Welcome to The Truth News.Info
Sibel Edmonds finally gets to tell her story
Ohio Second District Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, R-Cincinnati, filed nine election complaints against independent candidate David Krikorian concerning the 2008 election in May this year. Krikorian opposed Schmidt in the Second District Congressional race as an independent in 2008 and is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2010 race in April. The complaints focus on Krikorian's statements during the election stating that Rep. Schmidt was taking money from organizations related to the Turkish government in exchange for denying the occurrence of what Krikorian called the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Turks during World War I. The complaints also relate to Election Commission records on campaign contributions Schmidt received from the Turkish American Heritage PAC and the Turkish Coalition USA PAC. Since filing the complaints, Schmidt's counsel has withdrawn four complaints, and an Ohio Elections Commission three-person panel decided there was probable cause to hear the remaining complaints on Thursday, Aug. 13. The five remaining complaints will be reviewed by the entire Commission on Sept. 3. In preparation for the Sept. 3 hearing, Krikorian's lawyer requested a subpoena for well known whistleblower and former interpreter for the FBI, Sibel Edmonds. The OEC declined to enforce the subpoena, however Edmonds agreed to speak to Krikorian and Schmidt's lawyers on a voluntary basis. The video deposition was brought forward by Krikorian's counsel to provide background on the alleged involvement of the Turkish government in Congressional affairs through blackmail, bribery, and campaign contributions filtered through various organizations. Edmonds also describes Turkish infiltration of the Pentagon and Air Force. Edmonds' deposition is significant because she has twice been "gagged" by a State Secrets exemption from testifying for a 9/11 investigation and a Congressional hearing. By various Internet bloggers she has been called the most gagged woman in the U.S. "We were very surprised she was allowed to testify," said Krikorian about the deposition. "She was gagged twice under the Bush Administration and we have received several threatening letters from the FBI and the Department of Justice. To Obama's and to Eric Holder the Attorney General's credit she was allowed to testify." As the Sept. 3 OEC hearing approaches, the depositions continue. Licoln McGurdy, Treasurer of the Turkish Coalition USA PAC was the recent subject of a deposition and Schmidt was to be deposed Monday, Aug. 24. Edmonds (who is Turkish-American) called as a witness for Krikorian (who is Armenian-American) testified to infiltration, bribery, corruption, and blackmail within the U.S. Government, by current and former members of the U.S. House and other high ranking officials, on behalf of Turkish interests. Schmidt filed the complaint with the OEC alleging "false statements" by Krikorian when he alleged she had taken "blood money" from those opposed to a Congressional declaration of Armenian Genocide by the Turks during WWI. Below is the video deposition by Edmonds. Some serious charges are made in this deposition, this newspaper/website provides this as public information that readers/viewers may develop their own opinions and understandings of the subject. Note most of Edmonds' deposition is relevant to a time period previous to Rep. Schmidt taking office. /////////////////////////////// Deadly vaccines!
After watching this I hope you learn this equation, Virus + government + Big pharma = misery and death
////////////////////////////// 24 Workshops on How to Take Back America
/////////////////////////// PROSECUTING BUSH AND CHENEY COULD PREVENT FUTURE CRIMES
“Today, there is no accountability for our leaders, nor do their own families face death on the front lines as occurred during the Civil War when several Cabinet officials’ sons or brothers faced battle and World WII when one of FDR’s sons participated in extraordinarily dangerous missions in the Pacific.” Sherwood Ross is a media consultant to the law school. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com
///////////////////////
International Paper Treads Monsanto’s Path to ‘Frankenforests’
Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- International Paper Co., the world’s
largest pulp and paper maker, plans to remake commercial forests
in the same way Monsanto Co. revolutionized farms with
genetically modified crops. International Paper’s ArborGen joint venture with
MeadWestvaco Corp. and New Zealand’s Rubicon Ltd. is seeking
permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell the
first genetically engineered forest trees outside China. The
Australian eucalyptus trees are designed to survive freezes in
the U.S. South. Plantations of engineered trees would give International
Paper a competitive advantage by providing a reliable supply of
lower cost wood at a time when timberlands are dwindling because
of development, said David Liebetreu, the Memphis, Tennessee-
based company’s vice president of global sourcing. Opponents are
concerned that alien genes may contaminate natural forests,
echoing objections to modified crops that Monsanto still faces. “There is a potential to explode once they get these trees
approved,” said David Knott, who manages $1.3 billion as chief
executive officer of Dorset Management in Syosett, New York. He
said he increased his stake in Rubicon to 70.5 million shares
this year to bet on ArborGen because it has a customer base of
large landowners and little competition. “This could take off
faster than Monsanto.” Monsanto’s genetics, which were first sold in herbicide-
tolerant soybeans in 1996 and insect-resistant corn the
