Showing posts with label Czars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Czars. Show all posts

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Mental Health Group Looks to Remove Stigma From Pedophilia… Really?

Mental Health Group Looks to Remove Stigma From Pedophilia

Fox News:  Originally Published August 24, 2011

A group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals say it's time to change the way society views individuals who have physical attractions to children.

The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act, is lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that's put together by the American Psychiatric Association.

The group says its mission is to help pedophiles before they create a crisis, and to do so by offering a less critical view of the disorder.

"Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people or the issue of child sexual abuse," reads the organization's website.

B4U-Act said that 38 individuals attended a symposium in Baltimore last week, including researchers from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the universities of Illinois and Louisville. According to the group, which said to not endorse every point of view expressed, the speakers in attendance concluded that "minor-attracted" individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged.

Speakers also argued that people who are sexually attracted to children should have input into the decision about how pedophilia is defined in the DSM, which they said is supposed to be a guide to promote “mental health vs. social control.”

Critics of the conference say it was a thinly veiled attempt to make children of any age sexually accessible to adults.

"Absolutely," Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting professor of law at Liberty School of Law said. "Oh, they're very clear about that. Their goal is to take all shame out of the lust for children."

The American Psychiatric Association did not participate in the conference, and evidently does not condone the group's message.

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act and this is never considered normal or socially acceptable behavior," the APA wrote in a 2003 position statement.

Critics of the effort also note that the movement likens its fight for pedophilia acceptance to society's more recent embrace of homosexuality. They warn of a slippery slope to a time when pedophilia is "just another lifestyle choice" that won't warrant criminal charges—and will leave young children at risk.

Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said, "I think that we have to face the fact that most of these people with pedophile attractions are going to come up against the law. The laws against sex abuse and the laws against child pornography. And those laws should be strictly enforced."

Fox News’ Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

Don't Pooh-Pooh the Left's Push to Normalize Pedophilia

Originally posted on January 07, 2013 at The Rush Limbaugh Show

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We are loaded today, folks. You can't afford to miss a single syllable today. For example:

There is an effort underway to normalize pedophilia. Yep. And it has two aspects to it. One is that sex with children doesn't hurt them. Kids like it, and so do adults, and there's nothing wrong with it. It is something... I want to take you back. I want you to remember the first time, wherever you were, that you heard about gay marriage, and I want you to try to recall your reaction -- your first gut reaction -- when you heard that some activists or somebody was trying to promote the notion of gay marriage. What was your initial reaction?

"Aw, come on. It'll never happen. That's silly. What are you talking about?"

There is a movement on to normalize pedophilia, and I guarantee you your reaction to that is probably much the same as your reaction when you first heard about gay marriage. What has happened to gay marriage? It's become normal -- and in fact, with certain people in certain demographics it's the most important issue in terms of who they vote for. So don't pooh-pooh. There's a movement to normalize pedophilia. Don't pooh-pooh it. The people behind it are serious, and you know the left as well as I do. They glom onto something and they don't let go.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's right there. It's in the UK Guardian. "Pedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires to Light -- The Jimmy Savile scandal..." He's a presenter on the BBC. "The Jimmy Savile scandal," it says here, "caused public revulsion, but experts disagree about what causes pedophilia -- and even how much harm it causes." So "experts disagree about what causes pedophilia," and then they do interviews to make the case for pedophilia.

(interruption)

No, it's not a crime; it's love!

(interruption)

Yeah, there are statutes on the book.

The statutes are wrong. The statutes are from a bygone era where everybody's morality was wrong. Look, I’m just telling you what it says. They make the case that kids enjoy it, adults enjoy it; what's wrong with a little love? The same things that were said about gay marriage. Look at the Elmo story, the puppeteer at PBS. Three or four young people, kids, were hit on by that puppeteer. Look how little attention that story got. In fact, that story was laughed off. It wasn't a big deal at all.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm not engaging in shock value. I'm not trying to shock you. I'm just telling you what's out there on this pedophilia business. I'll tell you where I first saw it. Wesley Smith, who is married to Debra Saunders. She's a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. He had a little blog post at the National Review website: "Is Pedophilia Just Another 'Sexual Orientation'?" I said, "What?" So I read it.

