SEARCH

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Serious accident sets off strange course of dangerous events

A paving company dump truck with some trailer equipment was trying to make a legal turnaround after he missed his turn, when a fuel tanker came up over the crest of the hill and caught him broadside overturning the rig. The tanker was fully loaded with fuel and both trucks burst into flames. Luckily, both drivers made it clear with only minor burns. But then the fire spread to a nearby warehouse, that just happened to be filled with fireworks! And then the fire melted an underground natural gas main!

If you made that up, no one would believe you.

http://dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/06/29/news/doc4c2a081dc1222483643052.txt

UPDATE: Police have filed charges against the driver of the dump truck for not having a proper license to operate the vehicle, and for making an illegal U-turn. It also turns out that the fireworks in the warehouse were illegal as well, perhaps dashing the hopes of the politician running for office who's wife owns the warehouse and was charged as well.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Media Broadcasts CIA War Propaganda

This certainly isn't the first time that the media has posted blatant propaganda, nor will it be the last, but the Associated Press article "CIA chief Panetta: US has driven back al-Qaida" found on Yahoo news is a clear example of brainless junk-food news, pandering to the weak-minded for political gain in support of the war in Afghanistan. There are so many things wrong with this article it's hard to know where to begin. So let's start with al-Qaeda.

There is no al-Qaeda, as the public has been led to believe. There is no organized network of terrorists training in desert camps and biding their time in sleeper cells around the world, waiting to do the bidding of Osama Bin Laden or any mysterious successor. There is no organized group of elite, dedicated gunman and operatives taking orders from some "terrorist-in-chief." Al-Qaeda, meaning literally "The Base," was a term used in reference to a computer database of a few thousand CIA-sponsored Mujahadeen fighters, including Osama Bin Laden, who were fighting the Soviets at the time. Since the 1980's, those fighters have died off or gone on about their lives as any other Afghan. Some probably went on to support the Taliban, others the Northern Alliance and the current reigning U.S.-supported government in Kabul, others still the various mountain warlords with their intricate web of questionable loyalties. Once you realize the truth of it, you realize how idiotic the term really is, as it is blazoned across headlines and emphasized in political speeches over and over again. It's as stupid as blaming every criminal act in America on "The Gang" while completely ignoring the fact that there is no one gang but a wide array of organized crime groups as well as untold numbers of individuals, each with their own motivations for every crime in the book. But of course, al-Qaeda "sounds foreign" so simple-minded folk are none the wiser and the media keeps right on reporting total rubbish.

Here is a related segment hosted on YouTube of a BBC special, and links for the full length version on Googlevideo...



The Power of Nightmares: Part 1


The Power of Nightmares: Part 2


The Power of Nightmares: Part 3


The series is also available for download here...


http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares




So what they are telling us with that headline, and the introduction to the article when they say, "The U.S. has driven al-Qaida into hiding and undermined its leadership," is nothing short of complete fabrication. They are lying to you, blatantly and without reservation. It is no more news than a supermarket tabloid declaring with all certainty that aliens were spotted having lunch with Elvis at the Ritz-Carlton hotel. Yet the fabrication is taken as gospel coming from the esteemed Associated Press, who pretty much dictate all mainstream media news reports in America by the way, and then disseminated by such seemingly reliable sources as Yahoo news or the various other media outlets that have carried this story. Nowhere in the national media, in neither left nor right leaning news outlets, do we see a peep of dissent questioning the validity of this fabrication. Of course President Obama is looking to gain support for his war strategy in Afghanistan, so some news to make it look like things are on track is needed now in the wake of his firing of General McChrystal, the theatre commander. Not to mention the troop surge and announced 2011 departure from Afghanistan of U.S. troops, which has all left the media pundits in a frenzy.

The article then goes on to sell a little fear to the reader once again by reporting CIA Director Panetta has stated that al-Qaeda is increasingly relying on terrorists without previous ties to terrorism, and those already in the United States. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the recent acts of terrorism in the U.S., as almost laughably unsuccessful as they have been, were in any way tied to this fictitious terror organization. But they aren't about to waste a perfectly good opportunity to have the reader jumping at shadows, in order to chip away at the last vestiges of liberty and to justify this enormously expensive police-state we now live in.

Panetta's own estimation is that there are fewer than a hundred al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. So it takes almost a hundred-thousand U.S. troops to hunt down less then a hundred of the world's most dangerous and wanted terrorists? That would be assuming of course, that al-Qaeda were as real as he would have us all believe. Mention is made of more members of the imaginary terror network holed up just across the border in the mountains of Pakistan. He then sates that U.S. drone strikes and spy operations have helped to take down half of al-Qaeda's top leadership. So we are making great headway finally against this imaginary enemy. Director Panetta then tries to give us with the impression that we are winning the fight of all fights stating, "We are engaged in the most aggressive operations in the history of the CIA in that part of the world, and the result is that we are disrupting their leadership." Yes Mister Panetta, so we've heard, for about a decade now.

Of course he is not so confidant when he is talking about the fight against the Taliban. The very real group of fighters, clan elders, and spiritual leaders who were the legitimate government of Afghanistan until the U.S. came marching in on the flimsiest of fabricated evidence and turned the whole country upside down. Even at the onset of the invasion the only crime that the Taliban were supposedly guilty of was harboring al-Qaeda. But if there is and never was any al-Qaeda, what was their crime at all? Most of the supposed 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, nor Iraq for that matter. A few weeks ago the New York Times reported that the U.S. had discovered more than a trillion-dollars worth of precious minerals in Afghanistan. A trillion little reasons to go to war? Perhaps. Or just more spin to justify to the American people our continued presence there, by dangling a prize of riches in front us, at a time when our economy is imploding more each day and the middle class is being driven off a cliff.

The article then goes on to discuss the problems inherent in propping up a puppet democracy in a land where the people aren't interested and only making a half-hearted effort to "win" a war in their own land that isn't even their war in the first place. Fewer than an estimated 9,000 Afghan fighters are prepared to to join the U.S. in an assault against the Taliban's spiritual heartland in Kandahar. Sure, there are plenty of Afghans who have no love for the Taliban, but this isn't simply a matter of us backing one side in a civil war. Afghanistan is a patchwork of tribal lands with many powerful factions. Something that obviously the United States does not even comprehend, or pretends not to, when we wind up funding the Taliban ourselves through their protection racket, extorting "security payments" through middlemen to allow our supply convoys to move about the countryside unmolested. So now the U.S. military is guilty of supporting "terrorists" financially, which is more than any support the Taliban ever gave to Osama Bin Laden.

Almost as an afterthought near the end of the article the reporter interjects, "On a separate issue, Panetta said that the CIA had no choice but to hire the company once known as Blackwater for $100 million to provide security in Afghanistan." Wait, what? The CIA had no choice but to hire a company known to openly engage in killing civilians at random and without cause? A company who's officials are under Federal indictment for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and weapons charges? But the CIA "had no choice" since this company of Christian zealot mercenary terrorists had outbid the competition by $26 million. Some folks may also rest easy knowing that a CIA review of the newly renamed Xe Services has concluded that the contractor has "cleaned up it's act." Does that put you at ease? Perhaps we might just convince the Taliban to clean up their act so that we can go home. The whole article then wraps up with a nice little bow reminding us of how seven CIA employees and some contractors were killed in Afghanistan in December when a suicide bomb went off. Well then, that justifies everything then they must figure.

