FBI agent accidentally reveals own 8chan posts; attempts to redirect white supremacist rage against Russia Posted on 17 June 2019 by @henrykrinkie Updated August 4, 2019: Added link to “A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded ‘Army’ To Terrorize Young War Dissidents“

Current Events Inquiry
image

FBI agent accidentally reveals own 8chan posts; attempts to redirect white supremacist rage against Russia
Posted on 17 June 2019 by @henrykrinkie
https://ceinquiry.wordpress.com/2019/06/17/fbi-8chan/

Updated August 4, 2019: Added link to “A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded ‘Army’ To Terrorize Young War Dissidents“

gun-control-experts

The unsealing of an application for a search warrant by the federal government on 8chan’s servers has unintentionally revealed that a federal agent has been trolling the site and attempting to redirect the users’ conspiracy theories against the Russian government instead of the CIA or Mossad.

The legal case stems from the April 27th shooting at a California synagogue by white supremacist and 8chan user John Earnest. The day of the shooting, Earnest is believed to have posted to 8chan a link to an anti-Semitic Pastebin manifesto and a not-so-cryptic suggestion that he was about to commit a murderous act of violence to back up his beliefs. In the accompanying affidavit to the search warrant application, FBI Special Agent Michael J. Rod requests the “IP address and metadata information about Earnest’s original posting and the postings of all of the individuals who responded to the subject posting and/or commented about it. Additionally, agents seek information about any other posting coming from the IP address used by Earnest to post the subject posting.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting

In Appendix 1, Rod attaches a serious of screen caps from an 8chan thread that took place the day of the synagogue attack (it is not ultimately clear that Earnest took part in this thread). What is notable is that next to the “Anonymous” user label on some of the posts is a “(You)” marking:

you
you
you2
you2
you3
you3

As it turns out, this text is to let the user know that they are looking at their own posts! This means that Special Agent Rod inadvertently exposed himself as 8chan user ID “8f4812” by including these screenshots as his supporting exhibit. As it turns out, a more complete version of this thread was saved on archive.is before it was deleted. By using Ctrl+F on the page and inputting “8f4812”, you can look at all the posts made by the FBI in this thread.
http://archive.is/YJzmC

The longest reply can be found here:
http://archive.is/YJzmC#selection-54329.2-54357.10

Guys. Read my posts. I believe that the ahooter did post on here but there is also more. Ive been here all day. There are at least two others that are posting in a bot, shilllike fashion to promote this. This theead never would have made the first page, where I found it this morning.
think there is outside involvement. Likely Russian.
In the posts not attributed the man himself, these two not only hyped this thread in an awkward way, they continued an odd pattern of posts to keep this thread alive. Look at the parallel language and style. pol does not talk like that.
Look at the memes chosen in these posts. Not even a fucking clown.
While I believe John may have been motivated by hia own beliefs and reasons, I believe that there are other forces at work here that may have provoked him.
The original link leads to a Tarrants Lads group In russian.
He may have been rightfully upset with the way the world is, but he may have been manipulated into this by something that is not.
I’d blame Mossad, the CIA and FBI too, but this time I am not so sure. We know all three of them can meme because we are shilled all day long by them.
He chose a crappy pistol. Anyone would have planned a litte more thoroughly. If BT is a hero to him as he describes, he would have learned from this mistakes, or at a minimun made an effort to emulate him and do the same. To walk in there completey unprepared with a single pistol sends off even more red flags,
This is very unusual. This is not the typical (((conspiracy))) and I am worried. I dont believe this is the end of this.
I hope some one else takes it upon themselves to investigate what I posted above as well.

In another series of replies the fed poster follows up on the Blame Russia theme:

This was posted by one of the shills that
knew of the shooting prior. Notice screen shot is at 20:00. That correlates with ukraine and western russia if you do the math

Seriosuly, one of you has to dig on this. Please review this thread. There is some russian/ukranian involvement.

At one point, another user accuses the fed of being Mossad:

extremely fake. who believes this shit? sloppy job mossad

The fed replies:

No. Not mossad. Stop attacking the board and sliding this thread. Sloppy job putin. Dick

The other user:

suck my ball

Fed:

Its balls. Let putin know your psyop worked, but you fucked it up with your shit english.

I presume you were chosen because you said you could talk, speak, and type “like american?”

Now, I don’t think for one second that any 8chan posters were convinced by this FBI agent to be more suspicious of potential Russian black ops. At the same time, what the hell was this fed thinking? It certainly looks like he is attempting, however half-assedly, to get the white supremacists that inhabit 8chan’s /pol/ forum to start directing their rage and conspiracism at Russia for a change.

This, of course, isn’t the first time informants have been caught or revealed to be inflaming or attempting to inflame extremists. In 2015, an FBI agent texted ISIS sympathizer Elton Simpson advising him to “tear up Texas.” A couple of days later Simpson attempted to shoot up a Draw Muhammed event in Garland.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-agent-apparently-egged-on-draw-muhammad-shooter?ref=scroll

But more importantly, there is a long history of collaboration between various US security apparatuses and private right-wing groups. The case of Howard Berry Godfrey and the Secret Army Organization (SAO) is instructive. https://lorenzoae.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/a-brief-history-of-american-vigilantism/
https://sites.google.com/site/cointelprodocs/the-use-of-informants-in-fbi-intelligence-investigations#b221
According to the Church Committee, Godfrey was a member of the “right-wing paramilitary” SAO and engaged in numerous acts of violence and sabotage against left-wing targets at the same time he was a paid FBI informant (bolding mine):

Godfrey and the FBI entered into a relationship in 1967 by which Godfrey would provide the Bureau information. This relationship was formalized in August of 1967 when Godfrey was officially “approved” by the FBI’s Washington Headquarters as an informant. […] Godfrey’s relationship with the FBI lasted over five years, terminating in November of 1972. Godfrey was paid varying amounts from 1967 through 1970 when he began to receive $250 per month plus up to $100 per month in expenses. He continued at that level until his termination. […] Examples of the types of actions Godfrey and/or the Secret Army were involved in include firebombing, smashing windows, placing stickers bearing SAO or Minutemen symbols on cars and buildings, propelling lug nuts through windows with sling shots, and breaking and entering. […] The SAO’s actions escalated to a level of violence and destruction where Godfrey’s name had to be revealed as an FBI informant. Two events precipitated this. The first was the shooting of Paula Tharp, who was in the residence of the San Diego State University professor Peter Bohmer. Briefly, while Godfrey and an SAO associate were “on a surveillance” of Bohmer’s residence (instituted by Godfrey), the associate, according to Godfrey, picked up a gun Godfrey had under the seat of his car and fired shots into the Bohmer house, one of which struck Ms. Tharp. [231] Previously the SAO and Godfrey had singled out Professor Bohmer in their literature for special attention:

For any of our readers who may care to look up Red Scum, and say hello, here is some information that may help. His address is 5155 Muir, Ocean Beach, telephone number is 222-7243, he drives a dark blue 1968 VW Sedam, California licence DKY 147. Just to make sure you talk to the right guy here is his description: he has dark brown shoulder length hair, green eyes, weight is about 160 lbs. and he is 5’10” tall. Now in case any of you don’t believe in hitting people who wear glasses, to be fair I guess we will have to tell you he wears contact lences. [sic]

The significant factor for the Committee’s analysis of FBI informants is that even this shooting incident did not immediately terminate Godfrey as an informant. Rather the FBI records show that Godfrey remained on the Bureau payroll until November, 1972. And, it was not until the second major act of destruction that Godfrey was “surfaced” as an informant.

The second major act of destruction which occurred was the bombing of the Guild theatre in San Diego. According to Godfrey, the bombing was perpetrated by his subordinate in the SAO, one William Yakopec. Godfrey participated in the SAO sale of some explosives to Yakopec. Yet, he promptly notified the FBI of Yakopec’s alleged involvement in the Guild Theatre bombing. Yakopec, who maintains his innocence, was subsequently indicted and convicted of the bombing offenses in the local courts of San Diego.

For more information on this affair, see: “The Strange Tale of The Secret Army Organization (USA): An investigation” by Richard Popkin, http://www.unz.com/print/Ramparts-1973oct-00036 Ramparts Magazine, October 1973, pp. 36-37; and also “A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded ‘Army’ To Terrorize Young War Dissidents” By Everett R. Holles, http://archive.is/hP7qN NY Times, June 27, 1975.

Also relevant are the Nazi sympathies of J. Edgar Hoover.

Frank Donner, The age of surveillance: The aims and methods of America’s political intelligence system, https://books.google.com/books?id=bY4oAQAAMAAJ 1980, p. 86:

B09Ynt8CMAAWuoL

Eric Lichtblau, “In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis,” http://archive.is/f1zXy#selection-467.81-467.91 NYT, 26 Oct 2014:

Mr. Hoover, for his part, personally approved some ex-Nazis as informants and dismissed accusations of their wartime atrocities as Soviet propaganda. In 1968, Mr. Hoover authorized the F.B.I. to wiretap a left-wing journalist who wrote critical stories about Nazis in America, internal records show. Mr. Hoover declared the journalist, Charles Allen, a potential threat to national security.

Donald Trump Meets with Black Pastors Amid Feud with Al Sharpton

Alveda-King-Black-Pastors-640x480
Alveda King, second from right, niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. together with other religious leaders, from left, Rev. Bill Owens, Rev. Dean Nelson and Bishop Harry Jackson, speaks to reporters following a meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, Monday, July 29, …AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

Donald Trump Meets with Black Pastors Amid Feud with Al Sharpton
CHARLIE SPIERING 29 Jul 20191,2:21
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/29/donald-trump-meets-with-black-pastors-amid-feud-with-al-sharpton/

President Donald Trump met with African-American pastors and leaders of the black community on Monday, amidst a leftist uproar over his criticism of activist Al Sharpton.
Trump mentioned the meeting on Twitter but did not invite reporters into the room.

Looking forward to my meeting at 2:00 P.M. with wonderful Inner City Pastors!

blob:https://www.breitbart.com/13bac1d6-87f6-43c0-8db4-07c9e22ae255
Play Video
CLICK TO PLAY

Woman Who Battled Rare Bone Cancer Praises Trump as Her ‘Good Samaritan’

Alveda King and Pastor Bill Owens spoke to the press at the White House after the meeting.

King, a civil rights and pro-life activist and the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., has visited the president with the group of pastors on multiple occasions.

She told reporters who asked about the meeting that she had a picture of Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton with Trump.

“At one time in their lives, they highly regarded the president,” she told them. “And, so I’m thinking about a scripture: If it had been my enemy, I could have understood, I could have known what to do, but you were my friends and my brothers.”

After the meeting, King tweeted out a picture of her and Sharpton and her and Trump.

“When your friends lie, who needs enemies?” she asked.

image
Evangelist Alveda King

@AlvedaCKing
When your friends lie, who needs enemies? #jobsjusticelifepotus @realDonaldTrump

image
View image on Twitter
3:54 PM – Jul 29, 2019

At the White House, King said she would continue to visit the president in the future to speak and pray with him about the country.

“The babies in the womb, the sick and poor and elderly are being blessed. We have an opportunity to continue to be blessed, and we have a president’s whose listening,” she told reporters. “And I was glad to pray with him today.”

Owens, the founder and president of the Coalition of African American Pastors, said he found it “hard to believe” that the president was racist and that they talked about issues facing the black community for about two hours.

“This country needs healing,” he said. “There’s so much division in America along racial lines.”

He agreed with reporters that Trump should probably visit Baltimore to see the problems there for himself.

He said that they met the president about four or five times, and said that the meeting was scheduled prior to the controversy.

When asked if he thought Trump was intentionally trying to fan the flames of racism by using words like “infestation” to describe the city of Baltimore, he replied, “Well, those are his words. I don’t want to second-guess what he says, because I hear a lot of things,” he said. “I see also people pandering to black people, to get them on board with some of their agenda.”

The battle for free speech is on as Big Tech cracks down on conservatives on social media.

mark-zuckerberg-facebook-big-tech
No Fear: Big Tech Censors As They Aren’t Afraid of Us
The battle for free speech is on as Big Tech cracks down on conservatives on social media.

By Jenna Ellis

No Fear: Big Tech Censors As They Aren’t Afraid of Us


July 3, 2019

The battle for free speech on the internet is heating up and one thing is clear: Big Tech will bend to criticism from the left, but not the right.

The reason is simple. Silicon Valley does not fear any consequences from conservatives, who are instinctually prone to letting private companies do as they please.

Silicon Valley does not fear any consequences from conservatives, who are instinctually prone to letting private companies do as they please.

Meanwhile, because of the leftist inclinations of their own employees and their need to maintain a healthy relationship with their Democratic political protectors in Washington, the Big Tech companies are terrified of defying the activist left.

We are in the midst of an extensive crackdown on conservative speech by Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube. YouTube, for example is “demonetizing” and banning channels at an unprecedented rate, and in a complete reversal of its founding ethos, is also totally overhauling its policies to replace an emphasis on free speech with one on preventing “hateful content.”

The most immediate cause is direct pressure from left-wing activists who characterize their explicit efforts to deplatform the right as “journalism.” The YouTube policy changes, for instance, came in response to a coordinated media blitz over conservative comedian Steven Crowder making fun of Vox reporter Carlos Maza.

This network of activist-journalists works closely with groups like the Antifa gangsters who savagely beat Quillette editor Andy Ngo in Portland this weekend. After Ngo was attacked, some of these “journalists” mocked him and tried to justify his beating. Others, including Maza himself, have explicitly and publicly endorsed these violent tactics.

Yet, none of these leftist activists face censorship from Big Tech. In fact, the researcher who exposed their links to Antifa was himself banned from Twitter for doing so.
facebook
Facebook (Official White House Photo)

But now there’s a new dynamic at work. The federal government has begun making the long-awaited opening moves toward the most significant government action ever aimed at Silicon Valley, and Big Tech is paying attention.

The latest wave of censorship, unfortunately, shows that when Big Tech companies are under pressure, their instinct is to veer further left.

The Federal Trade Commission is opening an antitrust investigation into Facebook, and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division is about to do the same for Google, but that’s not the end of Big Tech’s woes. Somewhere between 12 and 20 state attorneys general are reportedly prepping their own coordinated investigations into Big Tech’s anti-competitive practices and possible violations of state consumer protection laws.

The latest wave of censorship, unfortunately, shows that when Big Tech companies are under pressure, their instinct is to veer further left.

Even with the U.S. Department of Justice and top state law enforcers opening investigations, Silicon Valley remains far more responsive to the threats of Democrats, who are signalling that their own House Judiciary Committee investigation will be framed as a push towards more censorship, not less.

Representative Frank Pallone (D – NJ), who will be among the most prominent Democrats at the upcoming hearings, has already issued a threatening tweet urging more aggressive social media moderation beyond the censorship of conservatives that is already underway.

The last time Facebook executives appeared before her Senate committee, Senator Mazie Hirono (D – HI) similarly made it clear that she thinks the problem with social media is too little censorship, not too much.

Unfortunately, that’s the message Big Tech is responding to, egged on by a liberal press eager to silence competing sources of information. The New York Times, for example, ran a Sunday cover story last month about how YouTube turned a young man into a neo-Nazi, ostensibly through no fault of his own, by allowing voices such as Jordan Peterson and Lauren Southern on its platform.

This was always the activist left’s plan. Shortly after the 2016 election, Media Matters for America leader David Brock produced a memo explicitly calling for pressure on social media companies to deplatform conservatives in hopes that this would prevent a repeat of Trump’s upset victory. Thanks to reporting from Breitbart News and an undercover investigation by Project Veritas, we now know that senior elements within Google share the same goal.
trump-2020
Donald Trump MAGA Rally. The Epoch Times. Creative Commons. Flickr.

The Epoch Times. Creative Commons. Flickr.

The tide can still be turned, though. If the avalanche of antitrust investigations is not enough to convince Big Tech to clean up its act, then conservatives and elected Republicans will have to take an even stronger stand against biased censorship of the modern public square.

If the avalanche of antitrust investigations is not enough to convince Big Tech to clean up its act, then conservatives and elected Republicans will have to take an even stronger stand against biased censorship of the modern public square.

President Trump is setting the tone. He’s making it clear his administration will not sit on the sidelines with a summit on social media at the White House. “Twitter should let the banned Conservative Voices back onto their platform, without restriction. It’s called Freedom of Speech, remember. You are making a Giant Mistake!” the President tweeted in perhaps his strongest message to Big Tech yet.

We’re only at the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end, in this fight to preserve free speech on the internet. A huge part of that fight will involve the antitrust enforcement that’s starting to take shape, but conservatives can’t rely solely on federal regulators.

Elected Republicans, conservative activists, and the public at large need to follow Donald Trump’s lead and become far more invested in this issue by advocating loudly against censorship and seeking change through grassroots action, lawsuits, and legislation.

Democrats are already out ahead of us, with their 2020 presidential contenders competing fiercely to lock in Silicon Valley campaign contributions.

If conservatives can’t convince the social media giants that we can create as much pressure as the left exerts, Big Tech will continue to dismiss our concerns. They must fear the consequences of their assault on free speech, or else we will have to accept limits on our liberties.

Jenna Ellis (@realJennaEllis) is a member of the Trump 2020 Advisory Board. She is a constitutional law attorney, radio host, and the author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution

11 chemicals that could lurk in your lipstick, lotion, and eye powder Hilary Brueck

5d09556423cf0912a118f8be-960-720
chemicals in cosmetics are endocrine disruptors Sergei Bobylev/TASS via Getty Images

Cancer-causing toxins were just found in foundation and sparkly makeup — here are 11 chemicals that could lurk in your lipstick, lotion, and eye powder
Hilary Brueck

https://www.businessinsider.com/dangerous-chemicals-in-beauty-products-makeup-list-2019-6

Trace amounts of asbestos were recently found in eye shadow and concealer. The US beauty industry is barely regulated, and the US has not enacted new cosmetic regulations in over eight decades.
Some products may be safe, but many are untested. “Natural” labels mean little, and the products aren’t necessarily better for your health.
Here are the risky chemicals that could lurk in your products.
Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

Toxic makeup is nothing new: The ancient Greeks used heavy metals on their skin, and Egyptian queens wore black kohl eye makeup that was made with lead.

But last week, trace amounts of asbestos — a known cancer causer — were found in concealer as well as sparkly makeup marketed to kids at Claire’s, a reminder that toxic chemicals and compounds still lurk in beauty products. In March, Claire’s also voluntarily recalled some of its eye shadow and face powder after asbestos was found in those products as well.

The issue isn’t limited to cosmetics: The FDA recently warned about dangerous bacteria in a no-rinse cleansing foam used by hospital patients, alerted tattoo artists about ink contaminated with microorganisms, and found yeast in Young Living essential oils.

In part, these problems arise because US beauty products are largely unregulated.

“The law does not require cosmetic products and ingredients, other than color additives, to have FDA approval before they go on the market,” the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes.

Some toxic ingredients (like asbestos) are inadvertently added during the manufacturing process, while product makers put others in purposefully to help with absorption, shine, shimmer, or a non-greasy feel. Studies suggest that chemicals from the products people put on their faces and bodies can show up later in urine. Certain compounds, especially when mixed together in the body, might up a person’s odds of developing cancer or mess with their reproductive ability.

But it’s nearly impossible for consumers to determine what’s in cosmetics even by reading the labels, since many compounds can be considered trade secrets and hide in the “parfum” or “fragrance” ingredients on a list.

Alec Batis, a former research chemist who once made hair dyes for the L’Oreal group, is an expert in the risks and benefits of chemicals used in beauty products.

Batis, who now works as a paid consultant for beauty companies and recently appeared in a documentary called “Toxic Beauty,” told Business Insider that people should be concerned about some chemicals in products like soap, shampoo, and perfume. But not every formulation is dangerous.

“It’s not about hating chemicals,” Batis said. “Let’s understand what this stuff really is.”

Here’s a look at 11 problematic ingredients that are near-universal bathroom vanity staples.

5d0a582c0a284929b87b6be4-960-720
mlasaimages/Shutterstock

Phthalates used to be almost ubiquitous in cosmetics, and they’re still in many fragrances today. Studies link the plasticizers to reproductive and development issues.
Phthalates used to be almost ubiquitous in cosmetics, and they’re still in many fragrances today. Studies link the plasticizers to reproductive and development issues.

Phthalates help make plastics durable and flexible. They’re used in raincoats, flooring, hair spray, nail polish, perfume, lotion, shampoo, aftershave, food packaging, and toys, among many other items.

When it comes to makeup, the FDA says on its website that diethylphthalate (DEP) is “the only phthalate still commonly used in cosmetics.”

At least one phthalate can cause cancer, according to the National Institutes of Health. There’s also evidence that the chemicals can also mess with reproduction and child development.

Batis said he’ll wear some fragrance when he goes out, but he washes it off before bed.

“We don’t know the long term effects, and we have to be smart about it,” he said.

5d095a68693e5e122f3de542-960-720
Parabens are also common in shampoo, shaving cream, moisturizers, and other makeup. Josep Suria / Shutterstock

Parabens are also common in shampoo, shaving cream, moisturizers, and other makeup.

The chemicals are meant to prevent mold and bacterial growth, but it’s not clear yet how they impact human health at low levels.

Many cosmetic makers have switched to “paraben-free” formulations, but Batis said that doesn’t mean they’re better.

“They switch to other [preservatives], for example, methylchloroisothiazolinone and its sister compounds,” he said. “And I’m thinking, ‘Wow. You’re switching to that, which is a known sensitizing allergen.'”

Frequent use of sensitizing allergens like methylchloroisothiazolinone can cause lesions and a scaly red rash in some people.

5d0ba6950a284954a810fb14-960-720
Shutterstock

A chemical called 1,4 dioxane is not purposefully put in cosmetics, but it can show up as part of the makeup manufacturing process, and it is dangerous.

According to the FDA, 1,4 dioxane “is a potential human carcinogen.” It sometimes shows up in beauty products that contain detergents, foams, stabilizers or solvents.

The FDA recommends that manufacturers use a vacuum technique so that the cancer-linked byproduct can be avoided. Batis agrees.

“The manufacturing process should be standardized to vacuum,” he said. “There’s so many simple solves for some of these things.”

5d0ba51d693e5e587850efd7-960-720
Wang Zhao/AFP/Getty Images

Talc and asbestos are commonly found in makeup in trace amounts. Jiang Cheng is among hundreds of Chinese men sharing beauty tips online and cashing in on the booming male cosmetics industry.

Asbestos, a known cancer-causer, was found in makeup sold at Claire’s twice this year.

“It wasn’t surprising to me, because there’s no regulation,” Dr. Shruthi Mahalingaiah, a gynecologist at Boston Medical Center, said at the time.

5d095a08693e5e120f765c52-960-720
Coal tar dyes are sometimes in eyeshadow and hair color because they’re great at tinting. Vyacheslav Prokofyev\TASS via Getty Images

Coal tar dyes can irritate the skin, and in severe cases, make people go blind.

“There are no color additives approved by FDA for permanent dyeing or tinting of eyelashes and eyebrows,” the FDA says in its warning on eye cosmetic safety.

Most coal tar hair dyes today are made with petroleum, but they can still cause harm. The FDA suggests keeping hair dye away from your eyes, and says “do not dye your eyebrows or eyelashes.”

5d0a4415e3ecba1c32494955-960-641
Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Nail hardeners and nail polishes can include formaldehyde, and some hair-smoothing products release formaldehyde gas into the air when heated.
Nail hardeners and nail polishes can include formaldehyde, and some hair-smoothing products release formaldehyde gas into the air when heated.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen.

For this reason, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) advises hair salons to make sure they have adequate ventilation and perhaps even give employees respirators.

“Beauty care companies are now making and selling products that they claim do not contain formaldehyde in the solution,” OSHA says on its website. “Choosing one of these products might eliminate the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Note that just because a product doesn’t list formaldehyde, formalin, or methylene glycol does not mean that it does not contain any other hazardous ingredients.”
Triclosan is another ingredient meant to prevent bacterial growth. It’s in some toothpastes, antibacterial soaps, and body washes.

5d0a4484693e5e25c611ce13-960-720
Noah Berger/Reuters

Triclosan is another ingredient meant to prevent bacterial growth. It’s in some toothpastes, antibacterial soaps, and body washes.

Scientists are still learning about triclosan, but some evidence suggests it can mess with our thyroid hormone, which regulates metabolism and helps humans grow and develop.

There are also some indications that triclosan might make bacteria more resistant to antibiotics, but more research is still needed.
Lead is sometimes found in trace amounts in lipstick, and it’s also in certain traditional eyeliners.
Lead is sometimes found in trace amounts in lipstick, and it’s also in certain traditional eyeliners. John Walton/PA Images via Getty Images

Traditional eyeliners such as kohl, kajal, al-kahal, surma, tiro, tozali, and kwalli contain “high levels of lead” and other heavy metals according to the FDA, and should not be used. Those products are typically not for sale in the US, but the FDA cautions that they “sometimes make their way into specialty markets in this country.”

5d0a5963638af22f093844e2-960-720
Kylie Aquino/Flickr

Lead is a neurotoxin that cause brain damage and subtly lower IQs.

“In children, there is no identified threshold or ‘safe’ blood lead level,” according to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
PEG (polyethylene glycol) compounds are petroleum-based and used to make cosmetics absorb more quickly into the skin.
PEG (polyethylene glycol) compounds are petroleum-based and used to make cosmetics absorb more quickly into the skin.

“They enhance penetration,” Batis said.
5d0a6966e3ecba287a119f06-750-563
Shutterstock

If producers and consumers were to shift their expectations about what beauty products should do, he added, “then we can formulate really beautiful things that don’t have to absorb in 2 seconds flat and we don’t have to use certain chemicals in order to do that.”

Sulfates — harsh soaps that are common shampoo ingredients — have developed a bad reputation. But they’re not problematic for everyone.
Sulfates — harsh soaps that are common shampoo ingredients — have developed a bad reputation. But they’re not problematic for everyone.

Sulfates are a type of surfactant — essentially a super-powerful soap. That can be a problem if you want to keep color-treated hair looking good for a while.

“People pay a lot of money to stick those color molecules in the cortex,” Batis said. “So, after they leave the salon, I don’t want them using a sulfate shampoo because they’re going to wash that $400 out in 5 seconds.”

Sulfates are harsh and can make scalps dry. But Batis wouldn’t tell everyone to shy away from them.

5d0a6d6e23cf09360939b5d5-750-563
Victor Virgile/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

“Sulfate shampoos are good for fine, normal hair,” he said. “Cause it really rocks up the cuticle, and you get amazing volume.”
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) are preservatives often used in lipsticks and moisturizers.
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) are preservatives often used in lipsticks and moisturizers.

The US Department of Health and Human Services says BHA is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” given what it does to animals. BHT may be safer for people than BHA, but it’s hard to know for sure because very few studies have been done.

Both chemicals are often put on or in our mouths: In addition to being common lipstick additives, they’re used to keep processed foods like chips and vegetable oils from going rancid.

5d0bc341e3ecba03c00aacb4-960-720
In general, we know very little about what exactly is in cosmetics. AP

“Do we need products to last 20 years?” Batis asked.
In general, we know very little about what exactly is in cosmetics.
59dea8ba92406c73378b501a-960-720

The US law that regulates cosmetics — the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act — hasn’t been changed since it was enacted in 1938. While Europe has banned over 1,300 chemicals from products sold there, the US forbids just 11. Congress wrote drafts of new cosmetic rules in 2011 and 2018, but so far nothing has been enacted.

Batis believes that the beauty industry needs more regulation and unbiased third-party testing.

In the absence of that, “it’s like a cat and mouse game,” he said. “Corporate is putting the pressure on marketers to increase sales, and marketers are putting the pressure on chemists to just come up with the next thing.”

Instead, he said he hopes to see the industry focus more on balancing safety and beauty concerns.

“It’s more than just what people should buy, what people shouldn’t buy,” Batis said. “It’s about respect for other human beings.”

5d0bc8da0a28495dc36f2264-960-720
But avoiding chemicals altogether isn’t a good solution to the problem.

But avoiding chemicals altogether isn’t a good solution to the problem. Ragweed allergies are no joke.

Studies suggest that some manufactured chemicals are “sensitizing allergens,” meaning they can prompt people to develop new allergies to certain makeups, creams, or perfumes they use repeatedly over time.

But just because something is “all-natural” or plant-based doesn’t mean it’s better.

Natural labels don’t mean much in the first place, but more importantly, people react to all kinds of compounds — natural or not — in different ways. Take chamomile, for instance: some people are fatally allergic to the plant, which is a ragweed relative.

“Just be aware of certain things, because everyone’s different,” Batis said.

He believes no one is innocent in the beauty market: Companies could be more transparent about what’s in their products, regulators should insist on third-party testing, and consumers may need to manage their expectations about what beauty products can reasonably do.

“I don’t believe in the super duper crazy miracle,” Batis said. “I believe that there’s a great way to nourish the largest organ of your body.”

MadMedic’s Post Venezuelans Now Regret Letting Government Take Their Guns Away: https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/347470/posts/2310497637

n-maduro-venezuela-1200x630
Venezuelans Now Regret Letting Government Take Their Guns Away
Not long ago, millions of Venezuelans decided to become loved by the left and voted away their right to keep and bear arms. Now they regret it.

Published 3 days ago on June 11, 2019 By Warner Todd Huston

Venezuelans Now Regret Letting Government Take Their Guns Away

Not long ago, millions of Venezuelans decided to become loved by the left and voted away their right to keep and bear arms. But now that their government has descended into a socialist nightmare where everyone is starving to death, these same people are now regretting their votes to give away their right to self-defense.

venezuela-violence-1200x630

It is an object lesson for the folks here in the U.S. who want to travel down the same path as Venezuela; gun-free, socialism and all.

Venezuela implemented its gun ban six years ago before their world took its last steps into the living hell it has become. Now they have no defense against the junta and the socialist criminals controlling their nation.

“Hollywood’s favorite strongman banned arms for citizens. It has not ended well for those starving to death under a socialist dictatorship,” actor James Woods noted on Twitter.

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1136824484391006208/X8kUWQbF?format=jpg&name=600×314
James Woods

@RealJamesWoods
Hollywood’s favorite strongman banned arms for citizens. It has not ended well for those starving to death under a socialist dictatorship… #DemocratsAreDangerous https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves

14.5K
2:38 PM – Dec 14, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Venezuelans regret gun ban, ‘a declaration of war against an unarmed population’
As Venezuela continues to crumble under the socialist dictatorship of President Nicolas Maduro, some are expressing words of warning – and resentment –regarding the country’s earlier gun control bill…

And boy is he right.

As Fox News reported on Friday:
“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.” The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all – except government entities.

Naturally, Chavez sponsored a “gun buy-back” program before implementing his confiscation. Few Venezuelans were much interested in the government’s cash. So, by the end of the year, Chavez forcefully seized 12,500 guns. But that was just the start

And when Chavez mercifully died, the country’s next president, Maduro, continued the confiscation policies…

In 2014, with Nicolás Maduro at the helm following Chavez’s death but carrying through his socialist “Chavista” policies, the government invested more than $47 million enforcing the gun ban – which has since included grandiose displays of public weapons demolitions in the town square.

And since then? Well, the government has become despotic and has run roughshod over the Venezuelan people, jailing and shooting them at will. And the people now have no defense to stop Maduro from subjugating them.

“Venezuela shows the deadly peril when citizens are deprived of the means of resisting the depredations of a criminal government,” said David Kopel, a policy analyst, and research director at the Independence Institute and adjunct professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University. “The Venezuelan rulers – like their Cuban masters – apparently viewed citizen possession of arms as a potential danger to a permanent communist monopoly of power.”

No doubt.

Make no mistake, America. This is what Democrats want to happen here, America. They want the American people disarmed so that there is no resistance to their authoritarian reign. Democrats are fascists at heart but they know that your privately held firearms are the biggest threat to their power. Don’t give away your protection willingly.

Glyphosate Worse than We Could Imagine

“It’s Everywhere”
Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Glyphosate is killing off good bacteria in the soil and in human intestines
Earthworms disappear, Humans can’t absorb some minerals because of Glyphosate

Glyphosate Worse than We Could Imagine. “It’s Everywhere”

monsanto-400x282

By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, April 27, 2019
Region: USA
Theme: Biotechnology and GMO, Law and Justice, Science and Medicine

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage. A second US court jury case just ruled that Monsanto, now a part of the German Bayer AG, must pay $ 81 million in damages to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman who contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The ruling and a line-up of another 11,000 pending cases in US courts going after the effects of glyphosate, have hit Bayer AG hard with the company announcing several thousand layoffs as its stock price plunges.

In a trial in San Francisco the jury was unanimous in their verdict that Monsanto Roundup weed-killer, based on glyphosate, had been responsible for Hardeman’s cancer. His attorneys stated,

“It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.”

It is the second defeat for the lawyers of Monsanto after another jury ruled in 2018 that Glyphosate-based Roundup was responsible for the cancer illness of a California school grounds-keeper who contracted the same form of cancer after daily spraying school grounds with Roundup over years, unprotected. There a jury found Monsanto guilty of “malice and oppression” in that company executives, based on internal email discovery, knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

A new independent study shows that those with highest exposure to glyphosate have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer. A meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immune-suppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations. The authors found “the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).” Further, they stated that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” and that that could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.” Glyphosate also ”may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.

Glyphosate from Monsanto’s Roundup Decimates Microbes in Soils and the Human Gut – New Science

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore.

Killing Soils too

While most attention is understandably drawn to the human effects of exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used agriculture chemical in the world today, independent scientists are beginning to look at another alarming effect of the agrochemical– its effect on essential soil nutrients. In a study of the health of soils in the EU, the online journal Politico.eu found that the effects of spraying of glyphosate on the major crops in European agriculture is having disastrous consequences on soil health in addition to killing weeds.

Scientists at Austria’s University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna showed that casting activity of earthworms had nearly disappeared from the surface of farmland within three weeks of glyphosate application. Casting is the process of the worm pushing fertile soils to the surface as they burrow, essential for healthy soil and plant nutrition. A study at Holland’s Wageningen University of topsoil samples from more than 300 soil sites across the EU found that 83% of the soils contained 1 or more pesticide residues. Not surprisingly,

“Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, DDTs (DDT and its metabolites) and broad-spectrum fungicides… were the compounds most frequently found in soil samples and at the highest concentrations.”

The use of various pesticides, above all glyphosate-based ones like Roundup, has exploded over the past four decades across the EU much as across the USA. The agribusiness industry claims that this has been the key to the dramatic rise in farm crop productivity. However if we look more closely at the data, while average yields of major grains such as rice, wheat and maize have more than doubled since 1960, the use of pesticides like glyphosate-based ones has risen by 15-20-fold. Oddly enough, while the EU requires monitoring of many things, monitoring of pesticide residues in soil is not required at the EU level. Until recently the effects of heavy use of pesticides such as Roundup have been ignored in scientific research.

Evidence of soil experts is beginning to reveal clear links between use of pesticides such as glyphosate and dramatic drops in soil fertility and the collapse of microbe systems essential to healthy soil. Worms are one of the most essential.

It’s well-established that earthworms play a vital role in healthy soil nutrients. Soils lacking such are soils that deprive us of the essentials we need for healthy diets, a pandemic problem of soil depletion emerging globally over the past four decades, notably the same time frame that use of pesticides has exploded worldwide. Earthworms are beneficial as they enhance soil nutrient cycling and enhance other beneficial soil micro-organisms, and the concentration of large quantities of nutrients easily assimilable by plants.

The EU puts no limits on how much glyphosate can be put on crops even though it is established that glyphosate can kill specific fungi and bacteria that plants need to suck up nutrients in addition to its effects on earthworms. That is a major blind spot.

Where now?

What is becoming clearer is the colossal and obviously deliberate official blind eye given to potential dangers of glyphosate-based pesticides by regulatory bodies not only in the EU and the USA, but also in China, which today produces more glyphosate than even Monsanto. Since the Monsanto Roundup patent expired, Chinese companies, including Syngenta, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company, SinoHarvest, and Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, have emerged as the world’s major producers of the chemical as well as largest consumers, a not good omen for the future of the legendary Chinese cuisine.

Glyphosate is the base chemical component for some 750 different brands of pesticides worldwide, in addition to Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, EU Commission bureaucrats and the USA EPA continue to ignore prudence in not banning the toxic chemical pending thorough independent investigation over longer time. If I were cynical, I would almost think this continued official support for glyphosate-based herbicides is about more than mere bureaucratic stupidity or ignorance, even more than simply corruption, though that for sure plays a role. The nutritional quality of our food chain is being systematically destroyed and it is about more than corporate agribusiness profit.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

Glyphosate from Monsanto’s Roundup Decimates Microbes in Soils and the Human Gut – New Science

Gut bacteria is gaining increasing attention for the role it plays in our overall health. Given its influence on everything from immune function to digestion to brain function, research has been consistently showing the power of healthy gut bacteria – and the dangers of getting it wrong. Unfortunately, one very common chemical that has made its way to our food supply has now been shown to decimate gut microbes: glyphosate.

This chemical is already at the center of class action lawsuits filed by cancer patients, and the news keeps getting worse. As the main ingredient in the world’s most widely used herbicide, Monsanto’s Roundup, the ramifications for human health are huge.

Some of the medical problems linked to an imbalance of gut bacteria include colorectal cancer, diabetes, liver disease, cardiovascular disease, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, autism and obesity.

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage. A second US court jury case just ruled that Monsanto, now a part of the German Bayer AG, must pay $ 81 million in damages to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman who contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The ruling and a line-up of another 11,000 pending cases in US courts going after the effects of glyphosate, have hit Bayer AG hard with the company announcing several thousand layoffs as its stock price plunges.

In a trial in San Francisco the jury was unanimous in their verdict that Monsanto Roundup weed-killer, based on glyphosate, had been responsible for Hardeman’s cancer. His attorneys stated,

“It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.”

It is the second defeat for the lawyers of Monsanto after another jury ruled in 2018 that Glyphosate-based Roundup was responsible for the cancer illness of a California school grounds-keeper who contracted the same form of cancer after daily spraying school grounds with Roundup over years, unprotected. There a jury found Monsanto guilty of “malice and oppression” in that company executives, based on internal email discovery, knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

A new independent study shows that those with highest exposure to glyphosate have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer. A meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immune-suppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations. The authors found “the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).” Further, they stated that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” and that that could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.” Glyphosate also ”may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.
Glyphosate from Monsanto’s Roundup Decimates Microbes in Soils and the Human Gut – New Science

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore.

Killing Soils too

While most attention is understandably drawn to the human effects of exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used agriculture chemical in the world today, independent scientists are beginning to look at another alarming effect of the agrochemical– its effect on essential soil nutrients. In a study of the health of soils in the EU, the online journal Politico.eu found that the effects of spraying of glyphosate on the major crops in European agriculture is having disastrous consequences on soil health in addition to killing weeds.

Scientists at Austria’s University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna showed that casting activity of earthworms had nearly disappeared from the surface of farmland within three weeks of glyphosate application. Casting is the process of the worm pushing fertile soils to the surface as they burrow, essential for healthy soil and plant nutrition. A study at Holland’s Wageningen University of topsoil samples from more than 300 soil sites across the EU found that 83% of the soils contained 1 or more pesticide residues. Not surprisingly,

“Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, DDTs (DDT and its metabolites) and broad-spectrum fungicides… were the compounds most frequently found in soil samples and at the highest concentrations.”

The use of various pesticides, above all glyphosate-based ones like Roundup, has exploded over the past four decades across the EU much as across the USA. The agribusiness industry claims that this has been the key to the dramatic rise in farm crop productivity. However if we look more closely at the data, while average yields of major grains such as rice, wheat and maize have more than doubled since 1960, the use of pesticides like glyphosate-based ones has risen by 15-20-fold. Oddly enough, while the EU requires monitoring of many things, monitoring of pesticide residues in soil is not required at the EU level. Until recently the effects of heavy use of pesticides such as Roundup have been ignored in scientific research.

Evidence of soil experts is beginning to reveal clear links between use of pesticides such as glyphosate and dramatic drops in soil fertility and the collapse of microbe systems essential to healthy soil. Worms are one of the most essential.

It’s well-established that earthworms play a vital role in healthy soil nutrients. Soils lacking such are soils that deprive us of the essentials we need for healthy diets, a pandemic problem of soil depletion emerging globally over the past four decades, notably the same time frame that use of pesticides has exploded worldwide. Earthworms are beneficial as they enhance soil nutrient cycling and enhance other beneficial soil micro-organisms, and the concentration of large quantities of nutrients easily assimilable by plants.

The EU puts no limits on how much glyphosate can be put on crops even though it is established that glyphosate can kill specific fungi and bacteria that plants need to suck up nutrients in addition to its effects on earthworms. That is a major blind spot.

Where now?

What is becoming clearer is the colossal and obviously deliberate official blind eye given to potential dangers of glyphosate-based pesticides by regulatory bodies not only in the EU and the USA, but also in China, which today produces more glyphosate than even Monsanto. Since the Monsanto Roundup patent expired, Chinese companies, including Syngenta, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company, SinoHarvest, and Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, have emerged as the world’s major producers of the chemical as well as largest consumers, a not good omen for the future of the legendary Chinese cuisine.

Glyphosate is the base chemical component for some 750 different brands of pesticides worldwide, in addition to Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, EU Commission bureaucrats and the USA EPA continue to ignore prudence in not banning the toxic chemical pending thorough independent investigation over longer time. If I were cynical, I would almost think this continued official support for glyphosate-based herbicides is about more than mere bureaucratic stupidity or ignorance, even more than simply corruption, though that for sure plays a role. The nutritional quality of our food chain is being systematically destroyed and it is about more than corporate agribusiness profit.

Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21, by Tom DeWeese

eagle

apclogo600
https://americanpolicy.org/2019/02/25/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21/

25 Feb
Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21
Posted at 13:59h
Environment, Featured, Property Rights, Sustainable Development
by Tom DeWeese

h-15151184-ocasio-1542147296-e1542147448245

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals. They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

105767748-1551385404955preview-1-150x150

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-speaks-as-other-house-news-photo-11

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action – just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlantic magazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington Post, Esquire magazine, Wingnut Watch, Mother Jones, and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Take a good look, those of you who have heard my warnings about Agenda 21 over the years. Do you see the plan I have warned about being fully in place in this Green New Deal?

I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export and even breathe.
In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Stay alert. The next step will be to put a ban on the sale of new combustion engines by a specific date and then limiting the number of new vehicles to be sold. Bans on commercial truck shipping will follow. Then they will turn to airplanes, reducing their use. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on carbon heating systems, mandating they be turned off during certain hours. Heating oil devises will become illegal. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Those in the cities will be ordered to convert their gardens into food producers. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Cortez

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over night. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority. Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it — Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

To all of those elected officials, local, state and federal, who have smirked at we who have tried to sound the alarm, look around you now, hot shots! You have denied, ignored, and yet, helped put these very plans into place. Are you prepared to accept what you have done? Will you allow your own homes and offices to be torn down – or will you be exempt as part of the elite or just useful idiots? Will you have to give up your car and ride your bike to work? Or is that just for we peasants?

Over these years you have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured you their plans were just environmental protection, just good policy for future generations. They have been lying to you to fulfill their own agenda! Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.

Now, our elected leaders have to ask real questions. As the Green New Deal is implemented, and all energy except worthless, unworkable wind and solar are put into place, are you ready for the energy curfews that you will be forced to impose, perhaps each night as the sun fades, forcing factories, restaurants, hospitals, and stores to close at dusk? How about all those folks forced to live in the stack and pack high-rises when the elevators don’t operate? What if they have an emergency?

How much energy will it take to rebuild those buildings that must be destroyed or retrofitted to maker them environmentally correct for your brave new world? Where will it come from after you have banned and destroyed all the workable sources of real energy? What are you counting on to provide you with food, shelter, and the ability to travel so you can continue to push this poison? Because – this is what’s trending — now! And how is it going to be financed when the entire economy crashes under its weight? Is it really the future you want for you, your family, and your constituents who elected you?

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it. Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch freedom die.
Share