Your Food Freedom is Threatened

Back in 2009 I wrote an article for World Net Daily warning that nationalized health care is the thin end of a wedge that can only end in totalitarianism. I argued that this is because any time there is a direct link between the physical health of a populace and the nation’s fiscal integrity (which there obviously is when government promises to pick up the tab on everyone’s medical expenses), the state cannot help but develop an inordinate interest in keeping its citizens healthy. I argued that a government which promises to provide health care for its citizens begins to take a deep interest in the minutiae of their personal lives.

As if in uncanny fulfillment of my predictions, news has been pouring in of the American government asserting control over the health decisions of its people. No longer is it our own business what we eat and drink – it’s the deep concern of Uncle Sam, and he is prepared to use force to bring us into line.

My concern over this issue prompted me to do an interview with Ryan Close on the importance of health freedom and how that freedom is currently under attack. Read the interview now.

How to REALLY eliminate the carbon footprint!

Neuter

On December 10, 2009, seventy-three members of the US House of Representatives sent a letter to the White House urging President Obama to add one billion dollars in funding for international family planning to his 2011 budget. 
 
Advocates of family planning are hardly a new phenomenon. What was noteworthy about this letter, however, was that it cited “climate change” as a reason to advocate lower birth rates. “Family planning,” it said, “should be part of larger strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Slower population growth will make reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions easier to achieve.” 
 
The 73 Congressmen who signed that letter were not alone in linking birthrates with global temperatures.

Keep reading

BP Oil Spill

BP cleanup crews used special chemicals to break down the oil particles in the water. This is a necessary and appropriate part of returning the gulf to normal. However, among the many chemical dispersants that BP could have chosen, they selected a high toxic chemical known as Corexit. After airplanes dumped over 700,000 gallons of Corexit into the gulf, everyone felt better because the oil was no longer visible. However, it was not widely advertised that Corexit actually creates poisonous plumes under the water that are hundreds of square miles wide, which kill all life in their path at 3,000 feet below sea level. In these plumes – which are currently estimated to be about the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined – nothing that requires oxygen can survive. J. Speer-Williams described these plumes in his article, ‘Corexit is Killing the Gulf’:

“These plumes are hundreds of square miles of poisonous, oily micro-particles that go unseen by satellites, cameras, and the naked eyes of the world. They kill all life in their path at 3,000 feet below sea level. This is death to all life within the fragile Gulf Coast ecosystems that are impacted by these Corexit plumes. Plant, animal, and marine life will die as these oily, Corexit plumes slip their broken oily gunk well under protective booms…

Crabtree’s justification for such an insane, criminal act was that their Corexit would drive the oil well below the water’s surface, thus keeping it away from coastal shorelines. So instead of removing the oil, BP decided to make the oil even more toxic, and drive it deep into the ocean where it can never be retrieved, but will kill all marine life in its path.

The strange thing about it is that Corexit ranks far above other dispersants in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling this type of crude. A product called Dispersit, for example, is nearly twice as effective and between half and a third as toxic as Corexit, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency. As Paul Quinlan has observed in the New York Times:

“Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.”

So why did BP choose Corexit in the first place? If one knows anything about BP, the answer should come as no surprise. BP is buying the chemical from Nalco Co., whose current leadership includes executives from BP. The more effective and less polluting dispersants are made by Nalco’s competitors. “It’s a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically,” said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife.

Read more

Peter Singer Quote

"Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about. So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction! Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off." Peter Singer, from 'Should This Be the Last Generation?'

Dead Zones Substantiate Earlier Concerns About BP Cleanup

Yesterday it was reported that scientists “have discovered some new and troubling problems from the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill.” According to latest discoveries, “approximately seven miles from the site of the BP oil spill, scientists have found a large area of ocean floor coral dead.” In another report that broke yesterday, a Canadian toxicologist has found that “chemicals used to reduce oil slicks during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may have rendered the oil more toxic than official reports suggest…”

Yesterday Google registered 3,359 recent news stories all saying the same thing – that the disaster in the Gulf is a lot worse than anyone realized and that the cleanup efforts have left huge sections of the Gulf completely void of life.

Well, I’m sorry to be cynical, but the only news is that the public is now recognizing what I and others warned at the time

As early as August 6 I reported that BP cleanup crews had selected a highly toxic chemical dispersant known as Corexit for breaking down the oil particles. After airplanes dumped over 700,000 gallons of Corexit into the gulf, everyone felt better because the oil was no longer visible. Though it was not widely advertised, I pointed out that Corexit was creating poisonous plumes under the water that are hundreds of square miles wide, which kill all life in their path at 3,000 feet below sea level.

The reality of the situation – which is only now beginning to sink in – is that the cleanup effort was even more disastrous to the ecosystem than the initial spill. To read more about this, and the political reasons that prompted BP to choose such a toxic dispersant in the first place, read my article “Learning from the BP oil Spill.

Actual Humanoid, Semi-Persons Rumored to Possibly Be In Your Can of Tuna

Antarctic_humanoid_2

And no. I'm not talking about dolphins. Known as "Ningen", these giant creatures are said to be swimming the antarctic. Sightings have come from Japanese whalers. See more artist's renditions and a description here:

Reportedly observed on multiple occasions by crew members of government-operated “whale research” ships, these so-called “Ningen” (lit. “humans”) are said to be completely white in color with an estimated length of 20 to 30 meters. Eyewitnesses describe them as having a human-like shape, often with legs, arms, and even five-fingered hands. Sometimes they are described as having fins or a large mermaid-like tail instead of legs. The only visible facial features are the eyes and mouth.

The Japanese "whale research ships" have been in the news recently too. There is a rather vocal and well publicized group (ever hear of Whale Wars on Animal Planet?) protesting the "research" of these ships, claiming that they are actually poaching the whales. Last week these groups literally collided when their ships crashed into each other, and fingers are pointing from both sides as to who is at fault. I'm not taking sides on this one. Although, as far as the protesters are concerned, cruising around in a black futuristic jet-boat with skull and crossbones painted on it and throwing stink bombs doesn't really make one look innocent of maritime shenanigans.

But back to these so-called "Ningen". Some say the creatures were invented by the government to take attention away from the alleged poaching of the whales. Others think they are the tortured souls of the poached whales themselves wandering the earth, so to speak. OR maybe the Japanese government and the protesters are actually working together to boost ratings for Animal Planet! I guess we'll never know for sure (If the Ningen exist. . . Or what they taste like).