Monday, March 31, 2008

"Who I Am Makes a Difference"

"Who I Am Makes a Difference"
Please follow this link...

US Attack on Iran

US Attack on Iran: Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards" After Cheney Visit
by Chris Floyd
Global Research, March 31, 2008
I. One Tick Closer to Midnight
Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based dpa news service relayed the paper's story.Simple prudence -- or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an American attack on Iran was far more likely -- and more imminent -- than most people suspect. We pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar William R. Polk, one of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to other indicators of impending war. The story by Okaz -- which would not have appeared in the tightly controlled dictatorship without approval from the top -- is yet another, very weighty piece of evidence laid in the scales toward a new, horrendous conflict.We don't know what the Saudis told Cheney in private -- or even more to the point, what he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his departure, would seem to be a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming attack on Iran's nuclear sites and are actively preparing for it.

II. A Nuclear Epiphany in Iran? And they certainly should be bracing themselves. A U.S. attack on Iran will come suddenly, and if it is indeed aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities -- a "threat" being talked up again with new urgency by both Cheney and Bush lately -- it has the potential for unimaginable consequences. As we noted here in a previous piece:
Twelve hours. One circuit of the sun from horizon to horizon, one course of the moon from dusk to dawn. What was once a natural measurement for the daily round of human life is now a doom-laden interval between the voicing of an autocrat's brutal whim and the infliction of mass annihilation halfway around the world.
Twelve hours is the maximum time necessary for American bombers to gear up and launch an unprovoked sneak attack – a Pearl Harbor in reverse – against Iran, the Washington Post reports….And when this attack comes – either as a stand-alone "knock-out blow" or else as the precursor to a full-scale, regime-changing invasion, like the earlier aggression in Iraq – there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no hearings, no public debate. The already issued orders governing the operation put the decision solely in the hands of the president: he picks up the phone, he says, "Go" – and in twelve hours' time, up to a million Iranians could be dead.
This potential death toll is not pacifist hyperbole; it comes from a National Academy of Sciences study sponsored by the Pentagon itself, as The Progressive reports. (Although Bush's military brass like to peddle the public lie that "we don't do body counts" of the enemy, in reality, like all good businessmen they keep precise accounts of their production outputs: i.e., corpses.) The Pentagon's NAS study calibrated the kill-rate from "bunker-busting" tactical nukes used to take out underground facilities – such as those which house much of Iran's nuclear power program.
Another simulation by scientists, using Pentagon-devised software, was even more specific, measuring the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan, the magazine reports. This small expansion of the Pentagon franchise would result in stellar production figures: three million people killed by radiation in just two weeks, and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels of cancer-causing radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Bush has about 50 nuclear "earth-penetrating weapons" at his disposal, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Nor is the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran mere "liberal paranoia." Bush himself pointedly refused to take the nuclear option "off the table" this week. But what's more, Bush has made the use of nuclear weapons a centerpiece of his "National Security Strategy of the United States," issued last month, The Progressive notes. While reaffirming the criminal principle of "pre-emptive" attacks on perceived enemies which may or may not be threatening America with weapons they may or may not possess, Bush declared that "safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role" in the "offensive strike systems" that are now a key part of America's "deterrence."
In the depraved jargon of atomic warmongering, a "credible" nuclear force is one that can and will be used in the course of ordinary military operations. It is no longer to be regarded as a sacred taboo. This has long been the dream of the Pentagon's "nuclear priesthood" and its acolytes, going back to the days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For decades, a strong faction within the American power structure has been afflicted with a perverted craving to unleash these weapons once more. An almost sexual frustration can be discerned in their laments as time and again, in crisis after crisis, their counsels for "going nuclear" were rejected – often at the very last moment. To justify their aberrant desire, they have relentlessly demonized an ever-changing array of "enemies," painting each one as an imminent, overwhelming threat, led by "madmen" in thrall to pure evil, impervious to reason, fit only for destruction. Evidence for the "threat" is invariably exaggerated, manipulated, even manufactured; this ritual cycle has been enacted over and over, leading to many wars – but never to that ultimate, orgasmic release.
Now this paranoid sect has at last seized the commanding heights of American power....
And they have found a most eager disciple in the peevish dullard strutting in the Oval Office. Under their sinister tutelage, Bush has eviscerated 40 years' worth of arms control treaties; officially "normalized" the use of nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear states; rewarded outlaw proliferators like India, Israel and Pakistan; and is now destroying the last and most effective restraint on the spread of nuclear weapons: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The treaty guarantees its signatories – such as Iran – the right to establish nuclear power programs in exchange for rigorous international inspections. But Bush has arbitrarily decided that Iran – whose nuclear program undergone perhaps the most extensive inspection process in history – must end its lawful activities. Why? Because the country is led by "madmen" in thrall to pure evil, impervious to reason, who one day may or may not threaten America with weapons they may or may not have.
So the NPT is dead. As with the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, it now means only what Bush says it means. Force of arms, not rule of law, is the new world order. The attack on Iran is coming….
The nuclear sectarians have waited decades for this moment. Such a chance may never come again. Will they let it pass, when with just a word, in just twelve hours, they can see their god rising in a pillar of fire over Persia?

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Junk Food dangers

Why Schools Should Remove GE-Tainted Foods from Their Cafeterias
Institute for Responsible TechnologySpilling the Beans, Sept. 1, 2004
Newsletter on GM Foods, September issue Spilling the Beans

Another Reason for Schools to Ban Genetically Engineered Foods By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria'sprocessed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described asout-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and acop on duty full-time. After the change in school meals, the students werecalm, focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, and nosuicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet andimproved behavior has lasted for seven years, and now other schools arechanging their meal programs with similar results.Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet byconducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them thejunk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice freakedout. Their behavior was totally different than the three mice in theneighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they were fednutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during the dayinside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted verymouse-like. The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboardtube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, foughtoften, and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the threemonth experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk foodmice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice camearound.Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second gradeclass in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on thefirst day of junk food, the mice's behavior "changes drastically." Theybecome lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about twoto three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, thesecond graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with thesame mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice geneticallymodified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GMmice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts ofthe cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behavedneighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climbthe walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of theexperiment.It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsinexperiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And althoughthe Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GMfoods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as soy and corn andtheir derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the schoolswitched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GMcrops were taken out automatically.Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans oranimals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of asingle student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the otherhand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. Astudy in Science in December 2002 concluded that "food molecules act likehormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division. Themolecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit andhyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness." The problem is we do notknow which food molecules have what effect. The bigger problem is that thecomposition of GM foods can change radically without our knowledge.Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into their DNA. But genes arenot Legos; they don't just snap into place. Gene insertion createsunpredicted, irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a gene chipmonitored the DNA before and after a single foreign gene was inserted. Asmuch as 5 percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of protein they wereproducing. Not only is that huge in itself, but these changes can multiplythrough complex interactions down the line.In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GMfoods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known nutrientlevels. But even if we could identify all the changed compounds, at thispoint we wouldn¹t know which might be responsible for the antisocial natureof mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning to identify the medicinalcompounds in food. We now know, for example, that the pigment in blueberriesmay revive the brain¹s neural communication system, and the antioxidantfound in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce heart disease. But whatabout other valuable compounds we don¹t know about that might change ordisappear in GM varieties?Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market, independentresearchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent lesscancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that we don¹t knowabout? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which concluded that soy¹sphytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis.They failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory that conductedMonsanto¹s experiment had been instructed to use an obsolete method todetect phytoestrogens results.]In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition thatconcluded in the title, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybeanseeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans." The study onlycompared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their chartsrevealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate content.In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, awell-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable methods. Nutrientcomparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in identical conditionsso that variables such as weather and soil can be ruled out. Otherwise,differences in plant composition could be easily missed. In Monsanto'sstudy, soybeans were planted in widely varying climates and geography.Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM andnon-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paperaltogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in thearchives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder thescientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels ofprotein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also,toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that mayblock the body¹s ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, thetoasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsininhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive cooking more in the GMvariety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK,just after GM soy was introduced.)We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, butcertainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reportsfrom all over North America describe how several types of animals, whengiven a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk,deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch studentmentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one preferencefor non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the engineered variety.Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children.They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, theyconvert more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients oradded toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animalnutrition studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals.After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied undermagnification. If scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, evensevere nutritional problems might not be detected. The Monsanto study usedmature animals instead of young ones.They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12­fold beforefeeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined themunder a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding studyon GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid findingproblems.Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we are all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or ourchildren. Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe,have decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have bannedGM foods.The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of severalreasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse(see http://www.seedsofdeception.com ).With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in Appleton,parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. Whenmaking changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a priority.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Bush lies again about Iran!

Iran a Nuclear Threat, Bush Insists
Experts Say President Is Wrong and Is Escalating Tensions
By Robin WrightWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 21, 2008;

President Bush said Thursday that Iran has declared that it wants to be a nuclear power with a weapon to "destroy people," including others in the Middle East, contradicting the judgments of a recent U.S. intelligence estimate.

The president spoke in an interview intended to reach out to the Iranian public on the Persian new year and to express "moral support" for struggling freedom movements, particularly among youth and women. It was designed to stress U.S. support for Iran's quest for nuclear energy and the prospects that Washington and Tehran can "reconcile their differences" if Iran cooperates with the international community to ensure that the effort is not converted into a weapons program.

But most striking was Bush's accusation that Iran has openly declared its nuclear weapons intentions, even though a National Intelligence Estimate concluded in December that Iran had stopped its weapons program in 2003, a major reversal in the long-standing U.S. assessment.
"They've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable to the United States, and it's unacceptable to the world," Bush told U.S.-funded Radio Farda, which broadcasts into Iran in Farsi.

Experts on Iran and nuclear proliferation said the president's statement was wrong. "That's as uninformed as [Sen. John] McCain's statement that Iran is training al-Qaeda. Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. It's just not true. It's a little troubling that the president and the leading Republican candidate are both so wrong about Iran," said Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation...

Monday, March 17, 2008

Friday, March 14, 2008

German Scientist Exposes Chemtrails As Military Operations

German Scientist Exposes Chemtrails As Military Operations
March 14, 2008 by: Rami Nagel
(NaturalNews) A TV news report from Germany available at: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVc9GX5K_As) confirmed that the German Military is manipulating the climate in Germany. As a result scientists have filed a lawsuit against the government for climate manipulation.The video concludes, "We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals."The purpose of chemtrails, which are well documented over the United State and other parts of the world, according to researchers, is to manipulate the weather. Karsten Brandt, German meteorologist states, "The Federal Army is Manipulating the Meteorological maps."The disruption of radar signals is the main purpose theorizes Mr. Brandt in the interview. "I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements - although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful."Johannes Remmel, German Green party representative states, "The government must provide explanations to the unsuspecting population." While radar is tracking suspicious aircraft, the Germany Military then uses counterfeit satellite imagery to hide their operations.In Germany, weather manipulation is prohibited, and I would likewise believe that it is prohibited in the U.S. as well.Since Chemtrails are so widespread, I would rule out the idea that this is just military performing operations to disrupt radar signals as part of some sort of drill.The forefront of these operations in the United States appears to be the US Navy, as detailed in "Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism & Toxic Warfare," by Dr. Len Horowitz. Many government watchdogs claim global depopulation, the targeted reduction of the world's population by two-thirds, is secretly the reason behind chemtrail spraying.An alternative theory to explain Chemtrails, would be that a new weapon related to controlling the weather is being deployed. By creating droughts and thus famines, large populations could be easily controlled or eliminated. Other countries could be easily controlled and brought to their knees by a global power if the weather could be controlled or altered.For a while I was confused between chemtrails, and contrails. Contrails are the exhaust of an air craft, it leaves a trail in the sky and the trail rapidly dissipates. With chemtrails, they initially look identical to contrails, but rather than the trail dissipating, the trail expands and then starts to look like a cloud. Over the Silicon Valley where I live, I daily witness these chemtrails starting and stopping from airplanes. In other words, the plane has control over the chemicals it is releasing. Also, I have noticed on some days the area is filled with a gray hazy muck, and the mountains almost disappear. This is highly unusual especially when just one day before, the mountains were totally clear.Part of the undercurrents, at least in the United States, is the concept being marketing through radio, television and schools, that the earth is overpopulated. The idea of overpopulation, as the cause of our problems, was something that I had believed in for a time.I believed in that idea until I realized the abundance of nature. Just seeing the amount of food produced by one healthy tree, and the millions of acres of unused land in central California, helped me understand Nature's abundance.The creator did not put humans on earth to suffer, to starve and to die. The creator of life gave us vast resources from which to be healthy. Humans are grossly misusing earth's delicate resources, and thus we have created an experience of lack and deprivation. The lack we experience is not natural, but a reflection of our disconnection from the source of life.Every action, thought, and feeling has a cause and an effect. Evil never will win, it cannot. But we all need to work together to bring more awareness to the dreaded reality - that our government seems bent on making this planet a military war zone.I have faith that evil won't win this time.

Friday, March 07, 2008

Sunscreen Myth

Sunscreen Myth

by: Mike Adams
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health RangerThe idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is a myth. It's a myth promoted by a profit-seeking tag-team effort between the cancer industry and the sunscreen industry. The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like the American Cancer Society which, in turn, run heart-breaking public service ads urging people to use sunscreen to "prevent cancer."The scientific evidence, however, shows quite clearly that sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking the body's absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which produces vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D, as recent studies have shown, prevents up to 77 of ALL cancers in women (breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, brain tumors, multiple myeloma... you name it). Meanwhile, the toxic chemical ingredients used in most sunscreen products are actually carcinogenic and have never been safety tested or safety approved by the FDA. They get absorbed right through the skin (a porous organ that absorbs most substances it comes into contact with) and enter the bloodstream.The benefits of sunscreen are a myth. Proponents say sunscreen prevents sunburn, but in fact, the real cause of sunburn is not merely UV exposure: It is a lack of antioxidant nutrition. Start eating lots of berries and microalgae (spirulina, astaxanthin, blue-green algae, etc.), and you'll build up an internal sunscreen that will protect your skin from sunburn from the inside out. Sunburn is actually caused by nutritional deficiencies that leave the skin vulnerable to DNA mutations from radiation, but if you boost your nutrition and protect your nervous system with plant-based nutrients, you'll be naturally resistant to sunburn. The same nutrients, by the way, also protect the optic nerve and eyes from radiation damage. That's why the consumption of berries and carrots, for example, has historically been associated with healthy eye function. (The same nutrients that protect the eyes also protect the skin.)...

Health Benefits of Butter

Recent Studies and Age Old Wisdom Point to the Health Benefits of Butter
March 07, 2008 by: Barbara L. Minton
(NaturalNews) Someone really should write an ode to butter. Pure delicious golden butter that comes from grass fed, pastured, contented cows. Beautiful butter that wants to nourish us and protect us from disease if we would only give it a chance. But alas, all we have today is attacked, maligned and mistreated butter. Butter that's been the whipping child of the diet dictators and the food police for decades. Well, it's time for us to stop convicting butter of imagined terrible crimes. It's time to restore butter to its proper place on our tables and in our hearts.

This negativity about butter would come as a surprise to the many people around the globe who have valued butter for its life-sustaining properties throughout history. In the 1930's Dr. Weston Price, a dentist who sought the answer for tooth decay, studied native diets in fourteen different cultures around the world. He found that butter was a staple in the diets of isolated, non-industrialized peoples who displayed supreme health. Children who were raised on diets in which butter was a central ingredient grew to be robust, sturdy and free of tooth decay.

According to information published by The Weston Price Foundation, Swiss villagers placed a bowl of butter on their church alters, set a wick in it, and let it burn throughout the year as a sign of the divinity of the butter.How did butter get to be our enemy instead of our friend? Two opposing forces were at work in America following World War II. Women returned to being full time mothers and family caretakers igniting an interest in health and nutrition. And corporations had to retool from the war effort and find something to sell to these women. Food technology became the obvious answer. In order to reap huge profits from the products of food technology, a stake had to be driven through the hearts of the tried and true foods that people had relied on for generations. Disinformation ad campaigns were launched to assert that naturally saturated fats from animal sources were the cause of disease. The idea of margarine was sold to physicians much like drugs are sold today. In their ignorance physicians told their patients to stop eating butter and start eating margarine. Soon everyone 'knew' that margarine was better for health than butter.

Once an idea becomes popular opinion, it tends to persist even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Today, butter is still viewed as our enemy in spite of the fact that hundreds of highly motivated studies have been unable to confirm a link between butter and disease...

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Natural Remedies to Aid Health Related Problems

Why use Natural Remedies?
Ever seen a dog lick grass when it has an upset stomach? If you have, you’d have certainly marveled at the curative powers of an innocuous blade of grass that provided instant relief to your pet. Since the time humans came into existence, they’ve been observing animals eating plants and minerals to cure themselves of infections, parasites and internal disorders.

However, the sweeping changes in our lifestyles brought about by science and technology is today the main cause of modern diseases. And, despite a whopping eight-hundred-million-dollar annual expenditure on healthcare, the modern treatments just don't seem to work. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently reported over a hundred thousand deaths annually in US hospitals due to adverse reactions to prescription drugs. Even worse, the National Council for Patient Information and Education blamed as many deaths on drugs that shouldn’t have been prescribed in the first place!

Little wonder, a majority of the population is righting this wrong by taking up holistic healing and treating everyday minor ailments the natural way. In other words, people are waking up to the magic of natural remedies...

Palestinian land loss


Saturday, March 01, 2008

Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?

Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?
January 17, 2008 By John Carey
Research suggests that, except among high-risk heart patients, the benefits of statins such as Lipitor are overstated...

... Wright saw, the drugs can be life-saving in patients who already have suffered heart attacks, somewhat reducing the chances of a recurrence that could lead to an early death. But Wright had a surprise when he looked at the data for the majority of patients, like Winn, who don't have heart disease. He found no benefit in people over the age of 65, no matter how much their cholesterol declines, and no benefit in women of any age. He did see a small reduction in the number of heart attacks for middle-aged men taking statins in clinical trials. But even for these men, there was no overall reduction in total deaths or illnesses requiring hospitalization—despite big reductions in "bad" cholesterol. "Most people are taking something with no chance of benefit and a risk of harm," says Wright. Based on the evidence, and the fact that Winn didn't actually have angina, Wright changed his mind about treating him with statins—and Winn, too, was persuaded. "Because there's no apparent benefit," he says, "I don't take them anymore..."