If the toxic herbicide glyphosate had not provided enough reasons to justify a ban, a new study published in Scientific Reports is doing just that.This study has revealed that Roundup, of which glyphosate is the main ingredient, has the potential to cause non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
The study involved a test on rats that showed that even at extremely low levels of exposure, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was produced.
This peer-reviewed study showed that Roundup caused NAFLD at a concentration far below that which is found in the bodies of most Americans.
Indeed, the research showed that exposing the rats to Roundup in concentrations a thousand times lower than allowable limits in food and drinking water or even lower than concentrations found in the urine of most Americans caused changes in the liver which contained the molecular signature of NAFLD.
Around a third of U.S. residents are affected by NAFLD which generally causes no symptoms in most people but can lead to liver cirrhosis and cancer. There are known risk factors but these factors do not explain the increase of cases of NAFLD and why it is much more common in young people in the past. It is also worth noting that liver cancer has increased among Americans almost three-fold since the 1980s.
Read More: www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/03/66141.html
by Shaun Bradley March 14, 2017
As the vulture pundits in the mainstream media pick apart hollow political scandals, the essential bankruptcy of the federal government looms just ahead. The national debt is creeping toward 20 trillion dollars, and the United State’s largest problem is once again staring the world in the face.
Just before the government was slated to shut down in 2015 (as it did in 2013), Congress was able to pass a delay on the debt ceiling decision until March 15th of this year — Wednesday of this week. Recurring uncertainty caused by events like this has implications that extend far beyond our own borders. The amount of leverage in the current system has already forced foreign holders of U.S. debt to question the real value of America’s full faith and credit.
2016 was a record-setting year for the liquidation of foreign-held U.S. bonds, topping out at nearly $405 billion. The selling was led by China, America’s second-biggest creditor, which currently holds over $1 trillion of U.S. debt, almost 28% of the total held by foreign central banks. They weren’t alone, though, and even the U.S.’ number one lender, Japan, has rolled back their positions to protect themselves as the reality of U.S. insolvency comes into focus. A gradual change has been set in motion, and the global superpower status of the United States may be systematically eroded — not militarily, but economically.
f the government does shut down again, the Treasury Department reportedly has as little as $66 billion in reserves and just enough income from taxes to meet its essential obligations. Entitlements like social security and Medicare will likely be unaffected, but if lawmakers can’t collaborate to pass some kind of resolution, the power to allocate additional federal spending will largely be turned over to President Trump. The initial hiring freeze on federal employees that was implemented shortly after his inauguration could be just a taste of what’s to come.
Ileana Johnson — March 11, 2017
The One World Governance of U.N. Agenda 21, now morphed into U.N. Agenda 2030, requires that every societal decision be based on the environmental impact on global land use, education, and population control and reduction.
The lynchpin of this agenda, Sustainable Development, has deemed “not sustainable” most human activities that form our modern civilization: private property, suburban sprawl, fossil fuels, consumerism, farming, irrigation, commercial agriculture, pesticides, herbicides, farmland, grazing of livestock, paved roads, golf course, ski lodges, logging, dams, reservoirs, fences, power lines, and the family unit.
As Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the U.N.’s Earth Summit said in 1992, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
Fossil fuel energy must be replaced by solar and wind generated power, no matter what the cost and consequences will be to humans and to wildlife. And both solar panels and wind turbines are decimating wildlife.
The Paris Climate Agreement signed in 2016 by 178 countries, the same nations that ratified the 1992 U.N. Agenda 21, was touted as an “incredible achievement.” According to Dr. Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center in Denmark, “the Paris Agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.” The cost by the end of the century will be astronomical, $100 trillion, he said, with an insignificant decrease (0.023 degrees F) in temperatures supposedly caused by carbon pollution.
Conserving the planet, water, soil, and air for future generations and taking measures to reduce pollution is quite different from the scam of the climate change industry that is punishing humans dearly for existing. Somehow, in the globalist mind, taxing and redistributing wealth to the third world are supposed to arrest and reverse the much maligned anthropogenic global warming. Sending humans back to a simple, pre-civilization life is magically going to stop the planet from going through normal cycles of cooling and warming. Yet little is made of the Vostok ice core samples that have proven that such swings in global temperatures have occurred naturally without any interference from human activity.
As I wrote in my 2012 book, U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy, there is never a shortage of new converts to the global warming scam as the educational system is deliberately dumbing down our students in order to accept the Sustainable Development goals. “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to Sustainability.”
Agenda 2030 is spread by Public Private Partnerships and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), now re-baptized Local Governments for Sustainability. Smart Growth, Green Growth, Green Building Codes, Going Green, to name a few, are Sustainable Development (SD) policies implemented at local levels with tax dollars channeled through Public Private Partnerships between the federal government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
With the help of the American Planning Association, grants reach municipalities that are in dire straits financially, distributing them to struggling communities, grants that came with strings attached such as “visioning consensus,” the vision of a third, unelected government tier, composed of the United Nations and non-profit foundations that promote the interest of globalists and wild animals over the interest of the local humans.
U.N. Agenda 2030 makes suggestions and recommendations that are adapted into law at state and local level through comprehensive land use plans which are voted on and included by the board of supervisors into local zoning codes. Citizens do not understand its damaging ramifications to their private property, to the ability to make a living, to use their land, grow food in their gardens, irrigate their crops, sell their produce freely, and collect rainwater and snowmelt on their own property.
U.N. Agenda 2030 goals and recommendations include several types of social engineering:
- Redistribution of population according to resources, a type of social engineering that includes removing any borders around the globe
- Government control of land use in order to achieve equitable distribution of resource, hence the social justice movement around the globe
- Land use control through zoning and planning
- Government control of excessive profits from land use
- Urban and rural land control through public land ownership
- Regionalist authorities in control of development rights, superseding local and state government authority
U.N. Agenda 2030 aims to control:
- Energy production, delivery, distribution, and consumption via Smart Grid, Smart Meters, and renewables
- Food growth via FDA regulations
- Education via a curriculum centered on the environment, Mother Earth, and global citizenship
- Water through irrigation denial in agriculture, home use, recreation, limited hydroelectric generation
- Land through abolishing private property
- Finance through a single currency
- Population by reducing it to “manageable levels” through sterilization and eugenics
- No borders, no sovereignty
- No national language and culture, no national history
- Mobility restriction to 5-minute walk/bike to/from work, school, shopping, entertainment
- Longer distance travel via rail use
- No homesteading, stacking people in high-rise mixed-use tenements in order to designate formerly privately-owned land for wildlife habitat
Join me in signing the petition to ban weaponized drones. http://BanWeaponizedDrones.org
Europe, so many years after the Cold War, is ideologically divided into a new East and a West. This time, the schism is over multiculturalism. What Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has termed “liberal babble” continues to govern Western Europe’s response to the challenges that migration and Islamic terrorism have brought, especially to personal security.
The Western European establishment considers arming oneself against terrorists, rapists and other ill-wishers outlandish, even in the face of the inability of Europe’s security establishments to prevent mass terrorist atrocities, such as those that took place in Paris at the Bataclan Theater or the July14 truck-ramming in Nice.
The European Union’s reaction to terror has been to make Europe’s already restrictive gun laws even more restrictive. The problem is that this restrictiveness contradicts the EU’s own reports: these show that homicides committed in Europe are mainly committed with illegal firearms.
In Eastern Europe, on the other hand, it is still normal to want to defend yourself. Last summer, Czech President Milos Zeman even encouraged citizens to arm themselves against Islamic terrorism. “I really think that citizens should arm themselves against terrorists. And I honestly admit that I changed my mind, because previously I was against [citizens] having too many weapons. After these attacks, I don’t think so”.
Since the president’s remarks, the Czech Interior Minister, Milan Chovanec, has proposed extending the use of arms in the event of a terrorist attack. He explained that despite strict security measures, it is not always possible for the police to guarantee a fast and effective intervention. Fast action from a member of the public could prevent the loss of many lives.
Such reasoning, often seen as laughable in Western Europe, reflects an understanding of the fear that has become a recurring theme on the continent. In Germany, a recent poll showed that two out of three Germans are afraid of becoming the victim of a terrorist attack and 10% perceive an “acute threat” to their safety. Among women, the figures were even higher. 74% responded that they sometimes feel unsafe in crowded places, and 9% said they felt permanently threatened and scared.
Western European leaders, on the other hand, pretend not to understand this fear. In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was asked how Europe could be protected against Islamization. Merkel, who does not move without her own personal security team consisting of 15-20 armed bodyguards around her, working in shifts, answered: “Fear is not a good adviser. It is better that we should have the courage once again to deal more strongly with our own Christian roots.” In December, she told members of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who were asking how to reassure the public about integrating migrants, “This could also broaden your horizons.” (This is the same Merkel, who in 2010 said that multiculturalism had “utterly failed”).
Private Banks – Not the Government or Central Banks – Create 97 Percent of All Money
Who creates money?
Most people assume that money is created by governments … or perhaps central banks.
In reality – as noted by the Bank of England, Britain’s central bank – 97% of all money in circulation is created by private banks.
Bank Loans = Creating Money Out of Thin Air
But how do private banks create money?
We’ve all been taught that banks first take in deposits, and then they loan out those deposits to folks who want to borrow.
But this is a myth …
The above is from an official video released by the Bank of England.
The Bank of England explains:
Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.
The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:
- Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.
One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits are typically ‘created’ by the saving decisions of households, and banks then ‘lend out’ those existing deposits to borrowers, for example to companies looking to finance investment or individuals wanting to purchase houses.
In reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money …. Rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.
Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created. For this reason, some economists have referred to bank deposits as ‘fountain pen money’, created at the stroke of bankers’ pens when they approve loans.
This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago published a booklet called “Modern Money Mechanics” in the 1960s stating:
[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts.
Monetary expert and economics professor Randall Wray explained to Washington’s Blog that:
Bank deposits are bank IOUs.
Ever since an intriguing article reporting the discovery of a great underground citadel of the Grand Canyon appeared in the Arizona Gazette in 1909, scientists have debated whether the story is true or a hoax. Several alternative history authors and researchers, among them David Hatcher Childress believe the discovery did occur and this is yet another archaeological cover-up.
To begin with we will look at the article “Explorations in Grand Canyon”, as it was originally published as a front cover story on April 5th, 1909 in the Arizona Gazette.
The newspaper wrote as follows: “The latest news of the progress of the explorations of what is now regarded by scientists as not only the oldest archeological discovery in the United States, but one of the most valuable in the world, which was mentioned some time ago in the Gazette, was brought to the city yesterday by G.E. Kinkaid, the explorer who found the great underground citadel of the Grand Canyon during a trip from Green River, Wyoming, down the Colorado, in a wooden boat, to Yuma, several months ago.
According to the story related to the Gazette by Mr. Kinkaid, the archeologists of the Smithsonian Institute, which is financing the expeditions, have made discoveries which almost conclusively prove that the race which inhabited this mysterious cavern, hewn in solid rock by human hands, was of oriental origin, possibly from Egypt, tracing back to Ramses.
If their theories come from the translation of the tablets engraved with hieroglyphics, the mystery of the prehistoric peoples of North America, their ancient arts, who they were and whence they came, will be solved. Egypt and the Nile, and Arizona and the Colorado will be linked by a historical chain running back to ages which staggers the wildest fancy of the fictionist.
Many both within and beyond America’s borders labor under the delusion that US policy is determined by the nation’s elected representatives amid a careful balancing act between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. In reality, the inner workings of US policy resemble nothing of the sort.
In reality, an unelected deep state controls the United States, its resources, government, and people. However, the term “deep state” has been overused and intentionally abused, particularly since the election of US President Donald Trump in an effort to continue concealing the real deep state and divert public attention away from what is becoming an increasingly obvious continuity of agenda from one presidency to the next.
Uncovering and understanding the nature of the real deep state is in fact elementary, but essential in understanding the genesis and perpetuation of US policy. It is also essential in formulating solutions aimed at reining in the unwarranted power and influence wielded by this seemingly nebulous entity.
Identifying the Real Deep State is Easy
Despite the myth of “democracy,” real power is held by those who control the essentials of any given state, province, district, or community. Essentials include control over monetary instruments, essential infrastructure such as water, power, communication, and transportation, control over manufacturing, healthcare, and basic public services, as well as more obvious forms of power such as control over police and military forces.
In rare instances, such vital essentials are controlled by decentralized, grassroots organizations – and in these instances deep states are either weak or virtually nonexistent. However, more often than not, this is not the case – at least not yet.
Ordinarily, regardless of apparent, ongoing political processes, those who actually, truly control these essentials often exist well beyond but not out of reach of politics. They include large corporations and financial institutions. Organizations, lobbyists, media platforms, think tanks, and political parties are set up and controlled by these special interests to then project their power and influence into or entirely driving any given political process.
The concept of a “deep state” is not unique to only the US. Virtually every nation and throughout all of human history, regardless of a nation’s alleged political proclivities, has been ruled by wealthy and influential special interests either directly or by proxy.
Ignoring political rhetoric and charades, and focusing on where money, power, and influence truly resides, reveals the real deep state.
Unraveling the “Trump Vs Deep State” Narrative
A cursory examination of President Trump’s administration reveals that he is but one of many extensions of the real deep state. Allegedly “alternative” Breitbart News mogul Stephen Bannon who functions as President Trump’s chief strategist is in fact a former Goldman Sachs banker. US Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, is also a former Goldman Sachs banker. Additionally, he managed funds for alleged “Trump archenemy,” George Soros, and had invested in the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.