entire Moxxor NaturalNews team for all the great support and inspiration. I want to thank you all from the bottom of my heart. To your health." - John, Cambridge Maryland

"No longer sore from hours of digging!"

"In my spare time I dig and mine gemstones, crystals and minerals in the mountains of Maine. One way that I find crystals is by driving an hour and a half into the mountains, hiking for two hours up a mountain with a bunch of digging tools, dig like a machine for hours on end, hike back down the mountain with a backpack full of Amethyst, and my tools, then drive home for another hour and a half. Needless to say, by the end of the day I have incurred some serious inflammation. Doing this before taking Moxor would leave me sore for at least 2-3 days. Now that I take this product, I do not even get sore and can in fact go multiple days in a row with nothing but positive side effects! Seriously! What is this stuff!!?? This product is the most exciting nutritional I have ever used in my entire life! And believe me, I have always taken only the best supplements that the world has to offer! Just a side note, when I engage in the strenuous physical activities that I have described above, I take at least 10-12 pills a day. When I am not that active I usually take 4-5." - Seth Leaf, CEO and Owner of Living Nutz Living Organic Foods

"Pain in my back was gone!"

"I have had ongoing back pain for the last 6 or more years due to sitting many hours at work. The last year or so the pain has gotten really unbearable. My sciatic nerve was affected and I could not sit at the computer or the desk to do my work, so I had to stand all day. Within about 4 days after starting on Moxxor I noticed the pain in my back was gone. I quit taking the Moxxor to see if the pain would return, which it did, so I started taking Moxxor again and the pain subsided totally. I took Moxxor for about a month and then quit to see if the pain in my back would return. It did not return!! Since that time I take Moxxor 3 times a day and I have been completely pain free and feel great! I cannot believe that this product is so awesome. Thank you so much for finding and introducing Moxxor to me. I trust in you and the information you provide. It is such a great feeling to know that there is someone else out there that really cares about the health and wellbeing of others the way I do." - Deb Batty

"No soreness after pitching softball!"

"My name is Mark Blair and I am a 57 year old fast-pitch softball player that loves Moxxor! Back in October I was invited to a fall practice at our local Junior College to pitch a simulation game. I hadn't thrown a ball underhand for over a month and knew that I'd be extremely sore the next day. I threw almost 200 pitches and was only slightly sore the next day and on my second day (which is usually the worst for soreness) I was only slightly sore. Incredible! Two Moxxor in the morning and two in the afternoon. Moxxor rocks!" - Mark Blair, Tucson, Arizona

Keeps up with the kids' marching band!

"I have been using Moxxor for about 3 weeks. I have good results, if not superior results, to report in pain and swelling abatement. I'm a 62 year old music teacher. I am required to teach general and instrumental music, lead the 4-8th grade band and march with them in the annual Christmas parade. Some days have been an absolute nightmare, trying to keep up with my K-3 music kids and my band and my private students. My job, my ability as a musician and my self respect all hinge on being physically functional. Recently, the parents started seeing a difference in me. Lately, the parents are calling me to find out what I am on, that has enabled me to be so active with the children. They have noticed, and they are calling me to tell me all their complaints, wondering if what I am on will help them. How exciting is that?" - Jo Ellard

Pain free after cancer treatment

"Hi Mike, I wanted to give you this report regarding the administration of Moxxor in larger than average amounts. I am currently working with a 78 year old woman with metastasized stage 4 cancer of the bone. It all started with a diagnosis of cancer of the bladder two years ago. After two rounds of chemo, she suffered a major heart attack and severe nausea. This was then followed by radiation, which made her so sick that she could not continue. Thereafter, they removed her bladder and all of her female organs leaving her completely enervated and without hope. I began working with her this past April using all of the natural protocols with which I am familiar. Her progress has been very good but she has been suffering a lot of pain in spite of everything that we've tried. I placed her on 10 (that's right...ten) MOXXOR capsules per day divided into two doses with meals. For the first time in almost 18 months, she is now COMPLETELY pain-free! We went for a walk today. She's crying for joy. So am I. Thanks. And please thank the guys at Moxxor for us both." - Jim (requested name anonymity due to medical practice)

Why Moxxor is superior to competing products

Moxxor is the only green-lipped mussel product in the world that delivers raw, naturally-preserved (with grape seed extract), unadulterated green-lipped mussel oil in a capsule with no fillers, no chemicals and no questionable ingredients.