It was this piece that alerted me to the column, the piece about this in The Guardian, and that piece suggests that pedophilia may be just another sexual orientation. It's not perverted, it's not wrong, it's just another sexual orientation. And, in fact, it's quite loving and as natural as any other sexual orientation. This is what those of us with our heads and minds in the Dark Ages have got to modernize and realize.

The argument being made in the piece is that the desire for sex with children is a natural part of the human condition. And, in fact, if we acknowledge it, and encourage it, we can actually somehow better protect children. That's in the story, too. It's the same thinking, if you remember back in the nineties, when we were told that kids are going to have sex, you can't stop them. And that's why we needed to give away condoms in the schools.

Remember we had stories from Long Island about parents who said that they willingly let their daughters' boyfriends spend the night because it was better if their daughter was gonna have sex in a clean bedroom rather than the backseat of a car. Well, same thing here. We can better protect children if we know that they're having sex with adults rather than it being done on the sly.

If it's supervised, and if it's engaged in by loving people, then what's wrong with it? This is in the article. I just want to remind you, now, when you first heard about gay marriage -- and I don't mean to pick on gays. It's not what I'm saying. It's just something that was such a tremendous departure from accepted norms of the day. When you first heard about gay marriage, you pooh-poohed it.

When you first heard me say that the Sierra Club was gonna try to come after you and ban your SUV, what was your reaction? "Aw, come on, Rush! There you go again: Overreacting, exaggerating." Well, you know that the SUV has become a target. You know all about that. You know how much progress the notion of gay marriage has made. So I'm just keeping you here on the cutting edge.

In fact, the article in the Guardian actually quotes some academics. (For those of you in Rio Linda, that's college professor types. These are the people you see that have leather arm patches on their sport coats.) Academics are quoted in the Guardian piece saying that sex with adults does not hurt children. Normalization. So Jon Henley decided he'd write a whole piece on this, normalizing pedophilia, where he quotes extensively and looks into it and finds out what this is all about.

"Pedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires to Light," and it says, among other things (this article is loaded), "Pedophiles may be wired differently." There's nothing wrong with them. They're just "wired differently. ... But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that pedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that pedophilia 'is a sexual orientation' and therefore 'unlikely to change.'"

Can you imagine if Jerry Sandusky had had this information at his trial? What do you think the reaction would be to Jerry Sandusky's defense saying, "Hey, look, it's normal. The kids love it, he loved it, nobody was hurt. And in fact, it's just a different sexual orientation"? Now, what do you think's behind this? What kind of people do you think are behind this, this effort to normalize pedophilia? Which is what? The abuse of kids, is it not? Who's behind that?

What is their objective? They want us to all think that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation. You know who's gonna fall right in line is college kids, just like they have on gay marriage, just like they do on all other revolutionary social issues. Their own definition of the cutting edge, civil rights, freedom, understanding, tolerance. So I'm just warning you here. You think it can't happen. "Impossible! Don't be nutso and wacko on us, Rush."

I'm just asking you to remember all of the things that occur normally in our culture now that when you first heard about them you thought, "No way! That'll never happen; that'll never be mainstream," and now they are. Here is another one to add to the list. (interruption) You want more excerpts from this piece? "In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee.

"It caused barely a ripple. 'Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,' it read, 'result in no identifiable damage ... The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of pedophilia result in lasting damage.'" So you see it's you who have to reorient your thinking. It's you who have to get rid of your bigotry. It's you that have to open up and become more tolerant. It is you judgmental people who think this is child abuse when it isn't.

You are the ones who are going to have to change. The pedophiles and the children involved, they're normal, just like you or anybody else. It is your old-fashioned conventions that create the problem. So another excerpt. "It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile [the presenter at BBC] and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim.

"But if it is shocking to realize how dramatically attitudes to pedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject." Here is the money quote: "For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. 'Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate,' she says.

"'If we can talk about this rationally -- acknowledge that, yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it -- we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label pedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us.'" See? The only people who have to change are you who have these old-fashioned, Victorian-type attitudes. You're gonna have to open yourselves up to love and realize that wherever it happens, it's wonderful. No matter what.

Now, there were people -- I just want to remind you -- back during the early days of the effort to redefine what a family is, and in the early days of the gay marriage activists. There were people who said, "Well, if this becomes mainstream, then someday marrying your dog is gonna be okay, and then having two husbands and two wives in one family is gonna be okay, 'cause who can say it isn't?" There were others who predicted that pedophilia would be mainstream, and there was an outcry of opposition to this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, the expert that I was quoting extensively from in the pedophilia story in the UK Guardian is Sarah Goode. She is a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and is the author of two, count them, two major sociological studies on pedophilia in society in 2009, 2011. Hey, folks, look, I know it's uncomfortable. I'm just warning you, there's now an effort on to normalize it. It's safe for children. Controlled supervised, engaged in two loving people, it's actually safer for children this way.

I mean, it's the same rationale back in the nineties for giving away condoms. We can't stop it. Kids are going to have sex, so we want to make it as safe as we can. It's the same technique being used here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now to the phones and Walter in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. I'm glad you waited, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I was really incensed earlier when you were talking about the business of pedophilia being entertained in England and possibly among the leftists in this society as giving it some kind of credibility. And every single civilization that I've ever studied about and every religion in this country teaches us over and over again about the destruction of civilization because of it. I mean, Greek history is one of the most egregious people who adapted as part of their culture the culture of the warrior and pedophilia. And it just absolutely amazed me that we live in this age where people have forgotten what happened with Sodom and Gomorrah, what Christ taught in his most profound thing, in anger, was about the hurting of little children. That he would put a millstone around them and cast them into the sea. And it's amazing that people have forgotten these warnings over 4,000 years and are willing to entertain this over and over again. I remember at BU, Boston University, where I studied, a [professor] told us that in the mid-sixties, that psychological association of the United States went from one person held off these aberrations and said that they were, you know, they were mental problems that needed to be directly dealt with from, you know, a clinical point of view, and when that person died, the American Psychological Association then began the slippery slope of allowing all these aberrations to --

RUSH: Let me ask you a question.

CALLER: Yes, sir.

RUSH: You say you've been studying this.

CALLER: Yes, sir.

RUSH: Before I mentioned this today, were you aware of the UK Guardian story? Were you aware of the effort that is quite a ways along now to normalize pedophilia?

CALLER: I didn't know that. I thought that they had --

RUSH: This is the point. You didn't know it, I didn't know it 'til I ran across the story, you didn't know it, and most other people don't know it, either, and this is why it succeeds. Most people don't have time for stuff like this. Most people aren't reading the UK Guardian; they're trying to get jobs. Or, as in the case of some, I got a New York Post story here: "Welfare Recipients Take Out Cash At Strip Clubs, Liquor Stores And X-Rated Shops." Welfare recipients are using the debit cards at these kinds of places, whatever, they're not paying any attention to pedophilia. So this stuff happens literally under the radar.

Now, if you're just joining us, the UK Guardian has a story today that essentially quotes a bunch of college academics who've studied it and said there's really nothing wrong with pedophilia. It's just another sexual orientation. In fact, it may be safer for children when it's engaged in knowingly and accepted. Children love it, the adults love it, and if there's love involved, what can be wrong? I'm not making this up. We'll link to the story at RushLimbaugh.com. You can read it yourself. I was made aware of it by a contributor at National Review, Wesley J. Smith.

Like I mentioned, try to imagine where you were the very first time you heard somebody seriously make the case for gay marriage and ask yourself what was your reaction. It was probably something like, "Right, that will never happen," and now here we are. Gay marriage and gay rights happen to be at the top of important issues for young voters ages 18 to 29. It is the number one most important issue to them, civil rights, freedom, tolerance, liberty, all that cool stuff when you're that young. Well, here we go with the same technique. It's safer. It's safer for children under these circumstances than if it's happening under the cover of darkness and behind the law. If it's happening under the shroud of illegality, then it has a stigma; but it really shouldn't, it's just another sexual orientation. It's a serious piece, a serious effort. And it's all about these people wishing to have their preferences and desires judged to be normal, not weird or perverted or what have you.

And even if you had heard about it, what are you gonna do? What are you gonna do about it? You might organize opposition to it. You might organize in California, a proposition, you put it on the ballot to oppose it and you win, and a federal judge will overturn it. Yeah, pedophilia, it's already against the law. What do you do to stop it? Who's gonna stop it? Do you think today's Democrat Party's gonna speak out against it? No. You won't have 'em advocating it, not yet, but that day's coming, if it follows the same progression as some of these other things you thought would never, ever happen and they are happening now in a mainstream way.

So that is what Walter here is reacting to, and he said that pedophilia, societies can't survive when stuff like this becomes normal. But you've got some official psychiatric groups that are endorsing it as normal. And the only thing wrong with pedophilia is the bigoted attitude towards it, is the point of the story in the UK Guardian, which is left wing, but it's not a fringe publication, it's a mainstream publication in Great Britain.

END TRANSCRIPT

Cross-Posted at AskMarion

Related:

Saudi Cleric Issues Fatwa Defending Pedophilia As ‘Marriage’

The Real War on Women

Afghanistan’s dancing boys

Exposing Kinsey sex atrocities goes global

Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom– Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List

Another Bad Day for Children, Decency and Common Values

ACLU: Give kids ‘lesbian’ book at school – Without Parents Knowledge

5th Graders Being Taught Oral & Anal Sex

Public Schools are Teaching What???

Losing Our Kids: Tweens, LGBTIQ Role Models, You Do Not Need to Respect Old People, and Body Searches OK for 6- Yr-Olds

Indoctrination of Our Children

Trailer – Welcoming Schools Film: What Do You Know?

Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man for the Job

More Shocking Comments From the Safe School Czar

Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military

Friday, September 23, 2011

Monsanto Shill And USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack Says Government Will Change The Way Citizens Eat

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a known shill and promoter of Monsanto and biotechnology, has said that the government needs to transition and change the way the populace eats.

Speaking to members of the National Restaurant Association on Monday, Vilsack said that Americans need to adjust their taste to like what the government believes they should eat.

CNSNews.com

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told members of the National Restaurant Association on Monday that Americans need to “adjust” their tastes so that they like the kind of food the government believes they should eat—and “we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.”

Considering the fact that Monsanto and biotechnology are literally changing the way we eat, this statement by Vilsack is actually right on the mark.

The government is changing the way we eat by promoting/approving dangerous and sometimes toxic genetically modified food, that, among many other harmful side effects, has caused 3rd generation hamsters to become sterile.

Vilsack was promoting less sodium and sugar, when in reality he is deeply connected to companies and organizations that actively promote unhealthy GMO foods!

In November 2008, the Organic Consumers Association put together six extremely important reasons why the country should oppose Vilsack as head of the USDA.

1. Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack’s support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/…
http://www.organicconsumers.or… 

2. The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership.
http://www.bio.org/news/pressr…

3. When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

4. Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government’s possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc.

Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

5. Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack’s history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto’s jet.

6. Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.

The idea that Tom Vilsack wants to keep our children healthy by demanding what they eat is absolutely ludicrous.

The American people are standing against GMO foods nationwide and outright hoaxes such as this will continue to be pushed on the populace as the major biotech companies move to make GMO foods mandatory.

By Alex Thomas

Source:  The Intel Hub  -  September 21, 2011

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a known shill and promoter of Monsanto and biotechnology, has said that the government needs to transition and change the way the populace eats.

Speaking to members of the National Restaurants Associate on Monday, Vilsack said that Americans need to adjust their taste to like what the government believes they should eat.

CNSNews.com

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told members of the National Restaurant Association on Monday that Americans need to “adjust” their tastes so that they like the kind of food the government believes they should eat—and “we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.”

Considering the fact that Monsanto and biotechnology are literally changing the way we eat, this statement by Vilsack is actually right on the mark.

The government is changing the way we eat by promoting/approving dangerous and sometimes toxic genetically modified food, that, among many other harmful side effects, has caused 3rd generation hamsters to become sterile.

Vilsack was promoting less sodium and sugar, when in reality he is deeply connected to companies and organizations that actively promote unhealthy GMO foods!

In November 2008, the Organic Consumers Association put together six extremely important reasons why the country should oppose Vilsack as head of the USDA.

1. Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack’s support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/…
http://www.organicconsumers.or…

2. The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership.
http://www.bio.org/news/pressr…

3. When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

4. Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government’s possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc.

Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

5. Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack’s history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto’s jet.

6. Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.

The idea that Tom Vilsack wants to keep our children healthy by demanding what they eat is absolutely ludicrous.

The American people are standing against GMO foods nationwide and outright hoaxes such as this will continue to be pushed on the populace as the major biotech companies move to make GMO foods mandatory.

Obama's dream team

under Vilsack's watch. Meanwhile, he's a major supporter of biotechnology, and his plan for. Iowa's economic development included the cloning of dairy cows. ...

www.aldf.org/downloads/AnimalsAdvocatespring09.pdf - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight

USDA Watch
** Let your opposition to Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture be heard  **

Monday, August 22, 2011

Obama appoints Monsanto's vice president Michael Taylor as senior adviser to the commissioner at the FDA...

Who Owns Obama and FDA... None Other Than Monsanto!

monsanto.no.food

Obama appoints Monsanto's vice president Michael Taylor as senior adviser to the commissioner at the FDA... Folks, it just keeps getting more insane... ~ Jeffrey Smith

Michael Taylor was just appointed senior adviser to the commissioner of the FDA!

This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO's were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety.

He "had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA [and then] he became Monsanto's Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month [he] became the senior adviser to the commissioner of the FDA.

He is now America's food safety czar! This is no joke."
The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned.

Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies...

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation
In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens...

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history.

That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.
This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh...

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.
The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH.

A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

It was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?...

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such.

Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff...

As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.
President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus...

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size.

This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio.

Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.
Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration!

Jeffrey Smith - August 15, 2011 - posted at ConspiracyPlant

*** Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating  and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing (GMO Set). Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

Also checkout: The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World's Food Supply

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 5:51pm.

Related:

Fascist Control Over Our Food Supply?  The S.510 Food Safety Scam

Would you vote for a Food Bill Monsanto Supports?

Soros and Food Safety

Deal Making, Arm Twisting and Sellouts Until: Senate Unanimously Passes Food Safety Bill

clip_image001

Frankenfood Coming Soon to a Store Near You

Food Laws – Forcing people to globalize

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Democrats Abandon Donald Berwick's Nomination to Top Medicare and Medicaid Post

According to Politico, President Obama will be forced to abandon his controversial nomination of Donald Berwick as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Politico reports that “Senate Democrats have given up on confirming Don Berwick as CMS administrator in the wake of a letter from 42 Republican senators opposing the nomination,” as “there's no way for Berwick to get the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.”

As with his various “czars,” President Obama had previously circumvented the Senate confirmation process (despite having a Democratically controlled Senate) to install Berwick in his post. He had done so by issuing a “recess appointment,” but that appointment expires at the end of this year.

As I wrote last spring, the Berwick nomination is one of the clearest indicators of where we are headed if ObamaCare is not repealed:

As everyone knows by now, Obamacare would raise, not lower, health costs. This is the consensus view of the CBO, Medicare’s chief actuary, and the American people. However, another consensus view — shared by nearly everyone outside of the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress — is that the number one goal of health policy should be to cut costs. So, if you combine a health care overhaul that won’t cut costs, with a pressing need to cut costs, where are we headed?

President Obama’s pick to fill the top post at Medicare and Medicaid provides a strong indication. We’re going down the only cost cutting road that government can travel. More exactly, we’re heading toward a nation-defining fork in the road. In one direction lies repeal; in the other, rationed care. In one direction, liberty; in the other, consolidated power.

President Obama’s pick to head the massive Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, is a Harvard doctor with a stated fondness for nationalized medicine. He plainly wasn’t picked for his large-scale executive or managerial experience. He’s currently a professor, a pediatrician, and the CEO of a nonprofit whose website reports it has “a staff of over 100 dedicated and talented people.” No, he was presumably picked because he and President Obama see eye-to-eye: Both share the same academic approach to problem-solving, both think our health-care system should be run through Washington, and both support a strong degree of bureaucratic control over questions of life and death. If confirmed by the Senate, he would become head of an agency with a budget larger than that of the Department of Defense.”

Lest anyone think I was exaggerating, Berwick has written that the British health-care system is “more likely to succeed” than the American one; that he feels “an optimism about the [British] NHS [National Health System] that is hard to find in the UK nowadays”; that he thinks “nationalized health care was a wise choice in 1948 and that it remains so now”; that “the social budget” — the social budget! — “is limited”; and that “[t]he decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” This is who President Obama wants to have running Medicare, Medicaid, and significant portions of ObamaCare.

It looks like the Constitution’s confirmation process will serve as a bulwark against President Obama’s desires in this instance, although it’s unlikely that his next nominee will hold views that are radically different from Berwick’s or his own. (That new nominee almost certainly will, however, have been more careful about publicly expressing those views). But Obama’s failure to get his Berwick nomination through the Democratic Senate doesn’t change the fact that Obama chose someone like Berwick in the first place, or the fact that he circumvented the usual process to install him in the short-term. Nor does it change what the Berwick nomination tells us about the direction in which Obama thinks ObamaCare would and should take American health care.

Related:

Berwick – Another Radical

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Did You Know That???

Do not let anyone tell you that ObamaCare in inevitable!! Yesterday’s wins for Republicans in New Jersey and Virginia and narrow loss, only due to technicalities for the Conservative Independent in the NY-23 Congressional Race prove it and put the program in ever greater peril.

Chris Christie's gutsy win in New Jersey puts the arrogant big spender Jon Corzine in his place. But it is the election in Virginia that probably has more to say to marginal Democratic congressmen considering how to vote on health-care reform.

Obviously, Christie's victory is a body blow to Obama after Corzine outspent the Republican by five-to-one and the president put on a serious push for the incumbent. Corzine's defeat sends a message that the nation is moving sharply against Obama.

But Virginia results are the most important. More than 80 Democratic congressmen and 20 senators come from states that John McCain carried in 2008. For them, the sudden switch in Virginia, a swing state that Obama actually carried, heralds tough political times ahead.

New Jersey is the quintessential blue state. If it goes Republican, blue state congressmen needn't worry. Their districts are likely still safe. But when a Republican in Virginia wins by 20 points, it sends a message to red-state Democratic congressmen to take cover.

Polls indicate a declining level of popular approval of the Obama policies (Rasmussen shows his job approval at 46 percent), but to see actual Democrats losing or barely squeaking out victories in solidly blue states sends a far clearer message to the Democrats in Congress.

Until last night, Democratic moderates, the so-called blue dogs, could bask in the light of their candidate's success in 2008. But now they must hear hoof beats behind them. The party discipline on which Obama depends to pass a health-care program that Americans reject by 42 percent for, 55 percent against (Rasmussen again) will only work if beleaguered Democratic incumbents can wrap themselves in Obama's cloak and tough out the popular criticism. But the limits of Obama's drawing power are readily apparent in the Republicans' 20-point victory in Virginia and the race in New Jersey.

In the coming weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be asking their troops to cast potentially career-ending votes for health-care changes, Medicare cuts, higher taxes and fines on the uninsured. Whether they take that risk depends on their faith in Obama's drawing power.

But the votes in Virginia, in particular, show the limits of Obama's appeal. The winner, Bob McDonnell, won the attorney general's race in the last election by a few tenths of a percent over the same opponent. That he coasted to so huge a victory in the swing state of Virginia now has to send a message to red-state Democratic congressmen: Obama may be able to survive in the deep water into which he is leading his party, but you can't.

Dick Morris, Author of Catastrophe

There were a coupe great interviews by Judge Napolitano and a surgeon and author (The Awakening of a Surgeon), David H. Janda, a representative from the Heritage Foundation earlier today, as well as with Rep Michele Bachmann… will update this when those become available.

Did you know that:

1. In a new survey 45% of physicians say they will leave medicine if ObamaCare passes… add that to between 15 and 30 million additionally insured and you have doctor and quality of healthcare shortages and resources… which means inferior healthcare, rationing (death panels by another name) and there will be cost and tax increases.

2. A Federal Coordinating Council (presently 15 members) and a National Coordinator having access to mandatory records or everyone’s health and financial records and having the power to give the final word on your healthcare (death panels) is already in place. It was planned for and snuck into the Stimulus Bill. No conspiracy? No larger takeover agenda? Transparency?

3. Obama still has hundreds of open government positions that he has never filled; some because they have chosen to appoint radical czars instead that require no confirmation and answer to no one… but partly, they say, because of lack of time… But there has been time to appoint these 16 people to a council that nobody knew existed and will only come into play if allow ObamaCare (or any form of government controlled healthcare) to pass.

4. Why are so many doctor planning on leaving medicine if this passes? Because this plan and withholding care is against their Hippocratic oath.

5. ObamaCare/PelosiCare/HarryCare will require everyone to purchase health insurance (ultimately from the government); which is unconstitutional.

6. There are rumblings that energy legislation and student loan legislation will be attached (snuck through) with ObamaCare… both power grab and tax measures!!!

7. AARP just openly supported the PelosiCare Bill. For any seniors who were still hanging onto some crazy belief that AARP was supporting you… this should be the final sign you need!

8. Everything they kept telling us all summer that wasn't in the bill is in there... or has already been put in place.

9. Every Democratic President (American Progressivism) has tried to put though or extend some form of government HC. To help the American People?? Think Again!!

Get to Washington DC tomorrow at noon or anytime this week and confront your congressman, Senator and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. If you can’t get there, rally at your representative’s local office and flood Congress and reps and Sen local offices with calls all week and especially between noon and 1PM. Follow up with faxes, emails and snail mail letters!! Tell them: "Keep you hands off my healthcare and uphold the Constitution".

Stop ObamaCare!!!!!!!

Get the Federal Coordinating Council and a National Coordinator revoked

Stop Congress and the WH from sneaking through anymore legislation and fight to remove what they have already forced on us without our knowledge!!

We are in a war!! The greatest fight for our freedom America has ever seen since the 1776!!! The only question is... do we have the courage and fortitude it takes?

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Meet your Science Czar! – A Must Read

Quote: 

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.John Holdren

VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents Spotlight on Science.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We will restore science to its rightful place.

VOICE: A series dedicated to President Obama's passion for everything science.

GLENN: Yeah, we're going to put science back where she belongs and what a better place to start, what a better way to show the American people that we're serious about science than appointing a science czar. Now, some people are just a little troubled by the whole czar title but don't worry about that. It's just, really just a figure of speech. The administration would never appoint a czar, you know, somebody who doesn't have to answer to anyone who has crazy, way out of the mainstream viewpoints. John Holdren is Obama's new science czar. He's quite an accomplished guy. He's done an awful lot of stuff. For instance, he was the Teresa and John Heinz professor at environmental policy at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard University. I mean, what could go wrong there? The Teresa and John Heinz professor of environmental policy at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard. At some point shouldn't all of that cancel each other out? He also coauthored a book in 1977 on population control called Eco science. He wrote it with Ann and Paul Ehrlich. Paul Ehrlich, I was trying to think this morning, where have I heard that name before. And then I remembered: An Inconvenient Book. We did this, what, is this two years old now? These are the quotes that I found from the inconvenient book this morning. Quote: It would take I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. He said that in 1969. In 1970 he said, ten years, in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of the coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. Do you remember that in 1980? That was crazy. In 1978 he said, giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. He wrote these, he wrote this last thing. He said this last thing a year after he coauthored a book with our new science czar. Now, what has our new science czar done? Well, of course, the big scientific consensus during the Seventies was that overpopulation was going to destroy the Earth. So what was Holdren really thinking? What was he thinking back then? What was he saying? Quote, this is our new science czar, quote: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods. I want you to know that I am in fact, let me pull up my notebook here. I'm looking up something and I'm going to give it to you here in the next few days. I'm working on, I'm working on some I'm bothered by some things lately that just, that bother me. One is Epicyte. Stu, do you have that story about Epicyte? I'm going to give you a story in the next half hour about Epicyte. It's a biotech company that was putting sterilization into food. They were putting it in. They were making genetically modified corn here in America that if you ate it or you crushed it up into pill form, it would be, you know, it would be corn that would attack a man's sperm cell. And so it would be birth control through food. I looked this up and it's leading me some other places. But I looked for the story and what I found in the news story, there's a reason you haven't heard about this and there's no conspiracy to it. But when I give you the story, you'll say, oh, my gosh. This is huge because what Holdren has said, adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that horrifies people than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. There's somebody who's been working on it, a big company, Epicyte, which no longer exists but follow the trail. He says, seems to horrify in that statement as if it's surprising that some people would be opposed to this idea. Seems to horrify people. He says, quote: Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal and social questions to say nothing of the technical problems. Does anybody notice that the one problem that he leaves out is the ethical problems? He says it would be politically tough, it would be legally tough. It would lead to some social questions and it's technically tough, but there's no discussion. Our new science czar of political I mean ethical problems. He says, quote: No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. Oh, that's too bad. Unfortunately he's wrong. He says, quote: To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements. It must be uniformly effective. In other words, you can't kill one race of people and not another. Despite widely varying doses received by individuals and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals, it also must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects and it must not affect members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. So God forbid we put it in the drinking water and cows go sterile.

So the ridiculous idea of our new science czar is not dismissed. It's just not ready to go yet. I mean, it might hurt the livestock or the pets. Since that idea is just ridiculous, here's another one he had. Quote: Of course, a government might require only implantation of a contraceptive capsule. So in other words, the government can require the implantation of some sort of a capsule in you that sterilizes you or is a contraceptive, leaving the removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. So in other words, they are going to they can require you to have something put in you so you cannot have children. You then, if you want, God knows under universal healthcare how you are going to be able to afford to have that taken out or what the procedure would be like. But you can do it on your own time. You can dig it out of you but then the government will require that that is put back in after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action, removal of the capsule, many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation. Oh, the good old opt in, opt out game. That's great. Nothing that would connect with a president who's, you know, must read book in his administration is Animal Spirits that specifically talks about devices like opt in and opt out as effective ways to make the population do exactly what you want them to do. But it gets worse. Quote from our new science czar: Responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate child bearing should be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption, especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. It would be even it would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have an abortion perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption depending on the society.

So what do we have from our new science czar? Something that is so far out of the mainstream, it's hair raising. Forced adoptions. Sterilant in the drinking water or crops. Contraceptive capsules that are required to be implanted. You can then take out and then they would require you after one child to reimplant. Gosh, I hope all this is available in universal healthcare.

When will this country wake up and see where we are headed? We have accepted how many people around this guy and said, "Well, he didn't know. Well, he's not a radical." The people how many communists do we have? I mean, avowed communists? How many people do we have that are internationalists, transnationalists that believe in a global government that are now in our government. How many radicals do we have that are way out of the mainstream?

This is a scary man!!  Now that this information has come to the surface, Holdren stepped up to give a very unconvincing press conference saying, like Sotomayor, that somehow he now doesn’t believe in or really didn’t mean all the things he has always said?!?! Makes you wonder how all these things keep happening in the Obama administration and their appointees, doesn’t it?

Related Resources: