Petrofraud and the New Depression

Michael Fox email: TheCulturedEconomist@yahoo.com

Petrofraud is a word I coined to describe the the great con job that is the Bush administration’s policy – that policy is the only policy they have or have ever had, with respect to energy, foreign affairs, war and our economy. All of it has been about oil. And the present speculative bubble is the crowning achievement of the scheme.

They are laughing all the way to their banks in Dubai, Switzerland, and, no doubt, Paraguay. A superb assessment of the pathology of this sociopathic bunch can be found in Charley Reese’s chilling column, America is the Rogue Nation, which details the lengths to which they are going – in our name – to achieve their nefarious goals. We are being robbed into bankruptcy to enrich a relatively small oligarchy, within which an even smaller group are retaining unimaginable wealth.

Once these statements would have sounded outlandish; the ravings of an extremist. Now, however, we all know it to be true. Even those who still fancy themselves “conservative” know what’s happening, though many of them retain their allegiance to the Republicans as a form of faith.

What is it about faith that makes it so devastatingly ruinous? It is simply this: it is the belief in something or someone just because… Because one wants to believe it, or because one was raised to believe it (even if further education proved it wrong), or because one voted one way and doesn’t want or can’t process the idea that it was so dreadfully wrong. So they become more fiercely adamant in their wrong-headed convictions. But heads are coming out of the sand.

As the zeitgeist has shifted, thanks to the indefatigable efforts of Al Gore and countless others, the public has awakened to the need to reduce our energy usage and shift to renewable, non-polluting resources. Auto manufacturers have slammed shut whole plants and discontinued models of large trucks and SUVs as gasoline flirts with $5/gallon. The interesting part about $5/gallon gasoline is that it is the point at which people significantly change their habits; for some, it becomes their only non-sustaining expenditure (outside food, home, and utilities). The person who had only $200/month after basics can no longer buy clothes. Hell, they can barely afford to dry clean the ones they have. That extra $200/ month is going to fuel tank and increased home utilities bill. The oilmen in the West Wing are squeezing the last dime out of the public for their cronies in Houston. In a Depression, there’s no spare change.

Ironically, Bush’s legacy may well be that it was through his ill-gotten and mismanaged stewardship that the American public became serious about conservation and self-sustenance. The same could have been achieved by a president who understood the good that government can do (rather than how much he could steal from it) by placing high taxes on gasoline when it was still $1/gallon as Bush took office. Had a $4/gallon tax been levied at that time, the oil companies would have still been profitable, but the hundreds of billions of dollars they have raked in over the past 7 years would have been going to maintain a domestic infrastructure that is now the disgrace of the developed world. Had we been paying high prices for gasoline due to a tax, the change in the public mindset would have occurred just the same. That infrastructure improvement would have, included electric-charging, biofuel, and hydrogen stations, as well as modern rail service. The oil bubble could never have occurred, because by this time usage would be flat or reduced, and the meme about shortages wouldn’t have been applicable. Either way, the change in mindset has been achieved.

Every day, more gas-guzzling vehicles are retired and replaced by cars that get twice the mileage, airlines are cutting flights and cramming more passengers into fewer planes, and people are using their air-conditioners more judiciously. In the end, changing the driving habits of Americans will be spun as Bush’s greatest achievement. Of course it came as a way to benefit his cronies from Riyadh to Houston, but it there it is.

The major difference is in who’s angry. If a large tax had driven up the price, and in return for it the United States had initiated a massive infrastructure project – adding modern train lines, additional subway lines, and substitute fuels – the conservative anti-tax crowd would be furious. As it is, the only people who are happy are those getting larger dividend checks from their oils stocks, and those who have speculated successfully in oil futures, although I suspect most of them grouse at the pump just the same anyone else. My guess is that both of those investments have rather worn out their welcome.

Meanwhile, the infrastructure that wasn’t maintained with those same hundreds of billions of dollars has decayed. The other achievement from these policies will be losing the entire Mississippi River basin and all its tributaries for the Republicans: from the levees in New Orleans, to the Bridge in Minnesota, through the levees and farmland in Iowa, Missouri and Illinois, the breadbasket knows where the blame lays.

What to do Now
So it is incumbent upon all of us to further cut our consumption now, as one should during wartime anyway. The sacrifice of this war should be against those who are really waging it at our expense (the oil companies and crude speculators). Petrofraud has brought us here, and minimizing our use of what has become as basic as food will be our out. Ride share; plan your trip to minimize your mileage; retire your car and replace it with a more efficient model as soon as possible (and if you can select an American car with high mileage, you will be sending a vote to Detroit saying you want more of these models, and saving a domestic manufacturing job); and buy locally grown produce (this is a step that will improve your diet and save thousands of gallons of diesel).

As there’s no doubt that gasoline prices will plummet after Labor Day (banking on short memories in November): Don’t be fooled. It’s the end of the con.

UFOs spotted by Navy engineer above the M5 motorway

By Lucy Cockcroft – The Telegraph

A Royal Navy aircraft engineer claims to have seen a “glowing” UFO hover over the M5 motorway.

Michael Madden, 25, said he watched in disbelief as the disc-shaped object floated above his head before it “zoomed off at incredible speed”.

He said the unidentified flying object flew for up to three minutes above junction 21 of the M5, near Weston-super-Mare, Somerset.

Mr Madden was on his way back from Manchester with colleague Michael Casson, 22, at 9.50pm on Sunday June 29 when he saw the suspected ‘extra-terrestrial’ craft.

He said: “I work with aircraft and grew up next to Manchester Airport so I know exactly what a plane looks and sounds like. This was definitely not a plane.

“It was a circular disc which was glowing bright, hovering hundreds of metres up.

“Other people must have spotted it. It was unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my life. It really did look like the alien aircraft in films. It had an antenna fixed to the back.”

Mr Madden’s claim follows a string of recent UFO “sightings”.

On June 7 three soldiers said they saw 13 UFOs, which looked like “rotating cubes”, while on night patrol at Tern Hill military barracks near Market Drayton, Shropshire. One, Corporal Mark Proctor, 38, of the 1st Battalion of the Irish Regiment, recorded the sighting on his mobile phone and reported it to Army officers.

That sighting came just two hours before helicopter police officers reported an encounter with a huge craft 80 miles away near Cardiff. They claimed to have given chase to the “flying saucer-shaped” object after it almost collided with their aircraft near the Ministry of Defence base of St Athan.

Then Father-of-two David Osborne, 47, videoed 12 orange objects in the night sky above Basingstoke, Hampshire, at 10.40pm on June 28.

The alleged UFOs moved across the sky, switching from a D formation, to a random pattern, to a line then a triangle before disappearing.

GM Foods: The U.S. Fights Mandatory Labeling in An Untested Human Experiment

By: Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D.(NaturalNews)

The U.S. and several other nations recently attended a Codex meeting in Calgary, Canada to discuss food labeling. The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. The Codex Alimentarius (Latin, meaning Food Law or Code) is a collection of internationally adopted food standards presented in a uniform manner. One of the principle reasons for this forum was to discuss the necessity, or lack of necessity as the U.S. sees it, to set up mandatory labeling of GM (genetically modified) and GE (genetically engineered) foods for consumers. South Africa (SA) and many African countries are strong dissenting voices of the U.S. policy that all GM/GE foods are considered equal to non-GM/GE foods and are in fact deemed safe under a 1992 George H. W. Bush Executive Order.

Under this official policy, all GM/GE foods are not required to undergo any kind of safety testing before entering the market. Below you will find the exact policy of the FDA concerning GM food:

“FDA relies primarily on two sections of the Act to ensure the safety of foods and food ingredients. Generally, whole foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and grains, are not subject to premarket approval. The primary legal tool that FDA has successfully used to ensure the safety of foods is the adulteration provisions of section 402(a)(1). The Act places a legal duty on developers to ensure that the foods they present to consumers are safe and comply with all legal requirements. FDA has authority to remove a food from the market if it poses a risk to public health. Foods derived from new plant varieties developed through genetic engineering will be regulated under this authority as well” [1].

Hence, nearly every modified food in the U.S. is completely untested for safety. This is very noteworthy for two reasons: (a) the U.S. leads the world in GM/GE foods (with up to 80% of its prepared and prepackaged foods being modified); and (b) every other nation besides the U.S. tests all GM/GE food before they are put into the food chain. Several African nations have dubbed GM/GE foods as “lethal” and believes the U.S. is fulfilling a population reduction strategy in Africa.

During the CODEX meeting, SA, who has been demanding that Codex provide them with distinct and mandatory GM/GE labels, presented a 10-page document expressing this view. In this document the following critical points were made:

1. Unmet Religious and Ethical Concerns of Christians and Jews

a. Corruption of Divine Protection

South Africa pointed out that in nearly every country there are various religious groups with differing beliefs when it comes to ingesting certain foods. South Africa stated that these “religious and ethical concerns must be noted and respected through global mandatory labeling of foods derived from genetic engineering and biotechnology must take into account ethical and religious concerns” [2] (CCFL, 2008, p. 1). For example, kosher Jews and Halal Muslims would wish to know whether the corn they were eating had been modified with a gene from pigs. Similarly, vegetarians would certainly wish to avoid vegetables which contained animal genes inserted into them and have an ethical right to know if this was the case.

B. Moral and Ethical Protection

SA contends that Codex and the WTO (World Trade Organization) assure protection of the moral, ethical and religious rights of Christian and Jewish believers. Therefore, mandatory labeling is essential to ensure these rights are preserved. If, for example, a Christian believed that God created the heaven and earth as well as all living creatures (including food), then a serious ethical concern would arise if he or she wanted to avoid such modified foods but had no realistic way to do so.

2. Unintended Consumer Health Effects

a. Psychological and Emotional Health

SA rightfully argued that the introduction of GM/GE foods violate the principles and mandates of Codex which are in place to protect the health of the consumer. In Norway, a report on GM/GE foods stated that, “some customers may experience strong ethical, religious, emotional or other objections for purchasing certain foods. These perceived risks may influence their health. These aspects of health should also be considered when the needs for new standards are discussed”[2]. Hence, the labeling of GM/GE foods should be mandatory under such an assumption.

B. Unknown Effects of Consumption of GM/GE Biotech Foods

Due to the lack of testing on GM/GE foods, safety is a significant concern for many individuals. These individuals may wish to avoid such food out of legitimate concern for their well-being. Antibiotic-resistant super diseases may be created if the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM foods would transfer into the consumer. Furthermore, some concerning results have been evinced from animals consuming GM/GE foods. GM DNA has been found in every organ (including fetuses) of animals eating these types of food. Additionally, numerous studies have shown many deleterious short and long-term effects from the consumption of GM/GE foods. For example, spermicide-containing corn, which was developed with funds from the USDA, and results in complete sterility in males has been rampant in the food chain for some time. Without proper labeling of these types of foods, there is no way to protect the fertility of males. Several other recent studies are detailed below:

* In 2005 and 2006, researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that female rats who were fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soya produced an excessive number of stunted pups with over 50% of them dying within three weeks. The other half were all sterile. This experiment was repeated several times with the same result [3].

* Between 2005 and 2006 in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradech in India, thousands of sheep died while grazing on residues from Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, which is a type of bacteria which is toxic to some types of insects) cotton crops [4].

* In 2003, villagers in the Philippines’ south suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower. At least five have died and many villagers tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein while others still remain chronically ill [5].

* Between 2001 and 2002, 12 cows died in Hesse, Germany after consuming Syngenta GM maize (Bt176), while many others had to be slaughtered due to mysterious illnesses [6].

* From 2002 to 2005, researchers from four Italian universities published articles indicating that GM soya adversely affected pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice [5].

* In 2005, Australian researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra reported that a harmless protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor-1) caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and elicited increased dietary sensitivities to other proteins when transferred to peas [7].

* In 1998, researchers reported damage to every organ system of young rats who were fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin [8]. In the same year, researchers in Egypt found analogous effects on the guts of mice fed Bt potato [9].

* In 2002, Aventis, later named Cropscience, submitted research to regulators in the U.K. reporting that chicken fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group [10].

C. Nutrient Non-Equivalence

SA contend that plants genetically modified may not be nutritionally equivalent, bio-available and can possibly possess toxic anti-nutrients [11]. There is no nutritional information for such foods, which raises the possibility that the modified nutrient could be toxic. Different and modified forms of nutrients may be present, which may make these foods unsafe. South Africa concluded that the risks from GM/GE food fall outside the realm of non-modified food and therefore, require strict labels.

D. Post Market Surveillance Impossible Without Labeling

Safety concerns are never over once food reaches consumers. For example, The National Institutes of Science in the U.S. reported in June of 2004 that workers processing GM celery contracted severe rashes, especially when exposed to direct sunlight. Labeling would allow handlers and consumers to become cognizant of potential risks involved with eating and processing such types of foods. Based on the principles of Codex, SA stated that it would be inconsistent and dangerous to adopt anything other than mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods. Furthermore, the absence of adequate labeling of GM/GE foods essentially equates to human experimentation without informed consent. According to Nuremberg Code,

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved… All inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment” [12]. According to SA, mandatory labeling will allow implied informed consent, which will allow consumers to opt in and out of the experiment if they choose to do so.

After SA had submitted their highly researched rationale behind the mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods, the U.S. and its allies (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Indonesia) jumped all over them and stated that extensive research clearly supports that GM/GE foods are safe, therefore, no labeling is necessary. This is obviously not the case (as presented by SA) and delineates the inter-meshed interests and historical marriage between U.S. and large food corporations (i.e., Monsanto, who produces up to 90% of GM/GE seeds and foods). Following the overwhelming condemnation of SA’s paper from the U.S. and the extra procedural requirements the U.S. pushed for because of these comments, the SA government had it subsequently withdrawn.

As a result of this development and the constant battles with the corporations of the U.S. and their biased agendas, SA called another meeting and declared they would circumvent Codex and create their own labeling system with or without their agreement. Countries like Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria, South Africa and several other African countries with Japan, EU, Switzerland, Norway and many other countries stated their commitments to the mandatory labeling.

The meeting concluded with an agreement to eliminate all previous labeling documents and keep the door open for the future possibility of international labeling of GM/GE foods at a later date, which was strongly opposed by the U.S.

References:

1. Nutrition, U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. FDA’s Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology. 2008 [cited May 27, 2008]; Available from: (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biopolcy.html) .

2. CCFL 2008. Comments from South Africa Agenda Item 5. [cited May 27, 2008]; Available from: ((http://www.prweb.com/prfiles/2008/05/01…) .

3. Ho, M.W., GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society, 33: (in press).

4. Ho, M.W., Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society, 2006. 30: p. 12-13.

5. Ho, M.W., GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines. Science in Society, 2006 29: p. 26-27.

6. Ho, M.W. and S. Burcher, Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 4-6.

7. Ho, M.W., Transgenic peas that made mice ill. Science in Society, 2006. 29: p. 28-29.

8. Pusztai, A., S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen, Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects, in Scottish Agricultural College, J.P.F. D’Mello, Editor. 2003, CAB International: Edinburgh.

9. Fares, N.H. and A.K. El-Sayed, Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998. 6: p. 219-233.

10. Novotny, E., Avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 9-11.

11. Allinorm 08/31/34. Report of the Seventh Session of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Appendix III,. 24-28 September 2007: Chiba, Japan.

12. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, in Vol. 2. 1949, U. S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. p. 181-182.

About the author
Dr. Gregory Damato enjoys a vegan lifestyle while residing in Perth, Western Australia and runs a Quantum Biofeedback clinic treating various clients ranging from autism to cancer. He is currently authoring a book for parents educating on the dangers of vaccines, chemical toxicity in toys, the effects of EMFs and EMRs and other hidden dangers and ways to combat rising childhood illness and neurological disease by naturally building immunity, detoxification, nutrition and energetic medicine. His website is: www.quantumenergywellness.com