Competing products contain inferior "filler" ingredients that offer no therapeutic benefits and may, in fact, compromise the effectiveness of their supplements. One competing name-brand product is made from: Stabilized (freeze-dried) Marine Lipid Extract, Olive Oil, Gelatin, Sorbitol (a sugar alcohol), Vegetable Glycerin, Vitamin E and Soybean Oil.

Soybean oil? That's high in omega-6 fatty acids, which are the very fatty acids people already consume in excess quantities! Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol commonly used in cough syrups, and it has laxative effects that may be unwelcomed. Vegetable glycerin is a chemical used in pharmaceuticals, skin care products, shaving cream and personal lubricants. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerin) It's also a laxative, too.

Do you really want to be eating sugar alcohol chemicals, glycerin and cheap soybean oil fillers? That's the whole point of these ingredients, of course: To create "cheap fillers" that make the capsule look larger than it needs to be. Moxxor uses no fillers. Each one of the three ingredient in Moxxor is put there for a therapeutic purpose.

What's NOT in Moxxor is just as important...

In addition to using just three simple ingredients (green-lipped mussel oil, deep marine omega-3 fish oil and grape seed extract), Moxxor has undergone comprehensive lab testing certifying it to be:

• Free of heavy metals like mercury, cadmium or lead
• Free of any detectable traces of over 180 pesticides
• Free of PCBs or other chemical contaminants

This is because Moxxor is grown in pristine aquaculture farms located off the coast of New Zealand. The waters are pristine, unpolluted and tightly regulated by the New Zealand government. No fish feed of any kind is introduced into the aquaculture farms, and the green-lipped mussels feed exclusively off the naturally-occurring marine phytoplankton present in the waters that flow northward from the Antarctica.

Many fish oil products contain bizarre chemical ingredients

Beware of low-cost fish oil products!

A NaturalNews investigation revealed that Kirkland Signature Enteric Coated Fish Oil Concentrate (sold at Costco retail stores) may contain the following chemicals:

Methacrylic Acid Copolymer, Ethylcellulose, Sodium Alginate, Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose Phthalate, Medium Chain Triglyceride, Triacetin, Oleic Acid, Stearic Acid, Ammonium Hydroxide, Polyethylene Glycol

Polyethylene Glycol is a chemical commonly used in personal lubricants, laxatives and toothpastes. It is being researched for use in body armor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_glycol)

In addition, there is currently no legal requirement that fish oils disclose the levels of heavy metals contamination found in their products. Fish oil supplements are being sold today that contain potentially harmful levels of mercury, but consumers currently have no way to determine these contamination levels simply by looking at the product label.


Krill populations decline 80% - National Geographic

All the consumers taking krill oil supplements need to think twice about what they're doing: Krill populations have plummeted 80 percent across the world's oceans, and because krill are a major food source for marine mammals, whales populations may already be impacted by the non-sustainable harvesting of krill.

The bottom line is that if you take krill oil supplements, you are harming whales. This is one reason why so many are switching to green-lipped mussels for a sustianable, eco-friendly source of marine omega-3 fatty acids.


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Ron Paul: Health care is a good, not a right.



Whether you agree with dr. Paul or not, I don't think anyone in their right mind would want mandatory eugenics care, which is what Obama and his group of Tzars seem to be advocating.


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Bailout cost 24 trillion?

According to the watchdog overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full exposure since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for every American citizen.















What the F?... This figure would pay off every mortgage, credit card, and a whole lot more.


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Ron Paul 7/16/09 “Federal Reserve Inflation Wipes Out The Middle Class, Protects The Wealthy”


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Downsize DC!