When will people start questioning this sort of reporting? When will those who question it be heard? It seems we all might just as well sit back and get all of our news from The Onion...




Friday, June 25, 2010

Technology and Police Hypocrisy

Quite often in a big city like New York, and elsewhere, technology is touted as being the key to protecting society from criminals and terrorists. The terror threat in particular is flaunted each time some new technology is introduced or expanded. With such marketing by the press and esteemed persons such as NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly, most folks won't or simply don't bother to question the real justification, expense, or possible infringements upon civil liberties. A few convenient cases of inept buffoons charged with terrorism, like the FBI-sponsored "Newburgh 4" are enough to keep the general public thinking there is an omnipresent terror threat and that no sacrifice is too much for security.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
(As the trial of the Newburgh 4 got underway in White Plains, the Poughkeepsie Journal trumpeted, "Unannounced police checkpoints, random street closings and police helicopters overhead will greet people..." as if that were a good thing in this supposed land of the free. Also reported with perfect timing, by the Poughkeepsie Journal, the Homeland Security Newswire, and elsewhere no doubt, was a new training program to teach the N.Y. State Bridge Authority how to spot terrorists, as part of "Operation Safeguard." Of course there was no mention of the funding details for this program, as the state government was about to come to a grinding halt under a budget crisis and funding for basic services are being slashed across the region. After considerable taxpayer cost, the Walkway Over the Hudson, a public park built upon the framework of an old railroad bridge spanning the Hudson, has been threatened with closure almost since it opened due to budget constraints and lack of funding. The Governor has threatened to close all parks on numerous ocassions citing budget concerns.)

While millions are without work and being shut out of their homes, with the national economy puttering along weakly drawing vivid comparisons to the Great Depression, no expense is to be spared in the surveillance of society. Police cars are now mounted with cameras that scan and process the license plate of every single car they pass, as well as the dash-mounted cams to record traffic stops. Hundreds, if not thousands of stationary cameras are slated to be networked and operational in Manhattan by 2013. Upstate, the surveillance hardware is cropping up here and there, as it is across the country. All of these cameras are being linked to the latest in software developments such as facial recognition programs that are so sensitive they can even detect stress patterns, or basically "read" what your mood is. In airports we are now being herded through machines that violate any sense of privacy, by producing a digital nude image of your body in great detail. Surveillance blimps with the latest and greatest in privacy intruding technology, such as seeing through walls and listening in on conversations miles away, are deployed over major cities such as N.Y., Washington, and San Francisco. The surveillance of society is a booming industry, that no doubt even runs off into secret technologies even beyond the sci-fi futuristic sort that we already know about.

So we have a grand arsenal of complex, layered, and interwoven technological networks pointed straight at the population by the police and assorted security agencies, at enormous expense to the taxpayer, but in some places, if you record a police officer with your cell-phone camera, it is a felony punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. No, that wasn't a joke.

Take the case of Maryland Air National Guard Staff Sergeant John Graber. He liked to ride his motorcycle while wearing a helmet equipped with a camera. Sounds like fun, and something that might come in handy in the event of an accident maybe, or, a traffic stop...

In that video, you see a man jump from a car shouting, as he whips out a pistol. Only after he issued commands, pulled his weapon, and grabbed the bike did the man in the unmarked car say that he was a member of the State Police, but still failed to produce proper identification. One can only imagine what might have happened if Mr. Graber had been a legally armed citizen and military service-member with his own pistol. For him, or any other passerby, it would not have been unreasonable at all to conclude that this man in gray was about to kill because of road-rage, or perhaps a bike-jacking. As it turns out, the man in gray was indeed Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Ulhera. Graber had apparently been speeding, 80 in a 65. Hardly a violent offense that would necessitate the Trooper drawing a firearm. Staff Sergeant Graber was issued a ticket for speeding, and finally allowed to be on his way.

Graber posted the video of the incident on Youtube. As if the asinine actions of the trooper weren't enough, now the story really plummets into the dark depths of what one would expect in a classic fascist police-state. In this land of freedom of speech the Air Guardsman no doubt never imagined that posting the video might be considered a felony punishable by up to fifteen years in prison, but weeks later in the light of the early dawn police raided his house where he lived with his parents, sister, wife, and two young children. He was in bed, immobilized due to a recent surgery, which prevented the police from bringing him in that day, though he was later arrested, held for 26 hours, and had to post a $15,000 bond. That morning police did detain everyone in the house, preventing anyone from leaving for work or school, as they seized computers, disc drives, and Graber's video camera. The warrants for the search were not signed by any judge, though State Attorney Joseph Cassilly says the judge's name is being kept secret for "privacy" concerns. The charge against Graber stems from Maryland's "wiretap" law, which makes it a felony to intercept a private conversation with an electronic device without consent of both parties. Twelve states have similar laws, and in other states, other statutes are twisted to make it a crime to film a police officer as well.


In East Haven, Connecticut, a Roman Catholic priest was arrested filming police engaging in what he thought to be racial profiling, in a city with a history of racial tensions with police. A police report states that Rev. James Manship was arrested for struggling with police over an "unknown shiny silver object." A fifteen-second video clip shows East Haven police Officer David Cari asking, "Is there a reason you have a camera on me?" After the priest replies, the officer says now approaching, ""Well, I'll tell you what, what I'm going to do with that camera," and the footage ends.


In Carlisle, Pennsylvania eighteen year-old was charged with "wiretapping" for recording a routing traffic stop. A crime punishable by seven years in prison there. After his mother put her house up for bail and 26 hours later he was released on bond, but not before confiscated film not related to the incident.


There is the case of Simon Glik, a lawyer from Boston, who was charged with illegal electronic surveillance when he began filming what he thought to be excessive force being used against a handcuffed suspect. Jon Surmacz, a webmaster, was also charged by Boston Police after he was caught filming the breakup of a Christmas party.


There are a number of similar stories that have made it into the media, but as with all stories that would shine a negative light on police, there are many more that never make it to the mainstream media or reach any level of public credibility. It seems that most folks are content not to know, or have an unwavering trust in police, until it is their turn to squirm under the jackboot. Meanwhile, the police and government embrace hypocrisy as a matter of law and standard operating procedure. Police have cameras in their cars, that are conveniently left turned off or "broken" when accusations of misconduct arise. Or even during an interrogation at a police station, where cameras are often required by police when conducting an interview. Officer Wylie Willis was fired after this incident, but later reinstated...




In a free and just nation, police should have no reasonable expectation of privacy where citizens do not, in public places. Moreover, when they are on-duty and acting acting in the capacity of a public servant. Police must be held to a higher standard, not exempt. Stories like this though, and the videos that can be seen beg the question, whom do the police actually work for? Who are they really watching? Who are the real terrorists in this country harming and killing innocent people? Was this country not founded on principals of equality and liberty? Did we not fight a revolution once to throw off the shackles of tyranny and oppression?

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Trial update of BART officer who killed suspect (with verdict)

On New Year's Day 2009, Bay Area Rapid Transit officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed unarmed civilian Oscar Grant, as the victim lay face-down on an Oakland, California train platform. It is not unreasonable to question whether or not charges would have ever been filed, had it not been for the cell-phone video taken by several witnesses and widely circulated on the internet. Prosecutors have gone ahead with a murder charge however, contending that the officer did in fact intend to shoot the suspect out of fear that he and his colleagues were losing control of the situation. Shortly after the shooting the officer resigned, and has since pled not-guilty to the charge of murder, contending that the shooting was an accident, and that he had intended to use his Taser on Mr. Grant.

There are several different clips available on Youtube showing the shooting, but here is a short one...



Because Mr. Grant was black and the accused is white, there have been considerable racial tensions stemming from the incident, which is one reason that the trial was moved to Los Angeles from the Alameda County courthouse. Another reason cited was "intense media coverage." So there we see a deliberate "brown out" of the public's right to know. But thanks to Fox News, we have this article...

Ex-BART officer got minimum amount of stun gun training weeks before he shot unarmed black man

Well kudos to Fox for even bringing us the story, but there's some slant there. First off, he didn't just "shoot" a black man, he killed him. Second, the headline is completely focused on the man's defense. Of course, this probably reflects the testimony of the day to some extent, so it's really not inordinate spin, especially for Fox, except for the fact that I have not seen any headlines from them or any other media outlet with the emphasis on the prosecution's case. Or even their take on the day's testimony. The article goes on to say that Defense attorney Michael Rains "...appeared to try to show jurors that Mehserle got the very minimum amount of training on how to use a stun gun." So right there we see that Fox is stating as a matter of fact, what is really more a matter of opinion for the defense.

Was this training not sufficient for all other officers? If police in America are so poorly trained that it excuses reckless homicide, perhaps they shouldn't be carrying guns and Tasers in the first place. Would it be a viable defense for a civilian? Let's say someone who had a pistol permit, but had little training on when and how to use their weapon. Better yet, a black civilian who had just shot and killed a cop. What defense attorney would even recommend an "it was just an accident" defense in such a case?

At the end of the day, it doesn't seem very reasonable that the officer confused his pistol with the Taser. The weapons are holstered differently, feel different when grasped,  and are carried on opposite sides of the body. Mehserle would have had to reach around his body with his dominant hand to grab the Taser weapon. Instead, he simply dropped down to the pistol at his hip, clutched the firearm with both hands, and fired.
Was it his intention to actually fire the weapon? What was he thinking? Did he perceive some threat erroneously? Was it really a cold-blooded murder? We may never know. But one thing is for certain, the negligence of this now former officer has left a man dead. So at the very least, Johannes Mehserle is just as guilty in the death of Oscar Grant as a reckless or drunken driver who kills someone on the highway.
Special thanks to the Lunaticoutpost forum, and forum member Geogal for regular updates as the story unfolds. Discussion and updates can be found here...

http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-BART-shooting-update?page=1

EDIT to add verdict:
After 6 1/2 hours of deliberation, the jury found Johannes Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter, with gun enhancement. He faces 5 to 14 years in prison. He escaped being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and murder in the second degree.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Monsanto GM seed ban is overturned by US Supreme Court

Now here is a story that you won't find reported in the American press. If you have never heard of Monsanto, you have a lot of catching up to do. In a nutshell though, they are a bio-tech company that is genetically modifying our entire food supply. Moreover, they are moving quickly and aggressively to trademark and patent everything that you eat, while eliminating the viability of any alternatives. They really are the epitome of one might term "an evil corporation." Yet most folks have never heard about them, so don't feel bad if you have not either. Do some research though. There is a lot of material available on the internet, and I will provide some links below.

Directly to the point now though, the US Supreme Court has handed Monsanto a great victory. A lower court ruling banning the sale of genetically modified alfalfa seed, until an environmental impact study could be carried out, has been overturned by the nation's highest court. The potential dangers pointed out by environmentalists have already proven true with other Monsanto GM seeds, yet Monsanto still maintains that worries about their products are "bad science fiction with no support on the record."

The risk of cross-pollination is a near certainty. Not only will the invasive crop infect farms growing natural, non-modified seed, but the farmers themselves will be held liable for growing a patented product without a license to do so. A clever, if unscrupulous way of eliminating competition from those who refuse to buy Monsanto products. Think it wont's happen? But it already has with other crops such as corn and canola in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. It has also led to mass crop-failures in India and South Africa, in turn leading to mass starvation and suicides there.

The genetic modifications being done to Monsanto patented seed are done partly to make the plant resistant to the company's Roundup weed killer. The weed killer itself is also a cause for environmental concern. Chemical pollution of groundwater is a concern, as well as new strains of resistant "super-weeds." Other modifications are being carried out as well.

The U.S. is the world's leading producer of alfalfa, and it is the nation's fourth most valuable crop.
So here we have the U.S. Supreme Court clearly acting in favor of a multi-national corporation, against the interests  of the people, without a peep of dissent coming from Federal regulatory agencies charged with maintaining the safety of our food and our environemt. And not a peep about it in the American press. Just this short little brief that popped up on the BBC.

Here is the link to the BBC article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10371831.stm

For further study, I highly recommend the movie "The Future of Food."  The full version is available to view on Hulu.com. Another movie  I have not seen myself but that has been recommended to me is Food Inc. These are the trailers to sample...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh8c9OUti4c

Calif. license plates might go digital, show ads

When I read the article on Yahoo (linked at bottom) that there was actually a legislation bill being presented for this I couldn't help but think, "Wow, that's a really bad idea."

It really is a struggle to think how this might benefit the individual. The chief executive of the company talks about how it could be used for personalized messages and to show allegiance to a team or alma mater. Well I don't know about California, but here in NY we already have personalized plates without the the need to go digital. So what would the real advantage be for spending, what I will assume to be quite a bit more money,  for license plates that have been digitized?

Well according to sponsors of the bill, it's about generating revenue for the state. The bill's author, Democratic Sen. Curren Price of Los Angeles said, "We're just trying to find creative ways of generating additional revenues. It's an exciting marriage of technology with need, and an opportunity to keep California in the forefront."  The forefront of what, Big Brother technology and corporate interference in our lives? And who's "need" are you talking about Senator? To generate any serious revenue, either the ads will be mandatory, or it will be the drivers who have to fork over a lot more money for these digital plates that weren't needed n the first place, or both. Can you imagine being a single Mom struggling to put food on the table and having to shell out a few hundred bucks extra to register your car,  just so that you can comply with the regulation to be a mandatory billboard?

Now I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I don't like the idea of being forced to advertise for anyone. I wear shirts without logos because I resent the idea of paying for a shirt that turns me into a walking billboard for the company I just handed my money over to. Maybe they should be paying me instead if they want to recruit for the Airpost Navy. Moreover, what if my plate starts blipping an ad for some company that I really despise? I want no part of promoting a company like the downright evil Monsanto and their weed killer, for example. Or what if I happen to be a dairy farmer and my plates start running ads for soymilk? That would really get my goat. Or can you imagine a McDonald's truck stopped at a light blinking an ad for a Whopper?

Okay, let's go ahead and assume that they wouldn't force ads down our throat like that, that the registrant would have control over the ad space, and that there would be no additional cost to the vehicle owner. I don't believe that for a second, but for the sake of argument here, let's just talk safety for a moment. Aren't there already more than enough distractions for a driver? The leading cause of accidents, yet the state is willing to nudge the risk level higher to generate some revenue. What about all these laws they have passed over the years, forcing us to be safer? Put your seatbelt on, can't smoke in your car because it's a distraction, can't have an air-freshener dangling from your rear-view mirror, on and on. Ohhh, but for a few bucks the state is willing to up the ante on the leading cause of car wrecks. Distractions are more dangerous than speeders, more dangerous than drunk drivers, but the state is willing to risk your life for a few bucks. I'm beginning to think that maybe all these laws were never really about our safety to begin with.

But let's just stick with that topic for another moment. According to the article, the ads will only run once the car is stopped for a few seconds. But even so, doesn't that sort of invalidate the whole idea of a license plate in the first place? Not entirely I suppose, because they promise that the number will say visible in "some section" of the screen. Great, it will be so small you can't read it when you finally catch up to a hit-and-run driver stopped at a busy intersection, but at least you will know about the sale this week at 31 Flavors.
The primary "safety feature" of the plate will be that it can run Amber alerts or other emergency traffic messages. Okay, that sounds fine I suppose. Of course I wont be able to read the plate number of the kidnapper's car through the amber alert message, but okay I guess. What are the chances of me actually seeing a suspect vehicle anyway? So maybe the amber alert on plates is pretty useless, but it might save a life or two. Probably kill a few thousand distracted drivers in the process, but hey, you know what they say about making an omlette. And I suppose getting traffic advisories might be kind of nice. Too bad I won't be able to read it until after I have passed the last exit and I am caught in the parking lot that backed up behind the freeway wreck caused by some distracted driver, but okay.

So what really is the point of all this? Just doesn't really seem to make much sense, even for the state really. It feels like they are pulling a Dr. Evil strategy here like,  "Why make billions, when you can make...millions?!" A lot of cost and aggravation for a negative net gain. What's really going on here? What are they really trying to slip past us here? Still thinking? What do you think the odds are that these new plates will be equipped to transmit as well as receive? Of course, the news articles aren't saying anything about the real details of the technology, and neither is the good senator. But there you have a serial coded digital device receiving individualized data. I think it would be safe bet to say that the new plate will be a mandatory tracking device for every single motor vehicle. And if you really think that is a good thing, just keep on reading the MSMReview. You'll have your "ah-ha!" moment yet.

Yahoo News

Monday, June 21, 2010

Carrying a registered firearm onto a Federal Facility

After mulling over the story of the Lakehurst lock-down, I decided to write this little blurb regarding another concern that caught my attention. I admit, I am not completely well-versed in the myriad of details surrounding gun laws, but it seems to me that if you have a permit to carry a firearm, then you should be allowed to carry it anywhere, especially on Federal property. After all, it is a Constitutionally protected right. Where better to exercise a national right than on Federal property, free from infringements by state and local government? Do police have to surrender their weapons at the gate? What about a Senator, or even military personnel carrying personal weapons not issued by the government? Why was the truck driver cited at all? If he declares his weapon, can he leave it at the gate for pickup upon exit without being charged with a violation of law?

Something stinks, once again.

Lakehurst station lockdown prompted by driver with gun, report of gunshots

At about ten a.m.(6/21/10) two separate incidents sparked a lock-down of a U.S. military base. Initial response is said to have occurred at about 9:15 a.m. according to Senior Airman David Carbajal, but the lock-down did not go into affect for another 45 minutes or so.

"At 9:30 a.m., the 87th Security Forces Squadron responded to simultaneous incidents on Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst," the Air Force said in a statement. "Due to security forces quick and timely response, base security ensured the incident was contained. No personnel were in danger at any time and no injuries have been reported."

The Airforce also issued a statement saying the gates were closed from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.

N.J. State Police were called in to assist. Barricades were set up on routes 547 and 571. Manchester school district's Regional Day School, a special needs school, was also put on lock-down but food and medicine were brought in.

The lock-down was sparked by two separate incidents occurring at roughly the same time. Near one gate, there was a report of possible gunfire, which later proved to be unfounded. At another gate, a man making a routine delivery was cited for carrying a registered handgun.

That information was reported here, among other sources...

http://www.app.com/article/20100621/NEWS/100621019/Lakehurst-military-base-on-lockdown

Now let's ask some more questions. Why did it take 45 minutes to lock down a military base under possible threat of attack? It seems to me that if an attack were occurring simultaneously at separate gates, the military would have seconds, maybe minutes to respond. Yet it took the better part of an hour to stop people from entering or leaving the base? Of course, when you are maintaining order and security in an area with a lot of people and activity, all sorts of fairly mundane things can trigger an alert or be an erroneous cause for concern. Things like, a car backfire perhaps. Maybe someone playing with firecrackers at a house near the base. Any number of things. Sure, it pays to investigate, and be vigilant. But the response here seemed to be either sluggish, or serious overkill, or both.

So we have these two events occurring, which may have at first taken on a "probably no big deal, but we should check it out," sort of approach. Some folks might not think that is a very vigilant approach, but when you are dealing with all sorts of little things each day that turn out to be mundane, it is to be expected. It takes a professional to discern the level and credibility of any possible threat. But then why the full crackdown 45 minutes later? Even if it was not a terrorist attack, let's just say maybe that someone took a shot at someone else on the base for personal reasons, a police matter rather than a terror threat. That person would likely be long gone by the time they got around to closing the gates. Remember what the statement said, "Due to security forces quick and timely response, base security ensured the incident was contained." Hardly. So really, after 45 minutes, why bother to close the gates at all? What was the credible threat level that warranted the lockdown?

Moreover, what was such a threat that the military could not manage it without calling in civilian authority, and shutting down civilian roadways, after base security already had the threat "contained?" What was such a threat that the police had to break out assault rifles for traffic duty?



From the information provided, there are two conclusions that can be reached. First, that there was a credible threat, which did in fact turn out to be erroneous, but that the response for was shamefully slow and desperately lacking in the "three C's." (Command, control, and communication.)

Second, that a mundane, routine affair was blown entirely out of proportion and exploited as a show of force, a low-level psy-op to be splashed on the national media to keep everyone on their toes and jittery. To keep the threat of terrorism fresh in everyone's minds, so that people are more malleable to the idea of trading in their liberty for security. To keep the chatter of dissent in hushed tones, to sell fear.

This is not a one time event, this is a pattern, of botched response to less than credible threats.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Boiling Frogs and Counting Sheep


"Let them eat cake!"

The Nutricide of America


If I told you that Americans are being starved to death, you would probably laugh at me. So read and learn, because it is no laughing matter. I am about to show you that Americans are, quite literally, starving to death. Sure, Americans eat, even overeat, but we are still being starved to death, deliberately, at a nutritional level. So please put aside your programmed bias and suppositions of obesity, and let’s begin.
"Obesity is a mask for the horrible truth. That Americans are starving to death in a deliberate campaign of nutricide.” –JITB 01/09
Why do we eat? Energy is probably the most obvious reason. Food fuels us to carry out our daily activities. But equally important is that food is also a building block to our bodies. If you are injured, the food is what supplies the material for the body to repair itself. The same goes for illnesses and infections, along with general maintenance as old cells wear out. We need the nutrients that food provides. If the body has enough good nutrients to work with, it will throw out the trash, and install new parts to keep your body running at optimum performance. A lot of people find that if they drink a lot of orange juice during cold season to keep up their levels of vitamin C, they manage to make it through without catching a bad case of the sniffles. But of course, humans can’t eat just anything. Some things are actually poisonous to us, and will do damage. We can’t eat just one thing either. We aren’t like the Jetson’s where we can have a vitamin pill each day and be done with it. There is a loose formula that we need to follow. We don’t need to eat exactly this much of that or that much of this each day, but we do need different things, especially over time. Most officials and experts have a chart as to their own ideas of what the formula should be, and have set amounts for each of the different “food groups.” I am not here to endorse any one idea or diet over another, but the variety sets up a sort of balancing act, in which different nutrients interact with eachother. A good balance is key to being healthy.

For example, a person needs a certain amount of a certain vitamin to keep healthy, and to provide for certain functions of the body. Now let’s say that person knows their diet is severely lacking in that vitamin. So they go ahead and take a supplement pill. Yet for some reason they still wind up noticing problems associated with a deficiency of that particular vitamin. Why? Because they are probably deficient in some other area as well. Certain vitamins will not be absorbed by the body, unless other vitamins and minerals are there to stimulate the absorption. Sometimes it is the metabolization of the food source itself that is required to gain the maximum benefit of the lacking nutrient(s). What is the point of having gasoline in your tank with no spark plug to fire it? These are reasons why we don’t have a magic Jetson pill today. Nutrients are like an ingredient in a recipe. Like butter for example. Most people love butter. Crab legs dipped in butter, butter in your cookie batter, butter on your toast, yumm. But how many of us go and gnaw on a stick of butter? Not only is it not so great by itself, but it’ll shoot right through you too. Nature knew what she was doing when she put certain foods together in such a way that this nutrient was paired with that one, and in certain densities at certain ratios etc. Furthermore, humans physically adapted over time to those natural formulas present in the food sources around us. Again, the balancing act in which life flourishes.

So we see why we really can’t just eat a pill packed with vitamins to get us through. We need real foods. Not just to make our tummies happy, but of course that’s where the drive to eat seems to come in. Our tummy grumbles and our taste buds get revved up. The body calls out to the brain “feed me Seymour!” Now a starving person will eat just about anything to satisfy the belly, and the hunger that the mind is registering. But let’s say all we have is plenty of boot leather and Crisco. Sure, it’ll fill up the tummy for a while, and probably leave you feeling like you don’t want to eat ever again after a meal like that, but it won’t be long before you are hungry again. And it will be a lot sooner than if you had eaten a “real” meal of the same volume. But why would one be hungry sooner? Because your body is still calling for the nutrients that you failed to provide. Not to mention that the Crisco probably did a good job of streamlining an exit too. So how long do you think you could physically survive on a diet of boot leather and Crisco? You keep your belly full of the stuff, but what is it really doing for you?

Let’s give another, more sinister example. Let’s say you find yourself in a long-term desperate survival situation with some other people. There is no food to be had, period. Now most people would be hard-pressed to bring themselves to cannibalism to survive. So they might just wait until others began to fall by the wayside naturally, before they decided to roast their bones. But it would really be for naught that they crossed that moral boundary. If you wait until someone else starves to death, and then eat them, you will die of starvation anyway. Because the meat you have consumed has already become so nutrient deficient, that you might just as well be eating that boot leather. It might fill the tummy for a bit, but the body will still call for the nutrients that it requires to operate, to repair itself, and to fight off illness. After all, that is the real reason that we eat, to assimilate the nutrients. Now let’s say you ended up in that situation because a plane crashed or something and a few people had died in the crash. Their meat would in fact give you life, since the nutrients in it were never used up. But now let’s say that everyone is alive, and just stranded. Now you’re not gonna like this, but here it is. If you’re ever in that situation, you better be the first one to figure out what needs to be done, if you plan to survive longer than everyone else. You will have to choose who the food is going to be, long before they die of natural causes. Messed up I know, but such is life sometimes.

So, okay, where the hell am I going with this you ask? You mean you haven’t figured it out yet? What do you think Americans are eating when they eat the crap that is being pumped at us? Fat drenched, calorie laden, chemically fortified, genetically modified, flavor enhanced boot leather. Now everybody knows that fast food isn’t really good for us, with all those calories and all that fat. But it really goes a step further than that. Why do we even eat that stuff at all? Not only is it filled with crap that makes us sick, but it doesn’t even provide any real nutritional value. But of course most people don’t think that far into it. They are hungry, they eat food that tastes good. Never mind the fact that what they are eating is not even really food at all.

A person is hungry, so they stop at a fast-food place on their way to work. An hour later they are hungry again, and wondering to themselves with guilt, “Why am I already hungry again?” It is because they satisfied their stomach, but not the rest of their body. Now their body is calling for more food, to satisfy the need for proper nutrients. The sort of nutrients that provide energy, and stave of all sorts of sickness and disease. If they had a nutritious breakfast, they would not be hungry now. Instead they opted for the cheesy-sausage biscuit that shot right through them like greased lightning. To satisfy their hunger once again, they raid the box of donuts in the break room. Again, no real nutritional value, but it satisfies the stomach for a while once more. At this point, the person has probably already exceeded their proper caloric intake for the day, without even gaining any proper nutritional sustenance that the body actually requires. The person has been eating for nothing, other than to put down the creeping feeling of starvation that comes from the body calling for the nutrition that it requires. You shut the hunger up for a while, by tricking it that nutrition is on the way, but a little while later the body says “hey, where’s that nutrition you said you were sending us?!” Sometimes with ferocity so that you are even hungrier than you were originally, and then body goes into “danger” mode, storing up what it can in fat reserves because it has been warned that there is a shortage of nutrients.

Now repeat this cycle throughout the day, everyday. The person will continue to gain weight, but at the same time, the body is provided none of the essential nutrients to keep one healthy and active. So the energy level will plummet only further exacerbating the weight problem, as the body begins to shut down and go into emergency hibernation. At the same time, diseases and infections creep into a body that is too tired to fight them off now. The body stops operating efficiently leading to all sorts of disorders. Cell structure and organs begin to fail. Hence, this fat person is literally starving to death in a vicious cycle, while eating more and more to silence the alarms of starvation the body is sending to the brain. This is nutricide.

Here is a sample of what effects mineral deficiency alone can lead to…
  • Calcium - Muscle cramps or tremors, joint pains, insomnia, brittle nails, eczema, nervousness.
  • Magnesium - Muscle twitch, tremors, personality changes, depression, anxiety, irritability, PMS, gastro-intestinal disorders.
  • Iron - Anemia, constipation, brittle or spoon-shaped nails, tiredness, apathy, reduced brain function, headache.
  • Chromium - Poor glucose tolerance leading to sugar and stimulant cravings, irritability, drowsiness, need for frequent meals, poor weight control.
  • Manganese - Poor glucose tolerance, poor muscle co-ordination, dizziness or poor sense of balance.
  • Selenium - Premature aging, growth retardation, higher risk of cancer and heart disease, poor fertility.
  • Zinc - Retarded growth, poor wound healing, poor sense of taste or smell, frequent infections, stretch marks, poor fertility.
  • Vitamin C - Susceptibility to infections, easy bruising, bleeding or tender gums, difficulty shifting infections, lack of energy.

Sounds like a lot of the things we seem to be suffering en masse now, but only in the past, oh, say twenty years or so. Now the television is plastered with ads for pills to treat all these different conditions, but half the time the side effects they tell you about are either worse than the affliction, or they tell you that the medicine might even cause the condition to worsen! What the hell is the point of that? I heard an ad the other night for asthma medicine that warned the medicine could make you die of asthma! But more on that in a bit.

Okay, so fast food is really even worse for us than we thought, right? Maybe fat people really are starving to death, but they need to make the choice to stop eating fast food then. To start eating nutritious foods. Ah, if only it really were that simple. The sad truth is most people don’t even realize that what they are eating is not actually food, or if they do even to some extent, they still don’t really have the money or the time to make a change. Sure they know that fast-food isn’t really good for you, but at least it’s something to eat. So unless people are actually made aware of what is happening here, and how serious it really is, how can they be expected to make the right choices?

Add on to that the ferocious campaigns of consumerism. Americans are relentlessly subjected to the most unscrupulous methods of psychological battery to get them to buy and consume. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the advertisements and general media that tell us what to eat. We can’t say no to the newest music or electronic gadgetry. How are we supposed to stand up against something that we actually do need, like food? But even when you think you are eating food that is good for you now, you are still slowly starving to death, and being pumped full of all sorts nastiness with each bite. The meats, the vegetables, it’s all being stripped of its nutritional value, while being “enhanced” with artificial things that will kill you, as the campaign mounts to shift everyone over to a diet of pre-packaged meals. I know what you’re thinking. “I dunno, this sounds a bit far fetched.” Well, let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Let’s look at some foods that you might think are good for you. A box of cereal perhaps? Not some kid cereal, like Cocoa Pebbles say, that we know is not really that good for us. How about some Quaker 100% Natural Granola, Oats, Honey & Raisins? That’s sounds healthy. All those things are known to be good for us, the oats the raisins and so forth. And heck, 100% natural too! Must be good for us, right? Well, it was actually found to be the worst cereal in the supermarket that you could buy. It has twice as much sugar as the Cocoa Pebbles, and those pebbles have less fat and more fiber than the cereal that most people would think was actually good for them.

Here’s the article on that… 

 
Of course this is only one example among a multitude. All sort of things are thought to be healthy, but really aren’t at all. Everything from “light” dressings and dairy products to pre-mixed bags of stir-fry and sautés. There are people who still think that margarine is actually better for you than butter. Are you one of those people? These products have had all their nutritional value stripped from them, and trading off some of this for some of that. And the “some of that” usually winds up being some artificial lab product that is not even food at all but a filler, a replacement for actual food. They hand you a hunk of plastic and tell you that it is cheese. You believe it because they have engineered that plastic to very closely resemble what you think of as cheese. Cheese-like color, shape, texture, smell and taste. But really, it might only be something like 10% cheese while the rest is lab-product. Think for s second, of those imitation crab legs that they sell. They have a very little bit of crab to stimulate familiarity to the human senses, but mostly it is made up of much cheaper heavily processed fish, and a whole lot of artificial additives. This is what is happening to all of our food, not just those artificial crab legs and cheese products. And at least that artificial crab has real fish in it (among other things.)

Okay, so let’s forget about stuff like that cereal and things that we already know are processed foods anyway. Let’s cut right to the chase now. People don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables. If we did we’d all be a lot healthier, right? Not as much as you might think. Studies have shown a very serious decline in the nutrient levels of produce over the past half century or so. I’ve heard figures thrown around that you would have to eat seven potatoes, or ten bowls of spinach to get the same nutrition that a person would have gotten fifty years ago from a single serving. So if you have to eat seven or ten times as much these days, even of foods that are thought to be healthy, it only stands to reason that we will get that much larger doing so, trying desperately to gain nutritional sustenance. It’s really become a lesson in futility.

Now here is an article that goes right along with what I saying, and has a few figures for examples… 

If you want to dig a bit deeper, here is some good, in-depth, scientific material… 

Some reasons behind this loss in nutrition are all sorts of farming “innovations” that have come out in the past fifty years or so. But basically it comes down to the fact that we are being downright abusive to the Earth and her bounty at this point. We genetically modify the foods to grow bigger, faster, without stopping to consider that mother-nature already had a set formula of time vs. mass to yield the highest nutritional value. Then add to this the basic over-farming of the land itself which results in serious nutrient depletion of the soil.

Here are a few articles that I pulled up quick about nutrient depletion of the soil, and of the overall depletion of the topsoil’s very existence… 


Ever see this symbol before?

That is the international symbol for food irradiation, called the Radura. Now there are rules that say they are supposed to display the symbol to customers. What I have found in my local supermarket is that the symbol is on the shipping boxes laying on the floor of the back room, but never on the sales floor. Not only that, the symbol does not actually have to be displayed at all if it is used in any sort of prepared or processed manner.
“Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation to destroy microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, or insects that might be present in the food. Further applications include sprout inhibition, delay of ripening, increase of juice yield, and improvement of re-hydration. Irradiation is a more general term of deliberate exposure of materials to radiation to achieve a technical goal (in this context 'ionizing radiation' is implied). As such it is also used on non-food items, such as medical hardware, plastics, tubes for gas-pipelines, hoses for floor-heating, shrink-foils for food packaging, automobile parts, wires and cables (isolation), tires, and even gemstones. Compared to the amount of food irradiated, the volume of those every-day applications is huge but not noticed by the consumer.

The genuine effect of processing food by ionizing radiation relates to damages to the DNA, the basic genetic information for life. Microorganisms can no longer proliferate and continue their malignant or pathogen activities. Spoilage-causing micro-organisms cannot continue their activities. Insects do not survive or become incapable of proliferation. Plants cannot continue the natural ripening or aging process.

Food irradiation is currently permitted by over 40 countries and volumes are estimated to exceed 500,000 metric tons annually world wide.”
That quote is form the Wikepedia article on food irradiation, found here… 

In other words, irradiation actually kills your food. You could have a head of lettuce that sits in your fridge for a year, and still looks perfectly healthy. Imagine how healthy that would be for you to actually eat though. Not to mention that it begs the question, what good does it really do to eat it even when it is “fresh” once it has been treated in such a manner? So much for the real “healthy” foods I guess. Sure, it’s probably still a lot better to snack on some carrots than a pack of Twinkies, but not as much so as we might have thought. I can remember when I was a kid, fresh fruits and veggies were sweet, tender, and juicy. Nowadays it’s all grainy, tough, and dry. A tomato used to be red, plump, fleshy, bursting with nutritional goodness. What do you get today at the supermarket? Something that is bright orange and tough skinned enough to use as a throwing weapon, while inside it has a sickly whitish color to the grainy, watery (not to be confused with juicy) pulp. And the flavor? What flavor? What you are not tasting is the nutrition. The nutrition that happens to be the whole reason behind eating. It’s no wonder that kids today don’t want to eat their fruits and veggies. I grew up enjoying healthy natural food, but even I don’t have much use for the produce section anymore, and I genuinely miss what it used to be. 
 
So maybe we just need to eat strictly organic foods. Stuff from local farms. Nevermind that a lot of people couldn’t really afford to make the switch, we’ll just say for the moment that they will have to. It wasn’t so long ago really that all food was organic, and you didn’t have to pay extra for it. Furthermore, there are a lot of questions and controversy around what is actually sold as “organic.” But let’s just say that for the moment, some of us do have a trusted source for organic foods. The scary truth of the matter is though, that this window is closing fast. Let me introduce you to Codex Alimentarius. This video is a bit dated now, but is well worth the forty minutes. Codex had originally planned to implement a mandate that would starve three billion people to death, and to have that mandate in place by 12/31/09. From what I understand though, they have been dealt a set-back in Europe within the last year. Here is a revealing look at Codex Alimenatrius...



Okay, so what do we know so far? We know that people are overeating because they are undernourished. This is fact based in science. I have clearly shown that our foods have been stripped of nutrients, which leads to all sorts of health problems, including overeating and obesity, by logical deduction. Now we can even take it a step further and say that some of these additives are addictive, and even induce obesity on their own. After all, if you inject a growth hormone into your food, and then you turn right around and eat it, what do you think is going to happen to you? Obesity is not the cause of these problems like we have all been led to believe. I know it’s going to be hard to wrap your head around that concept at first, but no, obesity does not cause diabetes or heart attacks, or any of the rest of the things we so often associate. Malnutrition does. If obesity were the real culprit, then there wouldn’t be the 20% of people with diabetes who are not overweight. There would not be the thin people who drop dead of a stroke or heart attack at a young age and seemingly out of the blue. Saying that obesity is the cause of these problems is like saying that coughing is the cause of lung cancer. Sure, a lot of overweight people have all sorts of other health problems, but most lung cancer patients cough and wheeze too. So treating obesity to cure other health concerns, is like giving cough syrup to the lung cancer patient. Obesity is a symptom, the most apparent symptom of malnutrition. At this point, the food we eat to satiate our hunger could be equated to drinking salty seawater to quench our thirst.

Why all the confusion then? Why all the studies that point to obesity as the root cause? Why the bias toward fat people? To keep you from waking up and realizing the horrible truth of the matter. That people are being deliberately starved to death. It’s far easier to blame the victim. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone in this country suddenly woke up and realized that the powers that be were deliberately poisoning them and starving them to death? Or what the rest of the world would think of such an agenda being perpetrated? There would be hell to pay. (Another thing to keep in mind there is that while America has the most serious problem at this point, with now 90% of the people overweight, it is not alone.) So instead we have this insidious campaign of “blame the fatties” for just about everything from our economic woes, to quality of life issues, to the very safety of our families. A psychological campaign of mass hypnosis through the media that plays off of our fears. At the same time we are bombarded with all sort of propaganda to consume, consume, consume. Every level of trickery is used in the media to get us out there to buy, and to consume. Make that chain restaurant look like a good time with friends and family. Buy those toaster pastries and pizza snacks that kids love, so that your kids will love you. Doesn’t that McSammich just look so steamy and delicious on your TV screen? You gotta love all those food and cooking shows that have become so popular in the past few years. Make it not only socially acceptable, but make you look and feel like the outcast for not participating. What kind of good citizen would you be if you had never heard of Emeril? 

Speaking of which, I just so happen to have a video clip that makes a great example of the hypocrisy, in a blatant and sickening display of propaganda at work. Anthony Bourdain has a food show on the Travel Channel. Keep that in mind when you watch this clip. This guy is railing against his own bread and butter, and the majority of Americans...




Okay, so that wasn’t really enough to piss you off? You maybe sort of agreed with them. Nugent I would even expect that sort of thing from. Maybe this will get under your collar a little better. Here is a ten minute video that is centered on the Bovine Growth Hormone being pumped into dairy cattle. Now that issue is bad enough by itself, but what is even more revealing in this clip is how the media operates…




(Monsanto is a downright evil organization that you might want to look into further. They have been responsible for all sorts of nasty business including deliberately engineered mass crop failures, and even had a hand in inducing a mass suicide last year in India. They are right up there with Codex Alimentarius, working hand in hand.)

Okay. So now we see that not only is there scientific and physical basis for my claim that obesity is a symptom of systematic starvation, but we see a strong psychological campaign to confuse the issue and perpetuate the condition through deflection and head-on enticement. The mind and the body are covered now. So what’s left? The soul? Well who needs a soul when you’ve got money? Let’s have a look now at the economic aspects here.

Money could be considered a strong motivating factor here for all of this. It sheds some light on why anyone would want to do this to the people, and who would actually be behind such an insidious agenda. Now keep in mind that money is only a means to an end though really, with that end being raw power. After all who needs money to buy a house in town, if you already control the town? But more on that in a bit.

Let’s just stay focused on the economics at work here for the moment. The powers that be are reaping enormous profits from this. Not only are they maximizing their profits by diluting the food supply with artificial additives and a strip-mining mentality, they are profiting by inducing social gluttony. And then in turn, they are profiting from the price that must be paid for that gluttony that they have induced. They profit from all of the useless diet plans, from all the supplements that are supposed to help us stay healthy, and most chillingly from the disorders and illnesses that they are the very cause of. They rape us in medical expenses. People get sick and they head off to the doctor. The doctor sells them some pills to treat one symptom, then some more pills to treat the side effects of the first pills and so on, but never bother to treat the root causes. Remember what I was talking about earlier with the TV ads for medicine? But a doctor is actually pretty powerless to actually treat the root causes themselves, they are just another cog in the wheel too, and aren’t about to turn our entire socio-economic structure in its head. The years go by and a person is deeper and deeper into the web, popping all sort of pills, going for all sorts of procedures and treatments, but never really getting better. In fact they are getting worse, they are after all, slowly dieing of nutritional starvation. Eventually the medical bills get real big. Organ transplants, long hospital stays. And what happens if the money runs out? You die. Like a vampire, the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries have taken everything of value from the dieing, but kept him alive long enough to hyper-extend his credit, to give up his house, to give up his pension, etc., so that he has nothing to leave to his children, all in desperation to simply stay alive. 

Now let’s really drop the hammer and have a look at the bottom of the economic pyramid. Where the dead man’s kids and grand-kids have wound up, because they were left nothing and all the work has been shipped overseas. What happens to the person who doesn’t have a house to put up for medical expenses, who doesn’t have a pension, or a job? They will really suffer the brunt of this all. They will be the sickest. They will be the first to die. They will also be the fattest. They will suffer the ridicule of both poverty and obesity while in the death-lock of an impossible situation. They are the canary in the coalmine. They are also a vehicle by which the powers that be are able to suck even more money out of the working man’s pocket, by subsidizing the elite’s own profiteering scheme.

After seeing this chart, ask yourself this. What is easier to believe? That Americans have simply decided in the last few decades to eat more than they should, to eat foods they should not, and to stop being active? All while knowing that it might kill them? Or, that Americans have been restricted from access to healthy foods which have now been replaced by modified foodstuffs? That they have been psychologically manipulated into accepting the change in diet, and have lost much of their ability to be active as a result? You might also notice, if you were to correlate the data above with poverty figures, the states with the highest poverty rates lead the way on obesity rates as well. So is that because poor people are just lazy? Which is really the cause, which is the effect? The fact of the matter is that poor people are less able to buy and prepare nutritious foods than anyone else in this country, and are therefore much more likely to suffer the afflictions brought on by poor nutrition as a result, including apparent “laziness.” But keep in mind that this laziness is not some psychological manifestation or a lack of mental fortitude, it is a physical manifestation brought on by nutritional starvation. 

I have had the argument many times with people who claim that it is somehow cheaper to eat healthy, to eat organic, etc. I find just the opposite to be true. They always fall back on the argument that processed foods cost more because of the extra steps it takes to do the processing, but conveniently ignore the fact that the base ingredients being used in or added to the final product are far cheaper than whole foods. Again we could use the example of the imitation crab legs to see how a processed food is actually cheaper than the whole food. Processed foods also have a longer shelf-life and are stored more easily, allowing for greater long term market flexibility. Also, processed foods are sold in greater quantity, further lowering the consumer price. It is cheaper to eat foods that have little or no nutritional value. 

Wendy's
Double-stack cheese burger (135g each) x 2 = $2
Chili = $1.19
TOTAL = $3.19
Stop & Shop Supermarket
Half-pound bologna = $1.40
Quarter-pound american cheese = 1.38
One can soup = $1
TOTAL = $3.78


So where does the poor person take their five-spot when they get hungry? Also note that bologna sandwich is probably just as bad for you as the Wendy’s cheeseburger. It would only be that much more expensive to buy something like natural turkey or some such. Notice also that the grocery list does not even include the bread or condiments. So we can even take this a step further. Anything that you prepare at home is going to have additional “hidden” costs beyond the purchase price as well. Everything from condiments and pantry items to the utility expense of the cooking source, to the cleanup costs, all have to be factored in. Water, especially hot water is not free. Neither is some cooking oil or a spoonful of butter, some seasonings maybe, mayo for your sandwiches, etc. Then there are other odds and ends like detergent, paper towels, even the electric to run the lights in your kitchen, and the refrigerator to store your foods. All the overhead expenses that you have to carry yourself when eating at home, but the costs of which are not really carried on to any particular consumer when they eat out because of the volume of the business.

Now on top of that, also consider that the poorest of the poor in America may not even have a place to cook or to store food at all. They won’t be able to take advantage of bulk pack savings, and will rely entirely on prepared foods. If you are living on the streets, in a car, in a shelter, or even in a motel room, you’re not really going to be able to prepare nutritious meals for yourself on a regular basis. You will go back and forth between the dollar menus. Also consider that many people are forced to live off food that is donated at food pantries. Lots of things like ramen noodles and canned meats that are really terrible for you. So while the person, who is already destitute because of flawed national economic policy and events beyond their own control, gets fat and sick on the only “foods” that are available to them, they have to sit there and listen to people a little further up the ladder blame them for everything that is wrong with the world and poke fun at them for being fat.

But let’s go ahead and take a step back up the ladder now. How many families today actually sit down every night to a home cooked meal? Not very many, even if there are some families who still manage to sit down together even a few days a week, it is usually around a take-out pizza, or some pre-packed frozen family entrée or some such. Even if they had some time to prepare a better meal, they don’t seem to have the time to plan that meal, and to really shop carefully for the healthiest food available. Everyone is on the run. You have both parents working all the time, kids running in and out with their own activities, run run run, go go go, and yet everyone is still getting fat. No one wants to come home and cook or shop on their one day off a week after putting in ten and twelve hour days. Everyone is stuffing themselves with hot pockets and cheeseburgers on the go until they finally burn out on the energy drinks that have reeked havoc on their system but kept them running into overtime while starvation set in, like burning high octane in a motor without any oil left in it.

So this really is getting to sound like some whacked out conspiracy theory at this point huh? Talking about starving to death half the world’s population and all. But forget about what you think is likely or reasonable for a moment, suspend emotionally based and thoroughly propagandized disbelief, and look at the evidence. We see the symptoms of this happening all around us, yet we fail to accept what is happening right in front of us. Here is another interesting tidbit as well. Ever heard of the Georgia Guidestones? Not many people have really. But someone went to a lot of trouble and expense to erect this enigmatic monument in Elberton Georgia back in 1979. It is clearly and literally written in stone, as their very first order of business, “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.” 

Okay, now that’s creepy. Why the hell would anyone want to kill so many people? Power. Control and power. “They” have an image for the world in which there is no room for the rest of us.
In summary, obesity is a deadly epidemic being perpetrated deliberately against the population, while insidiously profiting from and turning the blame onto the victims. We are being chemically, psychologically, socially, and economically fattened and starved at the same time. What better camouflage than obesity, to hide a campaign of starvation. Think of how different our perception would be of the death camps in World War Two, if the prisoners had been plied with foods that would fatten them up but still left them starving to death. But despite all the evidence and logical deduction that I have presented here, still it is not enough to awaken the sheep. There will still be those who argue, that obesity is a matter of poor personal choices and that it is as simple as that.
For further viewing, I highly recommend the move "The Future of Food." It is about an hour and a half long, available to view for free here...

“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” ~Adolf Hitler







Copyright 2009

POSTING GUIDELINES

When posting comments, please refrain from using obscenities or your comments will be deleted. Self-imposed censoring by inserting symbols to "bleep" your swear words is acceptable.

The views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the MSMReview or November-Blue Enterprise. We encourage open discussion with a wide variety of viewpoints and the open sharing of information. Please feel free to leave comments and to engage in respectful debate.