following year, were used in 88 percent of the world’s 309
million acres of biotech plantings last year. Monsanto’s sales
of seeds and genetics quadrupled since 2002 to $6.4 billion last
year. ArborGen Sales ArborGen may boost yearly sales to $500 million in 2017
from $25 million by following Monsanto’s blueprint for
commercializing engineered plants, said Stephen Walker, head of
asset management at New Zealand-based Goldman Sachs JBWere Ltd.,
which owns Rubicon shares and holds no stock in International
Paper or MeadWestvaco. The partners eventually might sell shares
of ArborGen to the public, International Paper’s Liebetreu said. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may
approve sales of freeze-tolerant eucalyptus trees by late 2010,
ArborGen Chief Executive Officer Barbara Wells said. The company
also is developing trees that are easier to pulp and that grow
twice as fast, said Wells, a former Monsanto executive who has a
doctorate in agronomy. ArborGen’s eucalyptus would become the first engineered
forest tree sold in the U.S., where disease-resistant plum and
papaya trees already are permitted, according to a USDA
database. China has planted about 1.4 million biotech black
poplars since commercialization in 2002. Increasing Risk Engineered eucalyptus trees could be an ecological
disaster, bringing increased fire risk and extraordinary water
consumption to a new environment, said Neil J. Carman, an
Austin, Texas-based member of the Sierra Club’s genetic
engineering committee. Easier-to-pulp trees will be weak, and
hurricanes will spread their pollen and contaminate native
forests, he said. “These are Frankenforests,” Carman said. “You are
tampering with Mother Nature in a big way by putting genetically
engineered trees out there.” The group won a court order in 2007 requiring Monsanto to
pull modified alfalfa plants from the market while the USDA
reviewed their environmental impact more thoroughly, and Carman
said a similar strategy may be used against modified trees. ArborGen says that genes won’t spread because its trees
grow on plantations, not in forests, and are engineered to be
infertile with impaired pollen production. Tree Plantations About 4 percent of the world’s 8.5 billion forest acres are
plantations, and 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres) of new
plantations are added annually, according to the United Nations. “It’s through plantation forests and increased
productivity that you protect native forests,” ArborGen’s Wells
said. “We pursue products that we know are environmentally
safe.” ArborGen, based in Summerville, South Carolina, was created
in 2000 when the three partners pooled their tree-research
assets and intellectual property. The venture sells about 300
million conventional tree seedlings a year to 2,000 customers in
the U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Rubicon derives most of its value from ArborGen, one of two
ventures it owns. International Paper and MeadWestvaco, a
cardboard maker, are so large that their 33 percent stakes in
ArborGen aren’t material to earnings, the companies said. Sustainable Hardwood Source The papermaker’s main interest in ArborGen is the potential
of modified trees such as cold-tolerant eucalyptus to provide a
sustainable source of hardwood for pulp, Liebetreu said. That
becomes more important as the U.S. starts to make biofuels from
timber, which may double harvest pressure in the U.S. South,
International Paper said in a June 9 letter to USDA. “If you could go back and buy Monsanto when it was just
starting to develop genetically modified seeds, would you do
it?” said Walker of Goldman Sachs JBWere. “I think so.” Parallels with Monsanto aren’t a coincidence. Wells, 54,
spent 18 years at that company, including four years introducing
modified soybeans in Brazil. ArborGen Chief Science Officer Maud
Hinchee and James Mann, vice president of business development,
also worked at St. Louis-based Monsanto. ArborGen Pricing ArborGen may charge 20 times more for its engineered trees
than its cheapest seedlings and two to three times more than its
best conventional products as it claims a share of the revenue
landowners gain from growing high-quality wood faster, according
to Rubicon’s July update. Monsanto’s modified corn and soybean
seeds are priced to grab as much as half the increased income
farmers realize from higher yields and lower pest-control costs. ArborGen became the world’s largest seedling producer when
it bought assets from its parent companies in 2007, making it
the only tree developer with its own market channel for genetic
technology, Wells said. Others developing gene-modified trees,
including FuturaGene Plc in the U.K. and SweTree Technologies in
Sweden, lack seedling businesses and aren’t yet pursuing
permission for commercial sales. Monsanto’s research into genetically modified trees is
limited to a Brazilian collaboration on eucalyptus and citrus
trees at Alellyx SA, which Monsanto acquired in November after
the project began, spokeswoman Kelli Powers said. Faster-Growing Trees ArborGen next plans to seek U.S. approval to sell loblolly
pine, used for lumber and paper, engineered to mature in 18
years rather than 26. In Brazil, ArborGen plans to seek approval
for eucalyptus that matures in four years, rather than seven,
and eucalyptus with reduced lignin. Extracting lignin, a brown polymer that hardens trees, is
one of the most expensive and polluting parts of making pulp,
said Graeme P. Berlyn, professor at Yale University’s School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies. “They definitely will find a market if they can do what
they claim,” Berlyn said. There is a small chance some modified trees will produce
pollen and fertilize conventional relatives, Berlyn said.
Populations contaminated with low-lignin traits could be
weakened and vulnerable to breakage for thousands of years
before evolution eliminates the inferior genetics, he said. “All of this is a bit troubling,” said Berlyn, who edits
the Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Expanded Testing While ArborGen awaits approval to sell cold-tolerant
eucalyptus, it also is seeking USDA permission to expand a 57-
acre test of the trees to 330 acres, mainly in Texas, Florida
and Alabama. ArborGen is working with different eucalyptus species than
those that have become pests in California, and the biotech
trees are “unlikely” to prove invasive in the U.S. South,
according to the USDA. The draft environmental assessment on
expanded field testing drew thousands of comments opposing the
USDA’s conclusion that the research poses an insignificant risk. The proposed field tests involve 260,000 experimental trees
and are tantamount to commercial approval, the Sierra Club’s
Carman said. If the field tests are approved, the Sierra Club
may sue the USDA to compel a more thorough study, known as an
environmental impact statement, he said. In 2007, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ordered
the USDA to conduct such an assessment of Monsanto’s Roundup
Ready alfalfa and blocked further sales after the Sierra Club
and organic farmer groups challenged the plant’s approval. The
USDA hasn’t yet released an assessment of ArborGen’s application
to commercialize modified eucalyptus. Approval would set ArborGen on a path to sell 275 million
engineered seedlings a year by 2018, assuming its first five
modified trees are permitted, contributing to after-tax cash
flows of as much as $700 million, according to an April report
commissioned by Rubicon. To contact the reporter on this story:
Jack Kaskey in New York at
jkaskey@bloomberg.net ///////////////////////////// I'll Give Up My Chicken When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Hands
Last week I had dinner with two friends, one of whom is what the mainstream would call a conspiracy nut. Over the course of a couple of hours and a bunch of margaritas he walked us through everything from the government's role in 9/11 to the FEMA internment camps to the surge in gun regulations, all of which are scary, but also mostly beyond my experience. I'm a finance guy who gets the monetary side of what's coming, but I don't own guns (yet) and have no first-hand knowledge of 9/11 or FEMA camps. So -- while some or all of these things might be true -- it was still a bit academic. Then we got to something I could relate to: Apparently the U.S. is getting ready to require every citizen who owns even a single backyard chicken to register their livestock and implant them with a microchip that will allow both identification and tracking. The chicken (or goat or pig) owner will be required to notify the government when the animal is moved, say to the county fair 4-H barn. And when the animal dies the owner will have to fill out a form and submit it to the authorities within 24 hours. AND the owner will be required to register visitors to their property, whether they come into contact with the livestock or not. This sounded too ridiculous to be real. The other conspiracies at least have plausible, if dark, rationales, like setting us up for a war, containing troublesome mobs of unemployed private sector workers, or putting gun owners under the thumb of the ATF. But why would a would-be dictator care about the neighbor's chickens? So I googled NAIS, for National Animal Identification System, and discovered that it is indeed real, has been around for a while, and calls for pretty much everything mentioned above, though initially on a voluntary basis. See this 2005 article by Justin & Franklin Sanders of the The Money Changer newsletter. And watch these videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu9oKmqQpD4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERO_g9duCCo&NR=1 NAIS' stated purpose -- to be able to track animals back to their source in case of a disease outbreak -- is something the USDA would obviously like to have, in the same way that the FBI would love to be able to monitor all telephone calls and emails without a warrant. But the downside of handing this kind of power to the government is so huge and so obvious that anybody with a sense of history has to suspect that the public rationale for NAIS is a smokescreen for some darker motive, of which several possibilities come to mind. First, the per-animal cost of the chips and the paperwork (not to mention the loss of privacy) goes up exponentially as the number of animals per square meter goes down. So motive number one is clearly to enable big factory farmers and chip makers to squeeze fast-growing local farmers by raising their costs. NAIS will also make it harder for individuals to raise chickens for eggs or cows for milk, making consumers more reliant on the ag/industrial complex. Meanwhile, people who keep animals and buy local produce also frequently own guns, and by and large would like to be left alone to pursue their own interests. Many of them own gold because they don't trust the government to protect their dollar savings. This is clearly a dangerously subversive subculture, and knowing where they are would be very helpful in case of a, ahem, public health crisis. There's also the monetary angle. As Catherine Austin Fitts, whose Solari Network is doing great work in fields like financial freedom and sustainable communities, puts it: "Oil is not sufficient to provide the backing for a global virtual currency. For that you need to control food; which means corporate ownership and control of seed and food production and distribution. NAIS is designed to help facilitate the roll up of control in the United States in the most economic manner." And here's Ron Paul's take: http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul326.html A Step Back This month, after apparently getting an earful from local farmers, Congress voted to scale back funding for NAIS. They didn't kill it, which means agribusiness (and Homeland Security?) will now start lobbying to get funding restored. But this at least gives more people a chance to start paying attention. According to Catherine Austin Fitts, the best source for keeping up with NAIS is the Weston A. Price Foundation //////////////////////////////// Why are These Bizarre Ingredients Your skin is your largest organ -- and also the thinnest. Less than 1/10th of an inch separates your body from potential toxins. Worse yet, your skin is highly permeable. Just about anything you put on your skin will end up in your blood stream, and will be distributed throughout your body. Which is why I'm so fond of saying "don't put anything on your body that you wouldn't eat if you had to..." Though it has been said many times, beauty is more than skin deep. Attempting to change your appearance from the outside while neglecting what goes on inside is a temporary fix at best. When it comes to the beauty industry, anything goes… And money reigns supreme. Which means that it’s caveat emptor – “buyer beware”. You need to be the captain of your own ship and know what’s in the products you use. If you thought the FDA was watching out for you… Well, let’s just let that idea blow off right now. They let the cosmetic industry, including skin care products, police itself (your tax dollars notwithstanding). The list of people trying to help you out is surprisingly small -- almost non-existent. Currently, there are estimated to be more than 10,500 cosmetic and personal care products on the North American market. Of those products, the Environmental Working Group estimates that 99% of the products contain one or more ingredients that have never been evaluated for safety. The cosmetic industry and their love of loopholes. Some of the biggies are: "For Professional Use Only" -- This phrase allows cosmetic companies to remove harmful chemicals from their labels. "Hypoallergenic" -- No actual testing is necessary to claim that a product is "hypoallergenic", "allergy-free" or "safe for sensitive skin". Neither the FDA nor any other regulating body even requires the companies to prove these claims. Harmful Chemicals -- Unless they are intentionally placed in the product, harmful chemicals are not required to be listed. It's no shocker that you never see these. The cosmetics industry is a $50 billion a year business (in the US alone). They spend a remarkable $2 billion a year on advertising. Even more appalling than that is the amount of chemicals you place on your skin every year. Women who use makeup daily absorb, on average, 5 pounds each year. As with the Vioxx debacle, the FDA cannot actively act on a product until after it has already severely injured or killed many people. And because the cosmetic companies are motivated by their profits, they won't be pointing out the dangers of their products to you any time soon. Your only solution is to rely on your own skills of investigation. Many people – even those who carefully select organic or gourmet foods to eat choose skin care products that can do serious damage to their skin. Now, realize that I’m not suggesting you’d intentionally apply toxins to your skin. You simply may not realize the extent to which many common skin care products contain suspect ingredients with unrecognizable or unpronounceable names. Do you ever put things onto your skin that you wouldn’t think of eating? I hope not... You see, I believe that what you put on your skin is absorbed into your bloodstream and integrated into your body’s tissues. A number of these potential toxins have estrogen-mimicking effects that can wreak havoc on all your good health intentions. And there are other potential problems too… Simple answer: because they’re cheap, readily available, and easy to dilute. Are they in the products you currently use? It’s time to check. Go grab your containers of skin care products and check them against the following … Click here
to read the rest of the story!
|