Join downsize DC, send your letters to congress with your "freedom mouse" and give the congress critters a piece you your mind. Time is short, and the idea of freedom needs to be heard. These are just some of the campaigns we are working on right now:










Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

INJUNCTION AGAINST MANDATORY HHS A H1N1 FLU VACCINATION PLEADING DOCUMENT BOILERPLATE MODEL


This is the most important issue, we cannot let government get so out of hand that it will force vaccinate us for our own good. If you have the means, file this injunction immediately if not sooner!

This is the template for US District Civil Court Filing of Injunctive Relieve against Mandatory HHS US Federal A H1N1 Vaccination Programs.


Join JurisDictionary via the link on www.NutriMedical.com and then modify with our clerical help to your state statutes noted per your particular state, province, or country.


File Pro Se ASAP to stop this tyranny against the USA public, Canadian Public, UK and European Public, Australian Pulbic and Citizens of All WHO UN Mandatory Vaccination Programs for A H1N1 or future recombinant clades including H5N1 recombinant viral pandemic flu.


CATEGORIES OF PROBABLE AND POTENTIAL IMMUNOTOXIC INJURY& DEATH:

1] PROBABLE ACUTE OR CHRONIC ADJUVANT TOXIN INDUCED NEUROLOGICAL , e.g. MF59 INCLUDING SQUALENE OILS PROVEN TO INDUCE ADJUVANT LUPUS, MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TYPE AND OTHER AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES. INDUCTION OF CHRONIC AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, VASCULITIS, NEUROPATHY, CELLULAR AND ANTIBODY MEDIATED END ORGAN DAMAGE AND POSSIBLE DEATH ARE WELL KNOW TO BE CAUSED BY TOXIC ADJUVANTS. NEW PROPOSED ADJUVANTS INCLUDE MF59, HEAVY METALS ALUMINUM, MERCURY, PLAMIDS OF RNA OR DNA OF RABIES VIRUS, DRUGS SUCH AS METFORMIN, ETC. TO BE REVIEWED AT DISCOVERY WITH VACCINE MANUFACTURERS FOR HHS.

2] POTENTIALLY HOT BATCHES WITH CONTAMINANT STEALTH PATHOGENS, E.G. MYCOPLASMA, VIRUSES, FUNGI AND ACUTE OR CHRONIC ILLNESS, PLAMIDS CONTAINING RNA AND DNA FRAGMENTS AND GENE CASSETTES.

3] DANGERS OF USE OF RNA AND DNA PLASMA ANTIGENIC AMPLIFICATION IN NEW TEST VACCINES CAN EPIGENETICALLY SWITCH ON GENES CAUSING SERIOUS IMMEDIATE HEALTH DANGERS, ACUTE AND CHRONIC AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES AND CANCER CELL TRANSFORMATION ONCOGENETIC INDUCTION




4] PROBABLE FASTER A H1N1 VIRAL GENETIC RECOMBINANT SUBSTRAIN CLADES GENERATION, WITH POTENTIALLY HIGHER CASE INFECTIVITY AND CASE FATALITY RATES WITH THE USE OF NEWER RNA VACCINATION TECHNOLOGIES

5] VACCINATION INDUCED DEPRESSION OF IMMUNE PROTECTION AGAINST PRIMARY INFLUENZA INFECTION AND GREATER CASE FREQUENCY AND MORE SERIOUS CASE MOBIDITY AND HIGHER A H1N1 CASE FATALITIES

WORD DOC FOR LEADING DOCUMENTS -- JOIN JURISDICTIONARY AND CONTACT DR BILL DEAGLE MD drbilldeagle@hotmail.com or 760-295-3256 for aid to file ASAP in your State, Province or Country

"More Information" Below to the Right Open and Modify for Your State, Province or Country !


NOW !!


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Fed Independence or Fed Secrecy?

Fed Independence or Fed Secrecy?
By Ron Paul
Published 07/14/09


Last week I was very pleased that hearings were held on the independence of the Federal Reserve system. My bill HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, was discussed at length, as well as the general question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue to operate independently.

The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint's heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.

The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.

Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of "independence".

They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.

They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics -- power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.

The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress's constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue.




© 2009 Campaign for Liberty


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

Original article here


In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 110709top2

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Saturday, July 11, 2009

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.


- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.


- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.


- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.


- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.


- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.


- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.


The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 110709book

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren “hides behind the passive voice” in this passage, by saying “it has been concluded.” Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that’s whom. What Holdren’s really saying here is, “I have determined that there’s nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.” And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there’s no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for “compulsory population-control laws.” In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that “the population crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what’s especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals — wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not — but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous and “level-headed” tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.

Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I’m reminded of the phrase “banality of evil.”

Not that it matters, but I myself am “pro-choice” — i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion — I don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice — to force women to have abortions. One doesn’t need to be a “pro-life” activist to see the horror of this proposal — people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.

There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you’re against it or not.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion “seems to horrify people more than most proposals,” you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterilization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Note well the phrase “with official permission” in the above quote. John Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don’t.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book — and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone — but those who “contribute to social deterioration” could be “forced to exercise reproductive responsibility” which could only mean one thing — compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to “force” people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No — the only way to “force” people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.

But what manner of insanity is this? “Social deterioration”? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social deterioration more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?

We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was “feeble-minded” and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.

The italicized phrase at the end (”providing they are not denied equal protection”), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn’t be racially based or discriminatory — merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren’s America determines that you are “contributing to social deterioration” by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so — how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or — most disturbingly of all — perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.

Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already? But it’s a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it’s not so funny anymore.

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Why?

I’ll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holdren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the “Planetary Regime”! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn’t it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control “all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable” (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers “that discharge into the oceans” (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What’s left? Not much.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the “Planetary Regime,” presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.

It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase “pronatalist attitude,” which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a “pronatalist attitude”? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people’s natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!

What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his “scientific” projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the “solutions” which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.


SCREENSHOTS OF PAGES FROM ECOSCIENCE (CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENTS)

Front cover Back cover Title page
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures front cover small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures back cover small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures title small
Page 749 Page 786 Page 787
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 749 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 786 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 787 small
Page 788 Page 789 Page 837
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 788 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 789 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 837 small
Page 838 Page 839 Page 917
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 838 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 839 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 917 small
Page 942 Page 943 Page 944
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 942 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 943 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 944 small
Page 1001 Page 1002 Page 1003
Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 1001 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 1002 small Obama Science Advisor Called For Planetary Regime To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures 1003 small

It is important to point out that John Holdren has never publicly distanced himself from any of these positions in the 32 years since the book was first published. Indeed, as you can see from the first picture that accompanies this article, Holdren prominently displays a copy of the book in his own personal library and is happy to be photographed with it.

It is also important to stress that these are not just the opinions of one man. As we have exhaustively documented, most recently in our essay, The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies, the positions adopted in this book echo those advocated by numerous other prominent public figures in politics, academia and the environmental movement for decades.

Consider the fact that people like David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates, three men who have integral ties to the eugenicist movement, recently met with other billionaire “philanthropists” in New York to discuss “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population,” according to a London Times report.

Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west.

Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.

In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates’ father has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).

The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning “philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.

As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

The justification for the implementation of draconian measures of population control has changed to suit contemporary fads and trends. What once masqueraded as concerns surrounding overpopulation has now returned in the guise of the climate change and global warming movement. What has not changed is the fact that at its core, this represents nothing other than the arcane pseudo-science of eugenics first crafted by the U.S. and British elite at the end of the 19th century and later embraced by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.

The fact that the chief scientific advisor to the President of the United States, a man with his finger on the pulse of environmental policy, once openly advocated the mass sterilization of the U.S. public through the food and water supply, along with the plethora of other disgusting proposals highlighted in Ecoscience, is a frightening prospect that wouldn’t be out of place in some kind of futuristic sci-fi horror movie, and a startling indictment of the true source of what manifests itself today as the elitist controlled top-down environmental movement.

Only through bringing to light Holdren’s shocking and draconian population control plans can we truly alert people to the horrors that the elite have planned for us through population control, sterilization and genocidal culling programs that are already underway.


Share/Save/Bookmark
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati