Kp Message 7-23-18… “Off for a couple days”

Therer may be fewer posts here the next couple days, as I am taking time off. I am finding it very hard to view a single bit of another video or article talking about how “this part of the deep state is unraveling” or “that part of the deep state is unraveling” or anything like that.

Also I feel the great desire to “get off the Big Island”. I’m in tune with some of the major changes happening here, but I’m not in tune with the smokiness and haziness that’s here almost all the time, now.

I feel “spent”.

The full Ben article is ready to go, and maybe I’ll put up one or two posts along the way, but we’ll see.

Aloha, Kp

This Evil Corporation Bullies Scientists to Cover Up Toxicity

By Dr. Mercola

Thousands of people across the U.S. have now filed lawsuits alleging that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate, caused them to develop cancer. A cluster of more than 400 lawsuits from farmers, landscapers and others claiming Roundup caused Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cell cancer, were consolidated before a federal judge, and Monsanto tried to get the cases dismissed.

The judge, however, recently ruled they will be allowed to proceed,1 and the first case — that of DeWayne “Lee” Johnson, a former school groundskeeper who alleges Roundup caused his terminal cancer — is already in court. Monsanto has continued to maintain that Roundup doesn’t cause cancer and is one of the safest herbicides on the planet, even as evidence stacks up against them.

In the first landmark trial, attorneys even alleged that Monsanto (which was taken over by Bayer in June 2018) has resorted to bullying independent researchers and rejected critical warnings about their toxic products.

Glyphosate’s Toxic History

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), determined glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, to be a “probable carcinogen” (Class 2A). This determination was based on evidence showing the popular weed killer can cause Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with “convincing evidence” it can also cause cancer in animals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated glyphosate is probably not carcinogenic to humans, but internal documents have revealed the agency has colluded with Monsanto to protect the company’s interests. California’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) also announced in 2015 that they intended to list glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.

Monsanto filed formal comments with OEHHA saying the plan to list glyphosate as a carcinogen should be withdrawn. When they didn’t give in, Monsanto took it a step further and filed a lawsuit against OEHHA in January 2016 to stop the glyphosate/cancer classification. OEHHA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and a Fresno, California, superior court judge ruled on their behalf in February 2017.

Roundup Cancer Battle: Monsanto Bullies Scientists

Johnson’s lawyer Brent Wisner presented internal emails during the trial that suggest Monsanto “fought science” and went “out of its way to bully … and to fight independent researchers.”2 In one of the emails, Monsanto product protection lead Donna Farmer asked “How do we combat this?” in response to a negative study about exposure to glyphosate. She also wrote, “You cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer.”

As The Guardian reported, Wisner also revealed Monsanto documents with plans to “orchestrate outcry” prior to the IARC glyphosate classification, along with decades-old emails in which a genotoxicity expert warned of potential human health risks and advised further research.

Monsanto officials, upon seeing the concerns, considered finding a new expert and releasing a press release to state Roundup was safe. “Wisner also read documents that he said showed how Monsanto strategized plans to ‘ghostwrite’ favorable research,” The Guardian continued.3

Previously court-ordered unsealed documents have revealed that Monsanto scientists ghost-wrote studies to clear glyphosate’s name and even hired a scientist to persuade the EPA to change its cancer classification decision on the chemical.4 Johnson, a father of three, was diagnosed with a type of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma called mycosis fungoides in August 2014, and has recently been given months to live.

He claims he used Roundup 20 to 40 times per year while working as a groundskeeper for the Benicia school district in California from 2012 through late 2015.5 His attorneys showed photos of skin lesions and rashes Johnson developed after exposure to the chemical. The case is set to act as a bellwether for the thousands of cases (approximately 5,000 as of July 20186) waiting to be heard.

Timothy Litzenburg, one of Johnson’s lawyers, said in an interview with The Guardian that Johnson is “incredibly brave, and, “Whatever happens … his sons will get to know that their dad was brave enough to go up against Monsanto completely alone, and first, before he died,” adding, “so much of what Monsanto has worked to keep secret is coming out.”7 A second case, this one in St. Louis, is scheduled to go to trial in October.8

Monsanto Attacks IARC in Attempt to Tarnish Credibility

In addition to bullying independent scientists, Monsanto will even take on establishments like IARC, should they come to unfavorable conclusions about glyphosate like IARC did. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Monsanto and the American Chemistry Council have “launched a full-throttle attack on the international scientific body.” Most recently, UCS stated:9

“A rider [was added to] the House version of the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] appropriations bill that would prevent the National Institutes of Health from lending any financial support to IARC unless it agrees to push for reforms at IARC that have been called for by [industry ally U.S. Rep.] Lamar Smith and the House Science Committee at the bequest of the chemical industry.”

Since 2016, Monsanto has lobbied to strip the IARC of its U.S. funding. What’s more, in January 2017, the American Chemistry Council (of which Monsanto is a member) formed a front group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research (CAPHR),10 the express purpose of which is to discredit the IARC and seek to reform the IARC Monographs Program, which evaluates and determines the carcinogenicity of chemicals.11 IARC scientists have also been targeted. UCS noted:12

“The conservative advocacy group and known FOIA abusers, Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E and E Legal) filed a series of open record requests to IARC panelists asking for deliberative documents about the glyphosate monograph, to which IARC has told scientists not to release the documents because IARC is the owner of those materials, seeking to defend panelists’ right to debate evidence openly and critically which does not need to be subject to public scrutiny.”

Monsanto went so far as to demand IARC members turn over documents related to glyphosate while calling the IARC findings “junk science.”13 It’s well worth noting that the IARC’s scientists are considered elite independent experts, culled from well-respected institutions all over the world.

Smith has even sent letters to IARC’s director questioning the glyphosate work group’s integrity. Some of the IARC members who worked on the glyphosate findings say they feel “intimidated” by the backlash, but stated they would not be backing down.14 UCS is calling for IARC to be protected across the board, which includes its access to funding.

“This most recent attempt to use the appropriations process to cut funding to this scientific body is a glaring example of the way in which the disinformation playbook is employed in sometimes more subtle ways that can have dramatic impacts. Funding of our agencies should not be bogged down by ideological and political riders that can have dramatic impacts on science-based policymaking and the future of international science institutions.

The language requiring NIH to restrict IARC funding if certain terms aren’t met should be stripped from the HHS funding bill and IARC should continue to receive US funding to help support all of its important work reviewing the cancer risk of environmental contaminants to inform safety thresholds across the globe.”15

Monsanto Goes After Reporters, Academic Journals Too

Former Reuters reporter Carey Gillam has written a revealing book on Monsanto’s long-term and continuing corruption of science, “Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science.” Gillam also told Corporate Crime Reporter that Monsanto would bully journalists who dared to go against the “corporate narrative.”

“Monsanto has made a concerted effort to train reporters on how to report on the industry,” she said. “They are holding boot camps and bringing in these supposedly independent professors and others to train these reporters and others how to think about the science and the issues. They are trying to influence press coverage.”16 In addition, she describes the company’s ongoing manipulation of science and the press, and the revolving door that keeps Monsanto in control of government regulations.

UCS likened Monsanto’s influence and attempts to discredit science and influence media on the health risks of glyphosate to the sugar industry’s attempts to discredit the science surrounding sugar’s health risks, particularly a recommendation from WHO to limit daily calorie intake from added sugars to 10 percent. Much like Monsanto, the Sugar Association threatened to get U.S. funding to WHO suspended and demanded unfavorable scientific reports be buried.

“Unfortunately, this effort was effective in limiting the report’s influence on health policy,” UCS noted,17 and we must not let the same happen with glyphosate. Monsanto also manipulates scientific research. One study in question was conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini. The lifetime feeding study, published in 2012, revealed numerous shocking problems in rats fed GMO corn, including massive tumors and early death. Rats given glyphosate in their drinking water also developed tumors.

The following year, the publisher retracted the study saying it “did not meet scientific standards,” even though a long and careful investigation found no errors or misrepresentation of data. Interestingly enough, in the time between the publication of the study and its retraction, the journal had created a new position — associate editor for biotechnology, a position that was filled by a former Monsanto employee. The editor of the journal that retracted the study was also reportedly paid by Monsanto.

Health Risks of Glyphosate Continue to Grow

Courts will soon rule whether there’s enough evidence to rule that Roundup caused cancer in certain individuals. However, there’s already growing evidence that this chemical causes untold amounts of harm. In a pilot study, the highly respected Ramazzini Institute in Italy revealed that daily ingestion of glyphosate at the acceptable daily dietary exposure level set by the EPA alters sexual development in rats, produces changes in the intestinal microbiome and exhibits genotoxic effects.18

Tests conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), published in 2018, also revealed the Roundup formula is far more toxic than glyphosate alone. According to the NTP’s summary of the results, glyphosate formulations significantly alter the viability of human cells by disrupting the functionality of cell membranes.19 It’s also been found that glyphosate may affect fertility in humans.

In 2014, a report from the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) highlighted what appears to be the perfect storm for an “infertility time bomb,” courtesy of glyphosate.20 In December 2013, meanwhile, a study revealed that Roundup exposure induced cell death in Sertoli cells in prepubertal rat testis.21 Sertoli cells are required for male sexual development, including maintaining the health of sperm cells. The exposure was a low dose (36 ppm), which is well within the EPA’s food safety levels.

It’s unknown what health risks will eventually be revealed from eating food contaminated with low levels of glyphosate, but it’s likely we’ll first see the damages incurred by those exposed to larger quantities, like Johnson via his groundskeeping work.

In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides, as well as not using such chemicals around your home or garden. In the case of glyphosate, it’s also wise to avoid desiccated crops like wheat and oats.

Ben & Jerry’s Sued for Misleading Customers

By Dr. Mercola

Ben & Jerry’s, loved by so many because of its environmentally friendly image, is being sued by Organic Consumers Association (OCA), which alleges its do-good reputation and marketing campaigns are all “smoke and mirrors.”1 In the lawsuit against Ben & Jerry’s and their parent company, Unilever, filed in July 2018, OCA takes issue with statements that the ice cream is made using milk from “happy cows” raised in “Caring Dairies.”2

They promote their Caring Dairy program as involving “family operated” farms working toward sustainable dairy farming, and state that farmers must meet the program’s basic requirements to be included. This, the lawsuit claims, leads “consumers to believe that the products are produced using animal-raising practices that are more humane than those used on regular factory-style, mass production dairy operations.”

Even the peaceful cows on their ice cream pints, silhouetted by green pastures and blue skies, give the impression that ice cream, or at least its milk, is a wholesome product you can feel good about buying. You, and many others, would probably be surprised to learn that this is very much a carefully crafted illusion.

Ben & Jerry’s Uses CAFO Milk

Ben & Jerry’s has set itself apart from other ice cream makers in the frozen dairy aisle, largely because of their claims of “values-led sourcing” and “Caring Dairy” promises, which built a loyal fan base. “Due to concerns about health, sustainability and animal welfare, consumers are increasingly considering how their food is produced and the effects of that production on animals and the environment,” OCA’s lawsuit states.

“As a result, consumers seek out products that are produced with farming and grazing practices that lead to humanely-raised animals, clean water, healthy soil and a toxin-free environment, such as practices associated with regenerative agriculture.”3 The company is so popular that it was the second-largest ice cream brand in 2017, bringing in $801 million in sales.4

But if you look closely, there are some key terms missing from the ice cream labels that signal perhaps they’re not as environmentally friendly as they’d like you to believe — terms like “organic” and “grass fed,” for starters. They’d certainly get a different reaction from consumers if their labels touted what’s really inside, like milk from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

“In contrast to Unilever’s representations, the products include milk that comes from cows raised in regular factory-style, mass-production dairy operations, also known as ‘Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations’ or ‘Large Farm Operations’ — not in the special ‘Caring Dairies’ emphasized in Unilever’s marketing,” OCA states.5

The nonprofit advocacy group Regeneration Vermont, which, along with OCA, has been invested in trying to get Ben & Jerry’s to clean up their act, revealed that Ben & Jerry’s sources their milk and cream from a co-op in St. Albans City, Vermont.

About 360 farms contribute milk to the co-op, but fewer than 25 percent adhere to Ben & Jerry’s “Caring Dairy” standards. Yet, when the milk is delivered, it’s all mixed together, so there’s no way to tell whether the milk you’re getting came from a Caring Dairy farm or a CAFO. “So even if some of the milk comes from a farm that actually meets those standards, Ben & Jerry’s can’t truthfully claim that all of their milk and cream come from dairies that meet the company’s ‘Caring Dairy’ standards,” OCA points out.6

Brent Johnson, a class-action defense lawyer who is not involved with the case, told Bloomberg, “If it’s true that St. Albans’ mixes milk production, and some don’t qualify as a Caring Dairy under the standards articulated by Ben & Jerry’s, that’s to me the plaintiffs’ best case.”7

Ben & Jerry’s Tainted by Glyphosate Herbicide

Another one of the lawsuit’s complaints centers on Ben & Jerry’s claims that their products help reduce environmental impact, an ironic marketing claim for a product tainted by chemical pesticides.

In July 2017, OCA reported that 10 of 11 samples of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream they tested came back positive for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and/or its main metabolite AMPA.8 The fan favorites Phish Food, Half Baked and Americone Dream are just a few examples found to contain glyphosate or its metabolites.

In 2017, OCA called on Ben & Jerry’s to immediately transition to using only organic ingredients, including milk, “or face a national and international consumer boycott.” Ben & Jerry’s responded by stating their products are safe to eat and contain only trace levels below those allowed by regulatory standards. However, daily exposure to even ultra-low levels of glyphosate for two years led to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in rats in one study.9

Ben & Jerry’s also subsequently released a “vision of sustainable agriculture,” with claims that they would stop using ingredients made with crops chemically dried using glyphosate by 2020. In northern, colder regions farmers of wheat and barley must wait for their crops to dry out prior to harvest. Rather than wait an additional two weeks or so for this to happen naturally, Monsanto urged farmers to spray the plants with glyphosate, killing the crop and accelerating their drying (a process known as desiccating).

It’s a step in the right direction for Ben & Jerry’s to not use ingredients from desiccated crops, but as OCA noted, this only applies to their nondairy ingredients. Organic dairy is another animal entirely, but to this Ben & Jerry’s responded that they would come out with a new product line in 2018 that will include organic dairy in the base mix.

They anticipate the new organic line is only going to represent up to 6 percent of total U.S. sales,10 which means they have no intention of sourcing the bulk of their dairy from organic sources in the near future.

Ben & Jerry’s Supports Vermont’s Biggest Polluter: The Dairy Industry

Big Dairy is a major source of pollution in Vermont, a state overrun with CAFO dairies feeding their cows heavily pesticide-sprayed genetically engineered corn. According to Regeneration Vermont, in a report titled, “A Failure to Regulate: Big Dairy & Water Pollution in Vermont”:11

“[C]ontamination from the mega-dairies that supply Vermont’s big brands, like Ben & Jerry’s and Cabot Cheese, is nothing new to Vermonters,12 especially when it comes to the contamination of our waterways. For decades, these iconic brands have garnered enormous profits — each hovering around the $1 billion-a-year level — while pushing a kind of confinement, non-grazing dairy production, resulting in a toxic farm runoff that is literally choking our lakes and streams.

Even the beloved Lake Champlain is one of more than 100 other bodies of water in Vermont that are classified as ‘impaired.’ And, in many cases, ‘impaired’ means filled with the green slime that is cyanobacteria, smelling so badly that summer camps have become uninhabitable, and beaches are posted with signs that warn, ‘no swimming.'”

Lake Carmi is another Vermont lake plagued by cyanobacteria or blue-green algae. It’s of particular importance to Ben & Jerry’s, or should be, because it sits in Franklin County, a region with 36,000 CAFO cows that supply dairy for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.13 Regeneration Vermont and members of the Franklin Watershed Committee even took Ben & Jerry’s executives on a tour of Lake Carmi and the surrounding watershed to see the damage firsthand.

In a commentary by Jostein Solheim, Ben & Jerry’s CEO, it’s noted, “Ben & Jerry’s recognizes that we are connected to the farms in the Lake Carmi watershed. Our Caring Dairy farm program, which we implement through the St. Albans Cooperative, has members in the Lake Carmi watershed … The condition of the lake, the hardship it’s forced upon local residents and businesses is, well, heartbreaking.”14

Apparently, it wasn’t heartbreaking enough to prompt the company to ask their farmers to switch to organic farming methods, however. As Michael Colby, former editor of Food & Water Journal and cofounder of Regeneration Vermont, stated, they have no reason to switch to organic or grass fed farming because “the marketing is working just fine.”

“‘People think we’re organic,’ is what we were told time and time again in private meetings,” Colby says, “while asking them to actually go organic. If fooling people allows for maximizing profits, why stop fooling them?”15

OCA Hopes Lawsuit Will Prompt Ben & Jerry’s to Clean Up Its Ice Cream

The purpose of OCA’s lawsuit is to bring attention and awareness to the fact that one of the biggest “environmentally friendly” ice cream makers in the U.S. is actually supporting an industry that harms animals, the environment and public health. Meanwhile, Unilever has a nearly $9 billion annual advertising budget, which means they can afford to support real, positive changes in the industry.

“Ben & Jerry’s is on a mission to spin a false and misleading story about a company that has a lousy track record when it comes to sourcing ingredients from socially and environmentally responsible producers,” OCA noted. “We think the company should spend less on misleading product claims, and invest more in helping Vermont dairy farmers transition to organic and regenerative practices that actually support those claims.”16

Still, the fact remains that as long as consumers continue to buy Ben & Jerry’s products as-is, they have little incentive to change, unless their Powers That Be suddenly dial in to a more altruistic tune. What would make them take notice? Backlash from their customers over their environmentally irresponsible and inhumane dairy sourcing.

OCA added, “Consumers who care about their health, the environment and animal welfare would do better to buy organic brands from companies that don’t source glyphosate-sprayed ingredients and that do source from dairies that meet organic standards.”17

It remains to be seen how OCA’s lawsuit will pan out, but you can take a stand now by choosing only organic ice cream in lieu of Ben & Jerry’s. You can also send Ben & Jerry’s a message using the online contact form at the bottom of their contact page letting them know why you’ve chosen to no longer purchase their products. Better yet, call Ben & Jerry’s directly (802-846-1500) and ask the company to fulfill their mission statement and go organic.

OCA has also created a petition18 to encourage Ben & Jerry’s to convert to organic and stop hoodwinking customers into thinking they’re organic by claiming to be all-natural and environmentally responsible. By filing a lawsuit, OCA stated, they hope Ben & Jerry’s will ultimately “do the right thing” by helping Vermont dairy farmers transition to organic or, at the very least, stop misleading consumers with their misleading marketing.19

>>>>> Donate Today <<<<<

The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding

By Dr. Mercola

What’s the optimal food for your newborn baby? Common sense would tell you that a mother’s breast milk is as optimal as infant nutrition could possibly get, yet that fact — indisputable as it may seem — is something that makers of infant formula have spent decades’ trying to sweep under the carpet.1 Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were told breastfeeding was unnecessary.

Formula offered greater freedom for busy moms, and the promotion of the obnoxious idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful fueled the transition, making more moms defer to the bottle rather than their breast. For years, women could even be fined for “public indecency” if caught breastfeeding in public. This year, Utah became the last state to enact laws protecting the rights of breastfeeding mothers by permitting nursing in public.2

Only 28 states provide workplace protection for nursing mothers, however, so many are still forced to pump milk in dingy bathrooms and suffer discrimination for needing time to express milk. In terms of nutrition, moms have, and still are, told there’s “no difference” between bottle feeding and breastfeeding, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

There is very little similarity between the two, from a nutritional perspective. Unfortunately, marketing materials have a way of giving mothers the false idea that formula may actually provide better nutrition.

Now, even the pro-breastfeeding slogan “breast is best” has been usurped and turned into “fed is best”3 — meaning, as long as your baby is well-fed, it doesn’t matter if it’s breast milk or formula. A recent bioethical argument in the journal Pediatrics even advises pediatricians it’s time to stop referring to breastfeeding as something “natural.”4 How did we get so off course? You might as well argue against the naturalness of urination.

Only 4 in 10 Infants Worldwide Are Exclusively Breastfed for 6 Months

According to a January 2, 2018, report5 by the World Health Organization (WHO) on infant nutrition, between 2011 and 2016, a mere 40 percent of infants under the age of 6 months were being exclusively breastfed, worldwide. Only 33 countries have breastfeeding rates higher than 50 percent, while 68 nations have rates below 50 percent.

Thanks to growing awareness of the science behind the “breast is best” slogan, breastfeeding rates in the U.S. have risen dramatically in recent decades, from a low of 24 percent in 1971 to 81 percent in 2016.6

The global goal is to get 70 percent of infants exclusively breastfed for the first six months by 2030, and to achieve that, the World Health Assembly, which is the decision-making body of the WHO, introduced a nonbinding resolution this past spring to encourage breastfeeding and stress the health benefits of breastfeeding. The resolution stressed that decades of research show breast milk is the healthiest choice, and urged governments to rein in inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

US Government Backs Formula Makers in Opposing Global Breastfeeding Resolution

In a move that shocked the world, the U.S. delegates opposed the resolution, demanding that language calling on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding” be deleted.7 They also wanted to erase a passage calling on policymakers to restrict promotion of foods that can have adverse effects on the health of young children.

The global delegation was even more shocked when the Americans started threatening countries with sanctions lest they reject the resolution. It was even suggested that the U.S. might cut its financial support to the WHO. As reported by The New York Times:8

“Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs. The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced …

‘We were shocked because we didn’t understand how such a small matter like breast-feeding could provoke such a dramatic response,’ said the Ecuadorean official … [A]t least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation …

‘We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,’ said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action … ‘What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health,’ she said.

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them … The final resolution9 preserved most of the original wording, though American negotiators did get language removed that called on the WHO to provide technical support to member states seeking to halt ‘inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children.’

The United States also insisted that the words ‘evidence-based’ accompany references to long-established initiatives that promote breastfeeding, which critics described as a ploy that could be used to undermine programs that provide parents with feeding advice and support.”

A Mother’s Choice

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) denied the agency had anything to do with the threats leveled at Ecuador, telling The New York Times the DHHS had sought to modify the original draft resolution10 because it “placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children.”

According to the DHHS, women may not be able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons and “These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” This is an incredibly weak rebuttal, as encouraging breastfeeding and promoting its health benefits in no way diminishes a woman’s right or ability to opt for formula if she finds she cannot breastfeed.

Formula makers have also tried to distance themselves from the embarrassment. Still, while witnesses at the assembly meeting claim they saw no evidence of formula makers trying to wield their influence, there’s no denying they’ve spent a lot of money lobbying to protect their market share, which means minimizing the importance of breastfeeding.

According to a MapLight analysis,11 the three leading formula companies, Abbott Laboratories, Nestle and Reckitt Benckiser, have spent $60.7 million lobbying lawmakers in the U.S. over the past decade.

Lucy Sullivan, director of 1,000 Days, a mother and infant nutrition advocacy group, told The Atlantic,12 “What this battle in Geneva showed us is that we have a U.S. government that is strongly aligned with the interests of the infant-formula industry and dairy industry, and are willing to play hardball.”

As is customary, the DHHS held stakeholder listening sessions with various industry groups prior to the World Health Assembly meeting, where the dairy, grocery and infant formula groups all had their say about the proposed resolution.

What surprised everyone was “how forcefully the U.S. delegates acted on the trade groups’ opposition,” The Atlantic writes.13 While it may have been more aggressive than usual, as you will see below, the U.S. has an embarrassing history of pushing the use of infant formula over breast milk.

Health Benefits of Mother’s Milk

From a nutritional science point of view, there’s simply no dispute that breast milk is the optimal food for newborns and young infants.14,15 Breastfeeding also has a number of health benefits for the mother, and it’s the least expensive alternative. Below is a summary of some of the key health benefits for mother and child.

Infant formula, on the other hand, has been linked to an increased risk of infant death. In her paper, “Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes: Problems and Perils Throughout the World,” published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in 2012, June Brady starts out by highlighting the U.S. government’s shameful lack of support of proper infant nutrition, choosing instead to cater to the formula makers’ right to profit. She writes, in part:16

“21 May, 1981 the WHO International Code of Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes … was passed by 118 votes to 1, the U.S. casting the sole negative vote. The Code arose out of concern that the dramatic increase in mortality, malnutrition and diarrhea in very young infants in the developing world was associated with aggressive marketing of formula. The Code prohibited any advertising of baby formula, bottles or teats and gifts to mothers or ‘bribery’ of health workers.

Despite successes, it has been weakened over the years by the seemingly inexhaustible resources of the global pharmaceutical industry … Currently, suboptimal breastfeeding is associated with over a million deaths each year and 10 percent of the global disease burden in children.

All health workers need to recognize inappropriate advertising of formula, to report violations of the Code and to support efforts to promote breastfeeding: the most effective way of preventing child mortality throughout the world.”

Benefits for the baby Benefits for the mother

Natural immunity — Breastfeeding initially provides passive immunity as antibodies from the mother are passed through breast milk to the infant.

Researchers have also found breast milk has a unique capacity to stimulate the infant’s immune system with long-term positive effects.17

Quicker recovery from childbirth — The release of oxytocin during breastfeeding helps the uterus return to a normal size and reduces postpartum bleeding.18

Reduction of blindness in preemies — Retinopathy of prematurity causes blindness in 10 percent of severe cases occurring in premature infants.

More than half of children born before 30 weeks’ gestation are affected and the condition blinds 50,000 children worldwide.

An analysis suggests the incidence of severe disease, and thus blindness, could be reduced by 90 percent if all premature infants were fed breast milk.19

The researchers theorize the effect may be from the antioxidant and immune protective properties found in breast milk.

Reduced rates of breast and ovarian cancer — Breastfeeding may cut the risk of breast cancer in women who have had children20 and women were 63 percent less likely to develop ovarian cancer when they breastfed for 13 months or more.21

The risk of ovarian cancer appeared to decline with each passing month as women who breastfed for 31 months or more had a 91 percent lower risk of ovarian cancer than women who breastfed less than 10 months.

Reduction in sudden infant death syndrome — In one study, breastfeeding reduced the risk of sudden infant death syndrome in children by 50 percent at all ages through infancy.22

Faster weight loss after childbirth — During pregnancy your body automatically stores extra fat to provide food for your baby.

Producing milk burns approximately 450 extra calories each day, which helps mobilize visceral fat stores.

Improved cognitive development — Babies breastfed for nine or more months exhibit greater cognitive development than those who have not been breastfed,23 and researchers found babies exclusively breastfed exhibit enhanced brain growth through age 2.24

Reduced risk of cardiovascular disease — Women who breastfeed have a 10 percent lower risk of heart disease and stroke,25 and the longer a mom breastfeeds, the greater the reduction in risk.26

Women who have normal blood pressure during pregnancy and breastfeed for at least 6 months are also at lower risk for heart disease years later, compared to those who never breastfeed.27

Reduced risk of allergies — In one study of over 1,200 mothers and babies, exclusive breastfeeding prevented the development of allergic diseases and asthma.28

Reduced risk of postpartum depression — The release of prolactin and oxytocin while breastfeeding produces a peaceful and nurturing sensation.

Women who breastfeed enjoy a reduced risk of developing postpartum depression in the first four months of their infant’s life.29

Skin-to-skin contact — Evidence shows newborns placed in skin-to-skin contact with their mothers immediately after birth move in a physiologically stable way from being in the womb to their early newborn moments.30

Mothers also exhibit an increase in maternal bonding and behavior after experiencing skin-to-skin contact directly after birth.

These benefits only continue to grow in the weeks following delivery.

Infants are less likely to cry, more likely to maintain their body temperature, and have more stable heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure during skin-to-skin contact.31

Bonding — The close interaction during breastfeeding is just one way mothers experience a greater bond with their infant, which may extend years beyond infancy32 and impact parenting.

Protect and nourish gut microbiome — Breast milk contains complex sugars needed to feed beneficial gut bacteria known to influence how a child’s body burns and stores fat.33

In one recent study,34 infants who were exclusively breastfed had the highest levels of beneficial bacteria in their guts at the age of 3 and 12 months.

Infants who were exclusively formula-fed had the least variety of bacteria, and had nearly double the risk of becoming overweight compared to exclusively breastfed babies.

Those fed a mix of breastmilk and formula were at lower risk than those exclusively formula-fed, but they still had a 60 percent greater risk of becoming overweight than exclusively breastfed babies.

Lower mortality rates — The Lancet series35 on breastfeeding also notes the lives of 20,000 mothers can be saved by implementing universal breastfeeding, largely due to the cancer protection breastfeeding affords.

Promotes proper jaw alignment, lowering risk of speech impediments and likelihood of needing orthodontic work later in life — All of these issues are more common among bottle fed babies, as bottle feeding causes jaw misalignment and malformed palate.

You can find a video illustrating the difference between nursing and bottle feeding in this previous article.

Reduced risk of death, higher intelligence, lower health care costs and improved economic future — According to a series of studies on breastfeeding published in The Lancet in 2016:36

“Breastmilk makes the world healthier, smarter, and more equal …

The deaths of 823,000 children … each year could be averted through universal breastfeeding, along with economic savings of US$300 billion.

The Series confirms the benefits of breastfeeding in fewer infections, increased intelligence, probable protection against overweight and diabetes, and cancer prevention for mothers.

The Series represents the most in-depth analysis done so far into the health and economic benefits that breastfeeding can produce.”

Most Commercial Infant Formulas Are Loaded With Sugar and Can Contain Harmful Contaminants

According to Nemours,37 “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates formula companies to ensure they provide all the necessary nutrients (including vitamin D) in their formulas. Still, commercial formulas can’t completely match breast milk’s exact composition. Why? Because milk is a living substance made by each mother for her individual infant, a process that can’t be duplicated in a factory.”

While this may sound as though the FDA regulates, approves and assures nutritional quality and safety of baby formula, this is not the case. The truth is, FDA does not approve and regulate infant formula at all.38 It does specify the nutrients that must be present in formula, but added ingredients and overall safety are left entirely in the manufacturers’ hands. The required nutrients are also not based on a comparison with actual mother’s milk.

Importantly, the last thing an infant needs is sugar, yet baby formulas contain shocking amounts. I’ve written numerous articles about the dangers of sugar consumption, including its ability to trigger glycation, disturb your metabolism, elevate blood pressure and triglycerides, cause weight gain, heart disease and liver damage, and even deplete your body of vitamins and minerals.

Breast milk does contain sugars, but they bear absolutely no resemblance to processed corn-based sugars. For example, breast milk contains about 150 different oligosaccharides — complex chains of sugars that are completely unique to human milk. These sugars are indigestible, and their primary purpose is to nourish healthy gut microbes, thereby optimizing your child’s gut health and strengthening his or her immune system.

Infant formulas have also been found to contain all sorts of hazardous contaminants. Most recently, soy-based infant formula was found to be contaminated with glyphosate.39 Soy-based formula is dangerous for a number of different reasons, and now you can add glyphosate contamination to that list.

In a recent article,40 Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., discusses new evidence suggesting glyphosate not only disrupts your gut microbiome but also impairs peristalsis — a feature that is exceedingly common in children with autism. It may also inhibit bile acid release by impairing gallbladder contraction, and many autistic children have very pale stool, suggestive of low bile acid levels.

Thirdly, many autistic kids have undigested particles in their stool, which suggests a lack of digestive enzymes. And, indeed, glyphosate affects your digestive enzymes, particularly trypsin, pepsin and lipase. In all, the evidence implicating glyphosate as a significant cause or contributor to autism is mounting.

How Does Formula Compare to Breast Milk?

On Dr. Bill Sears’ website,41 you can find a chart comparing the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formula, along with an article42 in which he offers more detailed specifics on differences between individual nutrients. The Weston A. Price Foundation has also published an excellent article on this topic, which contains the following summary. For a more in-depth understanding of what makes breast milk so superior to formula, I encourage you to read the full article:43

“Infant formula is primarily composed of sugar or lactose, dried skim milk and refined vegetable oil which can include genetically modified components … Soy-based formula is made of soy protein, sugar and refined oils. Breast milk from a well-nourished mother is composed of hundreds of substances — over one hundred fats alone. Infant formula contains double the amount of protein that breast milk does, which promotes insulin resistance and adiposity …

Additives to infant formula, such as iron, DHA, ARA and laboratory-made folic acid are all problematic. Heat damages the protein in formulas forming advanced glycation end products as well as compromising the nutritional value.”

Indeed, research44 published in 2011 found that when infants were switched from breast milk to commercial formula within the first year of life, their levels of advanced glycation end products (AGES) doubled, reaching levels found in diabetics. Many also had elevated insulin levels. AGES are formed during the processing of the formula, which uses high heat. They’re basically sugar molecules that attach to and damage proteins in your body.

Not only do AGES build up in your body over time, leading to oxidation and speeding up the aging process, but they also promote inflammation, which in turn is linked to a number of chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. According to this study, infant formulas processed with high heat may contain 100 times more AGEs than breast milk.

Do You Need Help Breastfeeding?

While not all women will make the decision to breastfeed, the majority is able to produce more than adequate supplies of milk to breastfeed successfully. Since mothers are unable to measure the amount of milk being consumed by their baby, some believe they aren’t producing enough. However, when formula supplementation is used, it reduces your supply as the supply of milk is dependent upon the demand. In other words, the more your baby nurses, the more milk your body produces.

Nursing mothers need to stay well-hydrated, drink plenty of water and seek optimal nutrition to supply the energy needed to produce milk. The first weeks and months are crucial to the process of establishing a strong milk supply. Your baby’s sucking instinct will be very strong directly after birth, so begin nursing as soon as possible.

Lactation consultants encourage you to place your baby to breast in the delivery room. This also helps release oxytocin to reduce postpartum bleeding and begin the process of returning the uterus to normal size.

The first milk produced is called colostrum, a thick, golden-yellow fluid that is gentle to your baby’s stomach and full of beneficial antibodies. Over the coming days and weeks your milk gradually changes color and consistency. Newborns need to nurse at least once every two hours for approximately 15 minutes on each side, but they don’t adhere to a strict schedule.

When you accommodate feedings to the needs of your infant, you’ll find frequent feeding stimulates your breasts to produce increasing amounts of milk to keep up with the demand as your baby grows.

You may want to begin planning for successful breastfeeding before your baby is even born by taking a breastfeeding class while you’re pregnant. La Leche League45 is a terrific resource to contact for help whether you want to prepare beforehand or find you’re having trouble breastfeeding once your baby is born. Also find out whether your hospital of choice offers breastfeeding classes and lactation consultants who can help you. If it doesn’t, you may want to select a hospital that offers greater support.

Healthy Options for Mothers Who Cannot Breastfeed

Last but not least, if for whatever reason you cannot, or decide not to breastfeed, consider making your own baby formula using organic grass fed raw milk. In the video above, Sarah Pope — who runs The Healthy Home Economist website and is a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation’s board of directors — discusses the differences between different kinds of milk, such as cow’s milk and goat’s milk, and why cow’s milk is actually preferable.

She then demonstrates how to make two different formulas, including a meat-based formula for infants with milk allergy. For written instructions of the recipes presented in this video, as well as a list of nutrition facts that compares these homemade formulas to breast milk, see the “Homemade Baby Formula” page46 on the Weston A. Price Foundation’s site. However, a couple of caveats are in order:

1. Fermented cod liver oil is a recommended ingredient in Pope’s recipes, which may be dangerous for babies. Laboratory testing has revealed the product tends to be prone to rancidity, may contain added vegetable oils, and lack vitamin K2 and CoQ10.

The concentration of vitamins A and D can also vary significantly from one batch to another, as cod liver oil is not regulated or standardized.47 Unless you can verify the purity of the cod liver oil, I’d recommend using wild-caught Alaskan Salmon oil or krill oil instead.

2. The Weston A. Price Foundation’s baby formula recipe suggests butter oil is optional, but Dr. Price himself recommended always pairing cod liver oil with butter oil, which contains vitamin K2 (MK-4). I recommend tweaking the recipe by making butter oil a requirement if you’re using a certified pure fermented cod liver oil.

The Devil Went Down to……. Alaska?

By Anna Von Reitz

So we finally won our case. Donald Trump sicced teams of lawyers and archivists and historians onto all the information we’ve provided and guess what? We stand exonerated. All that we have brought forward has been proven, nailed down, and tied up with a bow, complete with all the research and case law and historical documentation.

Count that much done and over.

President Trump now knows — definitively — what is wrong, what the game is, what the game has been all along, who is responsible, and from what he has done so far, he is swiftly taking care of business. But he can’t do it alone.

You see, he is working from the “federal side” of the fence. He needs our help coming from the side of the states and the people to meet him halfway. I already thumped on everyone to get their political status corrected and join their State Assembly, so I won’t beat that drum again. At least not today.

What I will tell you is that there has been an extraordinary “up-tick” in millionaires and billionaires contacting me and promising support for my work and the work of The Living Law Firm…..if…..
Now I have been contacted before by millionaires before in the course of doing this work. Somehow none of them have the insight to figure out that their good is tied to the overall good of this country and that their freedom from such things as IRS harassment is tied to a larger picture in which everyone is freed from the same scourge.

Instead, they always want a quid pro quo. You do this for me, and I will do this for you…. always the sidebar, always the back rubbing scenario, always the everyone-has-a- price attitude. Even those that inherited their money have the same selfish, small-minded, narrow view.

Most of them come because they have IRS or “regulatory agency” problems they want me to fix. I help them. They promise to make a donation. They forget. They include some of the richest people in America and they all do the same things, the same way. It’s monotonous, boring, and yes, irritating.
So irritating that I see them coming and spit.

They always show up with the expectation that I am going to be all excited and groveling and fawning and begging them for money. They always brag about their latest acquisition, their expensive hobbies, their new car, their latest hang-gliding trip to Morocco.

It’s so obnoxious that I have to apply my Christian upbringing and try really hard to see them as people who are in trouble, who need help.

Most of the time I succeed.

But lately, since the word is out on the street that I am on target and have the facts and by golly —- she was right! —– now all of a sudden there is a conga line of millionaires lining up to make a deal.
But, I tell them, there’s no deal here. All you get from helping me, is what everyone else gets. Good government. Free markets. Safe banks. A sane judicial system. Protection of your lives and your private property. You know — what you are supposed to have now, but don’t.

They all look disappointed. Crest-fallen. What? There’s no special ice cream? No back of the cabinet joy juice? Nope.

They don’t have sense enough to realize that without the basics that everyone needs being in place, they suffer too. So they walk away and most of the time don’t even say, “Thank you.” It’s rare that they even buy lunch. Most of the time I get stuck with the bill —-after they asked me out to pick my brain about their problem.

See what I mean? Selfish. Short-sighted. Small. If that’s what having a lot of money does to people — and apparently it does in a majority of cases — let’s stay poor.

Probably because of this plague of all these do-nothing-see-nothing-care-about-nothing-but-my-pedicure millionaires, I had a dream last night.

Lucifer came to me and promised me all the money and power in the world, if only I would bow down and worship him.

I said, “What good is money to me? The moment I spend it, it’s gone. Bring me clean natural ocean water for this planet. Then, we’ll talk.”

But of course, that’s impossible, because all the oceans are polluted. He looked just like those millionaires. So disappointed.

So the dream goes on, and I go on about my business in the dream — which is cleaning house and washing windows — and Lucifer shows up again — and he says, “You need money to do the work you’ve taken on. I can give you the whole world. All you have to do is bow down and worship me.”
I smile at him. He looks like a young Marine. He’s so earnest.

“I’m not really interested in money. It comes in, it goes out. Bring me really nice, fresh, clean air to breathe—air with lots of oxygen for everyone. Then we’ll talk.”

But that’s not possible, either. He flushes red-faced and looks really angry, but he turns around on his heel and walks away.

Finally, as I am resting from my day’s work and looking out my nice clean windows, he shows up again.

“What does it take, you obstinate old woman!” he rages.

“I already gave you a couple ideas,” I return mildly and shrug.

This doesn’t improve his mood.

“Perhaps you could clean up all the polluted soil and return all the soil that has eroded to its rightful place? Then, we could talk.”

This is the final straw. He’s really beyond angry now. He’s stomping around my living room, huffing and snorting.

“Everyone worships ME!” he shouts. “Everyone!”

I say nothing. I don’t have to. Evidently, not everyone worships him….or he wouldn’t be kicking up so much dust, right?

“Money,” I say to him, “is a tool — like a shovel, or a rake, or a post hole digger. And I have work to do, that’s true. I am a bit frustrated right now, because I want to get on with my job, but hey, I’m just a worker. It’s the True Lord’s vineyard. He’ll get around to supplying me with everything I need.”

And that was the final straw. He whipped around and did his old swirling routine, making a little tornado in the middle of my kitchen and disappearing in a puff of smoke. The dream ended with me sighing and picking up all the paper he blew off my desk.

Out of all these millionaires and even billionaires I have talked to, I bet none of them have contributed as much as some of the seniors who make a $10 per month donation out of their Social Security checks.

Well, at least we can truly and absolutely say that everything that we have done has not been funded by any special interests. It has all been done with cookie jar money by Team America and Team World— just average people with limited resources who weigh in and plug along step-by-step toward a better future for everyone.

See this article and over 1100 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website. 

George Washington’s Obituary

By Anna Von Reitz

George Washington’s Obituary — Read It Here

George Washington, the American revolutionary leader and first president of the United States, dies of acute laryngitis at his estate in Mount VernonVirginia. He was 67 years old.

George Washington was born in 1732 to a farm family in Westmoreland County, Virginia. His first direct military experience came as a lieutenant colonel in the Virginia colonial militia in 1754, when he led a small expedition against the French in the Ohio River valley on behalf of the governor of Virginia. Two years later, Washington took command of the defenses of the western Virginian frontier during the French and Indian War. After the war’s fighting moved elsewhere, he resigned from his military post, returned to a planter’s life, and took a seat in Virginia’s House of Burgesses.

During the next two decades, Washington openly opposed the escalating British taxation and repression of the American colonies. In 1774, he represented Virginia at the Continental Congress. After the American Revolution erupted in 1775, Washington was nominated to be commander in chief of the newly established Continental Army. Some in the Continental Congress opposed his appointment, thinking other candidates were better equipped for the post, but he was ultimately chosen because as a Virginian his leadership helped bind the Southern colonies more closely to the rebellion in New England.

With his inexperienced and poorly equipped army of civilian soldiers, General Washington led an effective war of harassment against British forces in America while encouraging the intervention of the French into the conflict on behalf of the colonists. On October 19, 1781, with the surrender of British General Charles Lord Cornwallis’ massive British army at Yorktown, Virginia, General Washington had defeated one of the most powerful nations on earth.

After the war, the victorious general retired to his estate at Mount Vernon, but in 1787 he heeded his nation’s call and returned to politics to preside over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The drafters created the office of president with him in mind, and in February 1789 Washington was unanimously elected the first president of the United States.

As president, Washington sought to unite the nation and protect the interests of the new republic at home and abroad. Of his presidency, he said, “I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn in precedent.” He successfully implemented executive authority, making good use of brilliant politicians such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in his cabinet, and quieted fears of presidential tyranny. In 1792, he was unanimously reelected but four years later refused a third term.

In 1797, he finally began a long-awaited retirement at his estate in Virginia. He died two years later. His friend Henry Lee provided a famous eulogy for the father of the United States: “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

— I could add a few details.

Washington took a long horseback ride on December 12, 1799.  It was a cold, bitter day at Mount Vernon with three inches of snow on the ground that melted and the snow turned to cold rain.  Washington was out in this weather for about five hours—-certainly conditions he had suffered before as a younger man during the Revolution, but later that afternoon and evening he developed symptoms of severe illness and passed away on December 14two days later.

He’s gone. 

So, you can’t “Let George do it.” anymore.  It’s now up to you and yours to save this country.  You have to wrap your heads around what has happened here and why and exactly what needs to be done to (1) save your own bacon and (2) save your country so that your own bacon stays saved, too.

Now it may seem rather gratuitous for me to observe this necessity, that your safety depends ultimately on the safety of your neighbors and your country as a whole, but it does.  Some people are missing the point.

We’ve given you what you need at a minimum to save your own selves — Article 928 on my website,, lays out the bare bones necessary to establish your claim to your own Good Name and estate.

And after that, as we’ve explained, the “Federal” part of the Federal Government is missing in action and has been under “Reconstruction” for 150 years, which is a big deal problem.  This work needs to done, finished, and the Federal part of the Federal Government needs to be reconstructed, and in operation, right now.  Yesterday. 

The only way to do this is for you to “return” to the land and soil jurisdiction of your birthright and get your own political status corrected and then to join your State Assembly.  The State Assembly can then organize its proper Federal State of State and can also choose delegates to a Continental Congress to be held in our actual capitol, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to conduct the necessary and long-delayed business of the actual States. 

So don’t stand around waiting for George to do it for you, and don’t think that one little old lady in Alaska can do it for you, either.  Send a brief message with your County and State as the Subject to

This is your country, your world, your responsibility now.

See this article and over 1100 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website. 

A Sad Day for OPPT

By Anna Von Reitz

Heather Ann Tucci-Jareff has been sentenced to 57 months in a Federal Prison. Almost five years of her life is being stolen from her and her family and for what?  Attempting to do to the banks what the banks have done to all of us.

What she is really being sentenced for is insubordination.  As a Bar Attorney, also known as a Shipping Clerk in the British Merchant Marine Service, she has no right to sue  those chartering her “vessel for hire”.

She assumed that she had standing to sue, but she didn’t argue it.  She didn’t fall back on the actual Dual Citizenship that applies to her, and she didn’t make preparation to defend her claim on that basis.  She never took my advice.

Like most Bar Attorneys (except Bill and Hillary Clinton) she no doubt thought that she, a registered JD, knew more about the law and about jurisdiction than I did.  It never occurred to her that the registration of her “vessel” as a JD had an undisclosed downside.  It never crossed her mind that she could be in a compromised position and be unable to defend or prosecute a public venue case in her own behalf, and that in fact, so long as she subscribes herself as a Bar Attorney, she has no standing to do any such thing.

I could weep.  There are so many good people out there, on both sides of this fence, who are being railroaded and arrested and harassed and harmed for no good reason, while the real criminals sit fat and happy in Washington, DC, in Paris, in Brussels, in Rome, in Berlin, in Saipan, in Manila, in Tokyo and Beijing.

They hired and pay the Bar Association to protect them and collect their debts. They are in charge of the biggest con game and racketeering scheme under color of law in the history of the planet, and they have gotten away with it for so long, that they imagine that nobody will ever figure it out and come after them.

They laugh at people like Heather, because they know that her JD knowledge has been hand-crafted to be missing certain key facts and information, to be focused almost entirely on procedure and Territorial Case Law.   They took over the American Law Schools over a century ago and jettisoned the “rest of the story” so we really do have the blind leading the blind. 

Most lawyers are innocent as children in their belief that they know the truth and they know how things work and they are right and blessed and lords of the universe — until they wind up busted for doing the right thing, and are left with the ultimate cognitive dissonance staring them in the face. 

I hope by some miracle of fate that Heather made enough of the right arguments to somehow mount a successful appeal.  I hope that she is listening now, and that the rest of the members of the Paradigm Project are listening, too.  Take this to heart:

Your only safety lies in knowing who and what you are and which side of the fence you are standing on—and being able to prove it.  

See this article and over 1100 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website. 

Ecuador Prepares to Hand Julian Assange Over to British Authorities

(Jake Johnson) Amid new reports that Ecuador is preparing to withdraw asylum protections from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and hand him over to British authorities within the next few weeks, journalists are raising alarm at the serious threats to press freedom such a move could spawn, given that the U.K. may decide to extradite Assange to the United States—where he could face “prosecution for the act of publishing documents.”

The post Ecuador Prepares to Hand Julian Assange Over to British Authorities appeared on Stillness in the Storm.