Letter from Dianne Feinstein on Netanyahu's Speech

Oh look, another ardent supporter of Israel

 

Dear  TP :

 

Thank you for writing to express your thoughts on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech before a joint session of Congress.  I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. 

 

On March 2, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress to discuss U.S.-Israeli relations and the ongoing P5+1 (a group of countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, and Russia) negotiations with Iran regarding Iran's nuclear program.  

 

First, please know that though I attended Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, I believe the decision by Speaker Boehner to invite Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak before Congress without consulting the administration was a breach of protocol and an unwelcome injection of partisan politics into our nation's foreign policy debate.  This invitation and speech also put the United States in the middle of Israel's March 2015 election, which I believe was highly inappropriate. 

 

Second, Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech powerfully reinforced the close U.S.-Israeli relationship and reaffirmed the United States' continued contribution to Israel's security.  Prime Minister Netanyahu also made clear his concerns with a diplomatic agreement that the P5+1 are attempting to conclude with Iran. 

 

As you may know, since January 2014, Iran and the P5+1 have abided by an interim nuclear agreement known as the Joint Plan of Action, which has frozen and reversed in some respects Iran's nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief.  The purpose of the interim agreement was to facilitate good faith negotiations towards a final, comprehensive agreement that would ensure Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.  According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has closely adhered to the Joint Plan of Action, and on April 2, 2015, Iran and the P5+1 announced a framework agreement to produce a final deal by June 30, 2015.

 

With international sanctions in place and Iran's nuclear program halted as a result of the Joint Plan of Action, I have strongly supported the extension of talks and the diplomatic efforts currently underway to resolve concerns about Iran's nuclear program.  I believe these negotiations represent a critical—and possibly the only—opportunity to peacefully curtail Iran's nuclear program. 

 

Consequently, I do not agree with an effort to impose additional sanctions against Iran.  I concur with the judgment of the Intelligence Community that imposing these additional sanctions while we are simultaneously negotiating with Iran would undermine the prospect of a diplomatic resolution.  That is why I oppose additional sanctions against Iran at this time.  

 

Please know that I have taken careful note of the concerns you raised in your letter, and I appreciate your input on these important topics.   

 

Again, thank you for your letter.  I hope you continue to keep me informed on matters of importance to you.  If you have any additional questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,


  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator

MSM focused on Baltimore unrest like a warzone – Lionel

Why Is No One Talking About The Political Assassinations In Ukraine

George Soros Owes Billions In Back Taxes, Pleas to be Taxed

Reminds me of Warren Buffet's plea to have his taxes raised.  Imagine if we actually stopped corporate welfare for the elite and taxed these bastards!

-----------------------------

“You support President Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy?” That was the question put to George Soros on CNN some three years ago. Here was his answer:

“Yes, very much… the super bubble really resulted in creating a great increase in inequality, and now we have the after effect where you have slow growth, but if you could have better distribution of income, then the average American would actually be better off.”

There’s no question that “everyday Americans” (as a reminder, those are the people Hillary Clinton wants to help by running for president… well, those people and perhaps a few foreign governments and any investment bank who is willing to pay her husband six figures for a speech) would be better off if they got a larger piece of the pie, but as we’ve seen over the past several months, that’s not likely to happen as wage growth declines for the 80% of American workers classified by the BLS as “non-supervisory” even as the country’s supervisors see their pay increase, and as Fed policy continues to inflate the assets most likely to be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. As this sad reality continues to play itself out destroying the American Middle Class in the process, we wondered if Soros was doing his best to ameliorate the situation by redistributing more of his vast wealth to the very same “average Americans” about which he expressed so much concern in 2012. The short answer: no. 

Via Bloomberg:

George Soros likes to say the rich should pay more taxes. A substantial part of his wealth, though, comes from delaying them. While building a record as one of the world’s greatest investors, the 84-year-old billionaire used a loophole that allowed him to defer taxes on fees paid by clients and reinvest them in his fund, where they continued to grow tax-free. At the end of 2013, Soros—through Soros Fund Management—had amassed $13.3 billion through the use of deferrals, according to Irish regulatory filings by Soros…

Congress closed the loophole in 2008 and ordered hedge fund managers who used it to pay the accumulated taxes by 2017. A New York-based money manager such as Soros would be subject to a federal rate of 39.6 percent, combined state and city levies totaling 12 percent, and an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income to pay for Obamacare, according to Andrew Needham, a tax partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Applying those rates to Soros’s deferred income would create a tax bill of $6.7 billion…

When Soros founded his firm, nothing in U.S. law prevented money managers from postponing the acceptance of client fees and letting the money remain in their funds, where it could grow untaxed. But doing so wasn’t really an option for funds based in the U.S., because if managers didn’t take the fees, their clients wouldn’t be able to deduct them from their own taxable income.

Hedge fund managers could circumvent this obstacle by setting up parallel offshore funds for investors who weren’t subject to U.S. taxes and who therefore didn’t care whether their fund manager deferred taxes on the fees. That way, the fees—typically 2 percent of the amount invested and 20 percent of any profits—plus any investment gains, could grow without being taxed until the managers withdrew the money…

A manager with Soros’s track record who started with $12 million from investors, took 20 percent of the profits, and reinvested that money tax-free over 40 years, would end up with $15.9 billion. If that same manager paid federal, state, and local taxes on the fees and related investment gains before reinvesting them, the figure would shrink to $2.4 billion…

Here’s the simple math: 

In the end, it would appear that we simply have yet another case of billionaire hypocrisy: "please raise taxes on all the uber-wealthy... except me."

Out With the Old, In With the New World Order - The Asia-Pacific Perspec...

What is the relationship between ISIS and the Patriot Controlled Opposition?

IMF To Announce New Dollar October 20th, 2015?

36 Nations Support #IndustrialHemp but NOT USA. Let #FreedomRing. SIGN #IndustrialHempPetition

Considering that hemp uses a boatload less water than walnuts, rice, and pistachios, I suggest Californians get on this NOW!

Vote Hemp Seeks Your Participation  Dear Friend, If thirty-six industrialized nations around the globe are producing industrial hemp, why doesn't the United States allow for hemp's production as well?  In 1970, industrial hemp was conflated with marijuana and deemed illegal by the Controlled Substance Act.  The United States is the largest importer of industrial hemp, and it's time to correct this mistake!  The legalization of industrial hemp is one of the most important legislative efforts of our day. Add your name today and show your support for the legalization of industrial hemp.  The Industrial Hemp Farming Act (S.134), introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), is a legislative effort to bring hemp home to the United States. It would remove industrial hemp from the controlled substances act and give states the opportunity to establish industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity.    You already know why legalizing hemp production is so important. Industrial hemp would provide a new agricultural commodity for the American farmer, provide much-needed resources to sustainable industries like textiles and bio-plastics, and help grow our economy from the middle out. Industrial hemp is the non-psychoactive variety of cannabis sativa L, and it's time for its production to be legalized. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act currently has six co-sponsors -- we need your help now to lend a name and a voice in support of this important legislation.      Sign our petition today supporting the Industrial Hemp Farming Act and show the overwhelming support for industrial hemp. It's time to allow industrial hemp to become a domestically produced product.  Thank you for your support, Vote Hemp About Vote Hemp Vote Hemp is a national, single-issue, nonprofit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and free market for industrial hemp, low-THC oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis, and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to grow the crop. Web Site: http://www.VoteHemp.com Support Vote Hemp Vote Hemp depends on donations to support its work. Please consider making a donation to Vote Hemp. Contribute Here: http://www.VoteHemp.com/contribute

Baltimore Orioles EVP Angelos Articulates the #RootCause of the #BaltimoreRiots

"A riot is the language of the unheard" - Dr. MLK Jr.

The day after violent protests left Baltimore burning in the wake of a funeral held for Freddie Gray who died after sustaining a spinal injury while being taken into policy custody, Americans are struggling to explain how the events that transpired on Monday evening are possible in modern day America. While most are united in their condemnation of indiscriminant violence, many still feel a palpable sense of injustice after witnessing multiple instances of alleged police misconduct over the past year. 

In this context we present the following culled from Twitter messages posted by Orioles Executive Vice President John Angelos, son of majority owner Peter Angelos:

“Brett, speaking only for myself, I agree with your point that the principle of peaceful, non-violent protest and the observance of the rule of law is of utmost importance in any society. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, and all great opposition leaders throughout history have always preached this precept. Further, it is critical that in any democracy investigation must be completed and due process must be honored before any government or police members are judged responsible.

That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night’s property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.

The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance, and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, an ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importance of any kids’ game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards. We need to keep in mind people are suffering and dying around the U.S., and while we are thankful no one was injured at Camden Yards, there is a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere who don’t have jobs and are losing economic civil and legal rights, and this makes inconvenience at a ball game irrelevant in light of the needless suffering government is inflicting upon ordinary Americans.” 

 Not exactly what the US Department of Truth wanted to hear.

#ClintonFoundation Revealed As #Oligarchy #SlushFund. Still #ReadyForHillary?

The hits keep on coming. Just last week, in the post, More Clinton Foundation Cronyism – The Deal to Sell Uranium Interests to Russia While Hillary was Secretary of State, I referred to the Clinton Foundation as “a veritable clearinghouse for cronyism masquerading as a charity.” Here’s the full opening paragraph to the piece:

If you looked at the U.S. economy under a microscope, what you’d see is a gigantic cancerous blob of cronyism surrounded by tech startups and huge prisons. If you zeroed in on the cancerous tumor, at the nucleus you’d see a network of crony institutions like the Federal Reserve, intelligence agencies, TBTF Wall Street banks and defense contractors. Pretty close to that, you’d probably find the Clinton Foundation. A veritable clearinghouse for cronyism masquerading as a charity.

Unsurprisingly, I’m not the only one who has come to such a conclusion. In a New York Post article from Sunday that is generating a lot of buzz, Bill Allison, a senior fellow at nonpartisan, nonprofit government watchdog group the Sunlight Foundation, is quoted saying:

It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.

In case you’re wondering what might prompt Mr. Allison to make such a claim, it’s not just the recent pay-to-play scandals that have emerged. It appears that based on Clinton Foundation tax filings, very little of the charity’s donations are going to, well, charity. In fact, this so called “charity” is so shady, a charity watchdog recently put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits. The New York Postreports:

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

It was the Federalist which first broke the story about the Clinton Foundation spending more money on salaries and travel than grants. It reported the following back in March:

When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.

Since then, the Clinton Foundation has tried to defend itself, but this is the Federalist’s response, published today:

After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work.”

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

Now here’s the money shot:

So are you ready?

Happy 100th Anniversary, Poison Gas! Thanks #BigPharma #Bayer

Plane Hacking Goes Mainstream - #NewWorldNextWeek

Fox News: Millions To Clinton Foundation In Exchange For Russian Uranium...

What Really Happened Radio Show: Michael Rivero Thursday April 23 2015: ...

Clinton Foundation received “dirty” Russian money from Putin cronies

Benghazi: Judge Jeanine Pirro Utterly Destroys Hillary Clinton

Why Rockefellers Aim at Destroying Farmers Worldwide?

 

For the bet­ter part of the past cen­tury West­ern pop cul­ture has sys­tem­at­i­cally den­i­grated and deval­ued what should be the most hon­ored pro­fes­sion of all. Those who labor with the land, day-in and day-out, to deliver the food that we eat have assumed a social sta­tus too often sim­i­lar to the dirt of the soil they till. No one stops to ask a sim­ple ques­tion: What do we do when we have killed off all our farmers?

Some of the more naïve city-dwellers would retort with lit­tle reflec­tion, “But we have indus­tri­al­ized food pro­duc­tion; we don’t need man­ual farm labor today.”

Indeed, the num­bers are impressive.

Let’s take my home­land, the United States of Amer­ica. In 1950, a time of gen­eral pros­per­ity and strong eco­nomic growth, the total US pop­u­la­tion was 151,132,000 and the farm pop­u­la­tion was 25,058,000 mak­ing farm­ers just over 12% of the total labor force. There were 5,388,000 farms with an aver­age size of about 87 hectares. Forty years later, in 1990, the year the Soviet Union col­lapsed and the Cold War ended, the USA had a total pop­u­la­tion of 261,423,000 of which the farm pop­u­la­tion num­bered just under three mil­lion, 2,987,552, mak­ing farm­ers a mere 2.6% of the total labor force. The num­ber of farms had shrunk to only 2,143,150, a loss of 60%, but because of indus­trial con­cen­tra­tion, aver­age size was 187 hectares.

Rockefeller’s Agribusi­ness Revolution

What we are told, those of us whose rela­tion to meat, dairy, fruits and veg­eta­bles ends at the super­mar­ket, is that this is a great progress, the lib­er­a­tion of almost 23 mil­lion farm work­ers to get city jobs and live a bet­ter life.

It isn’t that simple.

We are not told the true effects on food qual­ity that has been cre­ated by the mech­a­niza­tion and indus­tri­al­iza­tion of food pro­duc­tion in Amer­ica since the Har­vard Busi­ness School, on a grant from the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion, began what they termed “agribusi­ness,” the con­ver­sion of our food sup­ply into a pure for-profit ver­ti­cally inte­grated busi­ness mod­elled on the Rock­e­feller oil cartel.

The rais­ing of hogs, dairy cows, beef cat­tle, chicken all became indus­tri­al­ized grad­u­ally after the 1950’s in the USA. The baby chicks were con­fined to spaces so tiny they could barely stand. To make them get fat faster, the own­ers would pump them full of antibi­otics and feed them a diet of GMO corn and soya meal. Accord­ing to the Nat­ural Resources Defense Coun­cil, 80 per­cent of all antibi­otics sold in the United States are for use on live­stock and poul­try, not humans. The major­ity are given to ani­mals mixed in their food or water to speed growth. After all, time is money.

The tra­di­tional fam­ily farmer, of the sort my late grand­fa­ther was in North Dakota prior to the First World War, was dri­ven largely from the land by USDA Gov­ern­ment pol­icy, pol­icy that favored indus­tri­al­iza­tion regard­less of the qual­ity of food nutri­ent that resulted. Trac­tors became com­put­er­ized, mam­moth machines dri­ven by GPS. One such trac­tor could work remotely and do the work of many farm­ers of old.

The result was finan­cially fabulous….for the indus­try owners—ADM, Cargill, Mon­santo, for the pack­agers like Kraft Foods, Kel­loggs, Nes­tle, Unilever, Toepfer, Maggi. The Amer­i­can Rockefeller-Harvard “agribusi­ness” busi­ness model was glob­al­ized, begin­ning with the GATT nego­ti­a­tions of the Uruguay Round of trade lib­er­al­iza­tion in the late 1980s where the EU dropped much of its tra­di­tional pro­tec­tion of domes­tic farm­ers in favor of free trade in agri­cul­ture products.

Dur­ing the late 1980’s as the Uruguay Round of GATT trade nego­ti­a­tions was about to give US agribusi­ness giants what they wanted—freedom to rape the EU and other pro­tected agri­cul­ture mar­kets with their highly effi­cient prod­ucts, to destroy mil­lions of EU farm­ers who had farmed with a pas­sion for gen­er­a­tions, I went to Brus­sels to make a back­ground inter­view as a jour­nal­ist with a high-level EU Com­mis­sion bureau­crat respon­si­ble for agri­cul­ture. He was an appar­ently well-educated, multi-lingual bureau­crat, Danish-born as he noted. He argued in defense of free trade by declar­ing, “Why should I pay taxes from Den­mark so that Bavar­ian farm­ers on their tiny plots of land can remain in business?”

The answer, which I kept to myself then, was sim­ply because the tra­di­tional fam­ily farmer is uniquely suited to medi­ate with nature and us to pro­duce food that is healthy for humans and ani­mals to eat. No machine can replace the per­sonal ded­i­ca­tion or pas­sion that I have seen again and again in every farmer I have met who truly cares about his live­stock or crops.

Now the very same very rich and very love­less peo­ple, I call them the Amer­i­can Oli­garchs, are sys­tem­at­i­cally doing every­thing to destroy the human food qual­ity. Clearly in my view, they are doing so with a goal of mass pop­u­la­tion reduc­tion. There is no other rea­son the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion would spend hun­dreds of mil­lions of (tax exempt) dol­lars to cre­ate GMO tech­niques, to sup­port Mon­santo and other chem­i­cal giants like DuPont, clearly know­ing they are slowly poi­son­ing the pop­u­la­tion to an early death.

Depress­ing pesticides

This has been demon­strated in inde­pen­dent tests regard­ing the toxic effects on ani­mals and even human cells in an embryo. Now, inde­pen­dent even of GMO crops, new tests show that ordi­nary pes­ti­cide chem­i­cals sprayed by farm work­ers or farm­ers on crops cause neu­ro­log­i­cal damage—depression, Parkin­sons’ and even suicide—to the farm­ers or farm work­ers using the deadly chemicals.

The US National Insti­tute of Envi­ron­men­tal Health Sci­ences in their land­mark Agri­cul­tural Health Study stud­ied a group of 89,000 farm­ers and other pes­ti­cide appli­ca­tors in Iowa and North Car­olina. The mam­moth study con­cluded that, “use of two pes­ti­cide classes, fumi­gants and organochlo­rine insec­ti­cides, and seven indi­vid­ual pesticides—the fumi­gants alu­minum phos­phide and eth­yl­ene dibro­mide; the phe­noxy her­bi­cide (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4,5-T); the organochlo­rine insec­ti­cide dield­rin; and the organophos­phate insec­ti­cides diazi­non, malathion, and parathion—were all pos­i­tively asso­ci­ated with depres­sion in each case group.”

The study showed that farm­ers with the high­est num­ber of life­time expo­sure days to pes­ti­cides were 50 per­cent more likely to later have a depres­sion diag­no­sis.
The research linked long-term use of pes­ti­cides to higher rates of depres­sion and sui­cide. Evi­dence also sug­gests that pes­ti­cide poi­son­ing – a heavy dose in a short amount of time – dou­bles the risk of depression.

After sup­press­ing the effects among farm fam­i­lies for years about the result­ing depres­sion and related neu­ro­log­i­cal symp­toms, farm­ers and their fam­i­lies have begun speak­ing out. Lorann Stal­lones, an epi­demi­ol­o­gist and psy­chol­ogy pro­fes­sor at Col­orado State Uni­ver­sity says, “There’s been a shift – partly because there’s more peo­ple talk­ing about being men­tally inca­pac­i­tated.”

Epi­demi­ol­o­gist Freya Kamel and her col­leagues reported that among 19,000 stud­ied, “those who used two classes of pes­ti­cides and seven indi­vid­ual pes­ti­cides were more likely to have been diag­nosed with depres­sion. Those who used organochlo­rine insec­ti­cides were up to 90 per­cent more likely to have been diag­nosed with depres­sion than those who hadn’t used them. For fumi­gants, the increased risk was up to 80 per­cent.”
In France, farm­ers who used her­bi­cides were nearly twice as likely to have been treated for depres­sion as those who didn’t use her­bi­cides, accord­ing to a study pub­lished in 2013. The study of 567 French farm­ers found that the risk was even greater when the her­bi­cide appli­ca­tors had been doing it for more than 19 years.

In short, we are destroy­ing the nutri­tional value of the food we eat and slowly destroy­ing the remain­ing farm­ers respon­si­ble for cul­ti­vat­ing that. It is a recipe for the ulti­mate extinc­tion of life on the planet as we know it. No, that is not an exaggeration.

I firmly believe that hon­est, nature-conscious organic farm­ers ought to receive sig­nif­i­cant tax breaks to encour­age other farm­ers to leave the grotesque agribusi­ness model behind and return to grow­ing or rais­ing hon­est food again as they did only a few short decades ago. And severely high tax­a­tion ought to be imposed on farm­ers who use proven toxic chem­i­cals like Roundup by Mon­santo or the neon­i­coti­noids like Bayer AG’s Con­fi­dor, Gau­cho or Advo­cate, or Pon­cho, or Syngenta’s Actara, Plat­inum or Cruiser to name just the most sold.

Right now our reg­u­la­tors in the EU and USA do every­thing to dis­cour­age that, some­thing actu­ally quite stu­pid, unless, of course, some love­less, power-addicted oli­garchs sit­ting atop their moun­tain, look­ing con­temp­tu­ously down on us nor­mal folk, have decided that’s just what they desire. If so, it’s up to us to stop look­ing up to those on the moun­tain and look at what we our­selves have accepted as nor­mal, that is slowly killing us and the farm­ers who feed us. Maybe the time has come to change that unhealthy situation.

Related Posts

• Agenda 21 For Dum­mies: New World Order Depop­u­la­tion Exposed
• Obama Has Begun to Sys­tem­at­i­cally Depop­u­late and Dein­dus­tri­al­ize the Suburbs
• The Agenda 21 Depop­u­la­tion of Rural Areas Will Give Obama Stalin-Like Con­trol Over Food
• Glob­al­ists Tak­ing Charge: Agenda 21’s Global Depop­u­la­tion Agenda
• The Tar­get Date for America’s Depop­u­la­tion Has Been Set
• It’s Not Fear­mon­ger­ing or a Con­spir­acy The­ory when Elit­ists Are on Record for 95% of the Pop­u­la­tion to be Eliminated
• Pop­u­la­tion reduc­tion white paper argues that the killing of 2 bil­lion peo­ple still isn’t enough
• “Free Trade” Agree­ments Are Crim­i­nal­is­ing Farm­ers’ Seeds for the Ben­e­fit of Multi­na­tional Corporations
• Actu­ally, Rais­ing Beef Is Good for the Planet
• Record US Farm­ers Switch­ing to Non-GMO Crops in 2015
• Min­nesota aims to fine fam­ily farm­ers $500 per day
• Police Raid Small Fam­ily Farm, Charge Fam­ily, Seize Ani­mals Because they were Free Range
• US Agribusi­ness, GMOs and The Plun­der­ing Of The Planet
• The Free Mar­ket is Solv­ing the GMO Problem
• Who Owns the Envi­ron­men­tal­ist Movement?
• Hun­dreds of Farm­ers Block Roads in Protest of Monsanto’s GMO Crops
• UPDATE: Min­nesota Farmer Vic­to­ri­ous in Court!
• The Impacts of Genetic Engi­neer­ing: Not Sci­ence, Just Lies and Pro­pa­ganda: The Mas­sive Fraud Behind GMOs Exposed
• Seed Laws that Crim­i­nalise Farm­ers: Resis­tance and Fightback

#DarkPools?

global central bankers for affecting "pricing in today’s market to such an extent that monetary policy itself has been a risk you have to watch;" and market structure, criticizing the proliferation of dark pools,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-23/norways-giant-sovereign-wealth-fund-goes-full-tinfoil-fringe-blog

posted from Bloggeroid

#WaterWars in #Drought Ridden #California - #Fluoridation #Fluoride

It appears Facebook is not completely worthless.

Fluoride Action Network shared Erin Brockovich's photo.

April 21 at 8:21am · 

Environmental activist and consumer advocate, Erin Brockovich, posted a statement calling for an end to fluoridation, for hearings to hold public officials accountable, for organizations to rescind endorsements of fluoridation, and for further research on removing accumulated fluoride from our bodies. Please read, like, comment, and share:

Erin Brockovich

After a great deal of research and personal thought, I am opposed to the continued policy and practice of drinking water fluoridation; I believe this harmful practice must be ended immediately. Public drinking water is a basic human right; and its systematic use as a dispensary of a substance for medical purposes is deplorable.

Shocking revelations are surfacing in the growing scandal; real harm from fluoride affects people of all races and ages, but one of the especially shocking aspects of the scandal is how dental and government officials responded when The Lillie Center for Energy & Health Studies publicized the science showing disproportionate fluoride harm to the African American community. Minority community and civil rights leaders have been speaking out, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece Alveda King. Ms. King recently posted on my Facebook page that I should keep shining the light on Fluoridegate. Ms. King also called for public hearings, and I agree: it's time for meaningful public hearings. There are numerous documents and aspects to this scandal that investigative bodies and investigative journalists will want to examine.

Now is the time for professional and consumer advocacy groups that have blindly lent their name to support drinking water fluoridation to rescind that permission. How many of them actually conducted their own reviews before allowing their name to be used? And now is the time to ask the hard questions about the nature of the relationship between trade groups, our surgeon generals, and other government officials concerning drinking water fluoridation.

As a mother and grandmother, I am concerned about families in fluoridated communities using fluoridated drinking water from their tap to mix infant milk formula. I am concerned that the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has designated kidney patients, children, diabetics and seniors as "susceptible subpopulations" that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides. How can we in good conscience give susceptible persons an uncontrolled amount of fluorides in water? I also strongly support Drinking water utility professionals, many I know many deplore and feel guilty about the idea of dispensing medication through drinking water and working with the dangerous fluoridation chemicals.

Drinking water fluoridation takes away people's freedom to choose what they take into their bodies. Low income families may not have the financial means to avoid over dosing with their drinking water.

I call for four avenues of action:

1. An immediate repeal of all laws that require or enable fluoridation.
2. Holding of Fluoridegate hearings at both national and state levels.
3. For professional associations and advocacy groups to rescind allowing their names to be used to support drinking water fluoridation.
4. For key research to immediately begin on how to safely remove fluorides that have accumulated in people's bones and pineal glands.

My career has been about making people aware of harmful exposures and the deception that often accompanies those exposures. Drinking water fluoridation is harmful, we've been deceived to believe it is safe, and with new found knowledge we must all act now to stop it.

Like · Comment · Share

• Most Relevant

  Zanne Gallop, PristineHydro Living Water, Karen Turner Drea and 1,124 others like this.
• 

  Helen Bibelheimer We should not have to fight for clean water

  30 · April 21 at 9:23am
• 1 Reply
• 

  Monica Kimball Fluoridation is in violation of the Clean Water Act.

  29 · April 21 at 11:30am
• 

  Rebecca Flaming-Martin Portland Oregon won against the effort to force fluoridation on us by our mayor and city council. I helped get folks to sign petitions to get the chance to vote on it. I have fibromyalgia and I cared enough about this to suffer to get signatures. People need to get informed and take action against this form of water pollution.

  3 · April 21 at 7:40pm · Edited
• 

  Doris Loadwick Sadly the "powers that be" have brainwashed the American public into thinking fluoridation is a "good/necessary thing to do". I just came back from the dentist and they always ask if I would like a fluoride treatment and as always I said NO! People nee...See More

  2 · April 21 at 10:57am
• 

  Candice Brannon Bella If they have their way, we'll be fighting for water.

  1 · April 21 at 9:33pm
• 

  Dominic Dunne Fluoridation is Chemical Warfare on the Nation !

  1 · April 21 at 7:37pm
• 

  Hally DeCarion Yes. Helen. We shouldn't have to fight for clean water. But that's our reality now in Sonoma County CA where this is being debated for two years. The Public Health Dept. thinks it's a 'good' thing. They focus on the argument that poor children ...See More

  1 · April 21 at 10:24am
• 1 Reply
• 

  Goldie G. Hathaway Ban Fluoride!

  April 21 at 4:30pm
• 

  Keith Miller Wow, Brockovich you are one writer. Concise, organized, logical. With you on this side the " Fluoridgaters" are toast. Thank You. Wish you had a writing class, you are a 15 on a scale of 5.

  April 21 at 1:23pm
• 

  Wendy Mojelski Spezowka Helen Bibelheimer Looks like we have to, like the countries that now have it out of their water it has to be done!! This not only applies to the fluoride in our water but the GMOed food being allowed across our borders , we need to fight for whats right , I have grand babies and if I can't fight for them and their future so they have a quality life with good health what is the purpose of it all?? :)) Its time!

  Yesterday at 9:05am
• 

  Shelly Barney It's mass medication. Water fluoridation takes a person's rights to choose away. There is no way to regulate how much fluoride and one person will consume. Unfortunately the only way to filter it out is by reverse osmosis or distillation.

  April 21 at 10:43pm
• 

  Mike Phillips http://www.foodconsumer.org/.../fluoride_0813121119.html
  

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

  foodconsumer.org - Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children’s IQ

  Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children’s IQ

  FOODCONSUMER.ORG

  4 · April 21 at 9:07am
• 

  Julia Russell Absolutely right! Many of us fought it here in Los Angeles, but lost.

  12 hrs
• 

  Kim Nunez Westcott Thank you for helping spread this very important information.

  April 21 at 9:23pm
• 

  Pam Pandalis fluoridation is a violation of our right to not be intentionally medicated. I read the fight in 1957 they had in congress and congress said constitutionally that people had the right to know. Big bucks won and we lost that battle.

  April 21 at 10:27pm
• 

  Lauri Cavalie Byrns Chem trails too!

  22 hrs
• 

  Christal Meyers THEY trying to kill us out

  April 21 at 3:24pm
• 

  Judith Hodges poisoners poison.

  April 21 at 11:31pm
• 

  Lyn Alvey Buerger Fluoride is a toxic by-product from the manufacturing industry and the only way they could figure out how to dispose of it was to add it to our water. That is our government in action. And the sludge that is being reated by the yogurt industry is nasty and they are thinking about ways to make it into baby food.

  20 hrs
• 

  Angel in the Home http://fluoridealert.org/studies/tea02/
  

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

  Fluoride Action Network | Fluoride Content of Tea

  Tea, particularly tea drinks made with lower...

  FLUORIDEALERT.ORG

  Yesterday at 3:36am
• 

  Brenda Anderson-Coley What if... first, they trial this dangerous chemical waste called flouride, and then they pass a bill to take it to the whole world. There is in fact, reliable information on the internet, outlining the dangers of this industrial waste.!

  18 hrs
• 

  Jim Coloma You Mean only a doctor or dentist can prescribe individual doses to individuals?

  April 21 at 4:29pm
• 

  Strata House 50 year old problem and still fluoride...

  Yesterday at 1:31am
• 

  Janice Hicks http://www.ewao.com/.../1-shocking-scientists-find...: Scientists Find Fluoridated Water Causes Hypothyroidism, Weight Gain, AND Depression
  

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

  EWAO

  Earth. We are one

  EWAO.COM

  2 hrs · Edited
• 

  Jessica Smith Marisa

  1 · April 21 at 9:35am
• 

  Judy G Teasdale Betty Murphy

  April 21 at 3:44pm

  @SFWater Whats the point of saving water if you are going to poison it? http://t.co/BbA1MdDlwQ #fluoride @ErinBrockovich #CADrought
  — #TechnocracyRising (@TwistedPolitix) April 23, 2015

• 

  Craig Stevens Jane Withers

  April 21 at 1:52pm