November 2009 - Page 2 of 2 - | Page 2

Nov 09

The Only Political Party Is The Corporate Party

A growing number of Americans and researchers suggest that many corporations in the U.S. contribute to both Democrats and Republicans, so that no matter who wins the election, corporations can still exert their influence in Washington.  But, does this line of thought have any merit?  As they say, let’s simply “follow the money”.

The following firms are ranked in order of their total contributions for 2008.  But, the chart below illustrates their total contributions over the last 20 years.  Every firm on this list is defined as “on the fence”, meaning they have leaned neither Republican, nor Democrat and have largely donated to both parties.  This information was compiled from

(The asterisk [*] denotes companies who have recently made equal contributions, despite their 20 year history of a party preference.  Contact the Federal Election Committee or for more information.)

A blogger at correctly stated in 1994, “The problem in America isn’t that the Republican party has sold its soul to corporate wealth, Christian fundamentalism and plutarchs.  The problem with America is that Democrats have, too. The problem with America is that the Republicans and the Democrats are units of the same organization, an organization that has consolidated its control over the American political process to the exclusion of all others.” (

Wanna start to see how?  Keep reading.

In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) – the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.
Dr. Marc A Triebwasser, a Political Science Professor at Central Connecticut University tells us that “in 1971 the Federal Elections Campaign Act was passed, banning corporate campaign contributions. That was followed by the Watergate scandal. As a result of that scandal, major amendments to that act were passed in 1974.”  He goes on to say, “The 1974 Amendment tried to limit campaign contributions and campaign spending.”

“However,” he states, “it is very difficult to reform campaign financing. If you try to bar corporate campaign contributions, then the members of the board will contribute personally. If members of the board are not allowed to contribute, their wives will contribute, and so on. There are always loopholes that corporations will try to find. And, since they are well connected and have a lot of high paid lawyers on their side, they will find loopholes. It’s very difficult to control this. We have been trying to control corporate contributions for the last 100 years now–without much success!” (

There are undoubtedly all kinds off issues at play here, far too numerous to list in this article.  However, the purpose of this writing is to introduce this concept those to who still think that there really is a “left” and a “right”.

The real issue here runs far deeper than corporations hoping to get face time with a Representative or Senator.  In reality, this distortion that “Left/Democrat vs. Right/Republican” is a REAL debate is widely used as a means of social control.

Noam Chomsky says, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”  In short, we are taught to think in terms of “A and B”.  Therefore, if “C” is presented, we either discount it as impossible or our peers remind us that only “A and B” are possible to keep us in line.

Here is a video clip of Congressman Ron Paul, stating about American foreign policy that which is also applicable to our whole political process:

Quite frankly, this view is accurate and sums up politics in America today.

Now, this article will not get into how and which specific individuals have exerted control over both parties.  That will be saved for a future post.  However, we will look (in a general sense) at how the system is structured to award corporations influence over the government without respect to (and oftentimes without control of) either party.

Dr. Triebwasser, talks about a book written by Mark V. Nadel (possibly “Corporations and Political Accountability”).  One would guess, that his post cited here is for a class of his.  But, being that it is available on the world wide web, it can be assumed that an additional audience is, well, us.  On this site, Dr. Triebwasser lists ways that corporations influence politicians in Washington, irrespective of party affiliation.  This account provides a legal foundation for what amounts to a corporate hi-jacking of our Republic.  His post is as follows in red.

7 Ways Corporations Influence Washington

1.  Access – Through campaign contributions and other methods, corporations are able to gain access to public officials more often than the average citizen. This means that corporations at least have a better chance of having their case heard.

2.  Advisory Committees to Government Agencies – The fact is that the government does not have fact gathering apparati in a number of fields. And so, government agencies appoint committees to provide information and advice. Often, these committees contain many people from the industry involved. The information they provide are used in making public policy. Now, obviously, if the information that government agencies are getting is from the industry involved, then the perspective from which they get the information is likely to be one-sided. For example, if the government needs information on nuclear power, it most likely will call upon nuclear engineers for advice. However, these engineers come from the industry involved. The government does not usually consider the opinion of the private citizen, although the concerns that pregnant women have who live near Three Mile Island or other nuclear power facilities might well need to be taken into account. So the advice the government gets is often stacked in favor of the corporation.

3.  The Revolving Door Effect – Many times individuals are employed in an industry, then get called upon to work as the head of an agency or on a regulatory commission, and then return to the industry in question. These people are going to be returning to work in the same industry they may be regulating. How independent can the thinking of these people be? Are they going to make a decision against the interest of that industry if they are eventually going to have to get another job in that industry?

4.  Former House and Senate Members Serving as Lobbyists – Many times, when people retire from the House or Senate, they become lobbyists for major corporations. Now, first of all, these people know a great deal about the laws that have been passed relating to their new employer’s industry, and they know the inside dealings that went into making these laws. What’s more, former representatives and senators maintain the privilege of going on to the floor of their old chambers. That means that during a vote on a bill, they can go on the floor and lobby current senators or representatives as the case may be. No other lobbyists can do this. So these former legislators have a greater ability to influence the process than someone who doesn’t have the privilege of the floor, or the other connections they do.

5.  Lobbying Itself

6.  There is the symbiotic relationship between lobbyists, members of congressional committees and executive agency personnel. In other words, the Washington triangles or iron triangles.

7.  Court Action – The fact is that corporations can pay a lot more for legal work than the government. Many times corporate lawyers don not aim at winning a case, but simply at delaying government action. Let’s say a corporation has an advertisement on television that the Federal Trade Commission feels is misleading to the general public. The FTC may issue a ruling for the corporation to withdraw that advertisement from the air. The corporation then gets its lawyers to seek a temporary injunction against that ruling until a hearing on the ruling can be held. In the meantime, the advertisement remains on television. Then, the corporation’s lawyers use various legal tactics to keep delaying the date of the hearing. There are lots of ways lawyers can do this. Let’s say the hearing finally comes up a year later. Before the hearing actually begins, the corporate lawyers announce that they are going to withdraw their objections and that the corporation will follow the FTC’s ruling and withdraw the ad. They know they don’t have a leg to stand on in court. Has the corporation lost? No. While all this has been going on, the advertisement has been on television for a whole extra year. So even though the corporation is eventually going to lose the case, it winds up winning by delaying things.

The idea that party affiliation has anything to do with how our government is actually run is laughable, once see (as you read above) that the system itself is set up for wealthy businesses and wealthy business owners to have a disproportionate influence over the happenings in Washington D.C.  Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest 5% of our nation controls 95% of everything?  Well, now you know how.

Now, if have read this far, you can probably stand to watch this video of Noam Chomsky, explaining the truth about our “Democracy”.

The chart listing corporate donations is below.  Please take another look at the chart.  Beneath it, you will find listed some information about each company found on Please take a look again and just…think.


JP Morgan Chase [and] Co.

JP Morgan Chase [and] Co. is one of the nation’s leading financial services firms, offering commercial and consumer banking and credit services, securities brokerage and financial consulting. Like the rest of the finance sector, the company hit hard financial times in 2008 and received billions of dollars in taxpayer money to re-gain its footing. In 2002, federal investigators launched a probe into the firm’s relationship with former energy giant Enron. Prior to the energy firm’s collapse, JP Morgan Chase had been one of the company’s largest financial backers.

AT [and] T, Inc.

After being broken up in the mid-1980s in a landmark antitrust case, this telecommunications icon re-formed in 2005, and became the nation’s largest phone company when SBC Communications bought AT&T Corp. for $16 billion. As SBC, the company led the fight to allow the Baby Bells to enter the long-distance market, where they hope to offer profitable broadband Internet services. Cable and telecom companies have been fighting over the issue for several years and recent legislation in the House would allow national cable franchises to be awarded to the telecoms. The cable industry complains this would allow telecoms to unfairly cherry-pick rich suburbs.

National Association of Realtors

The National Association of Realtors represents the nation’s real estate industry. While the bulk of its issues tend to deal with property management and control, the group also lobbies members of Congress and the administration on virtually every issue facing business, including health care reform, bankruptcy legislation and tax cuts.  It supports Democrats and Republicans almost equally.

Morgan Stanley

Morgan Stanley is one of the world’s top investment banks, offering its clients everything from stock portfolio management to credit services. Like others in the securities industry, however, it lobbied for money from the federal government in 2008 and 2009 when the industry—along with the economy—was floundering.  The company, which splits its contributions evenly between Democrats and Republicans, has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security. Morgan Stanley also has lobbied in favor of proposals to deregulate the securities industry, so that investment firms can further extend their reach into financial services.

American Bankers Association

The American Bankers Association represents banks of all types and sizes, including regional banks, holding companies and savings associations. One of the most powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill, the association regularly presses Congress for regulatory relief and industry tax breaks.

Bank of America

Bank of America was already an enormous U.S. bank, and the company grew even more when it acquired investment giant Merrill Lynch in 2008. Together, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch received billions of taxpayer dollars from a bill passed that year to bail out struggling financial companies.

Merrill Lynch

Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch when Merrill was on the verge of collapse in 2008. Over the years, the company had been a dominant voice in efforts to deregulate the financial services industry, which is now blamed for causing the economic meltdown.


Shortly after accounting giant Arthur Andersen got caught up in the Enron scandal in January 2001, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the other big accounting firms swung into action to prevent additional federal regulation of the accounting industry. They were successful—until WorldCom’s accounting troubles came to light five months later.

Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin is the nation’s top defense contractor, the brains behind such high-tech military hardware as the F-16 jet fighter and a variety of land and sea missiles. Considering that access is the name of the game when securing such lucrative contracts, it’s no surprise that Lockheed splits its campaign money equally between Democrats and Republicans. All told, NASA and the Defense Department account for roughly 80 percent of the company’s annual sales.

Verizon Communications

Formed in 2000 when Bell Atlantic bought GTE, Verizon is among the nation’s top phone companies and is the No. 2 wireless provider, after Cingular. One of the “Baby Bells” that control the local phone market, Verizon has spent the last several years fighting to allow the Bells to enter the long-distance market, where it would expand its profitable broadband Internet services. Verizon has been lobbying to secure legislation that the telecommunications companies believe will drive down rates and add hundreds of channel choices by allowing states to issue all television licenses.

Credit Union National Association

The Credit Union National Association (CUNA) is a trade association representing credit unions nationwide. After years of near dormancy, CUNA quickly became one of the most powerful trade groups in Washington after the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that corporate credit unions could not accept outside members. In response, the group mobilized its members and launched an ultimately successful campaign for legislation that essentially overturned the ruling. In the process, they more than doubled their campaign contributions to the federal parties and members of Congress and continue to be a powerful force in Washington.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Deloitte Touche is one of the remaining Big Four accounting firms and once offered its clients one-stop shopping for accounting, consulting and other financial services. But the collapse of Enron and its resulting fallout for the accounting industry forced the firm to rethink its business strategy. Like other firms, however, the company has continued to lobby against bills that would strengthen oversight of the industry and further restrict the auditing/consulting relationship between firms and their clients. In September 2002, federal investigators began to probe Deloitte & Touche for its role in a bookkeeping scandal at Adelphia Communications, one of the firm’s biggest clients.

Ernst [and] Young

Ernst [and] Young is one of the world’s largest accounting firms, offering its clients everything from auditing services to tax advice. Over the years, the firm has successfully led efforts to block increased federal oversight of the accounting industry. Yet the collapse of Enron and the corporate scandals that followed have largely put the company on the defensive.

Boeing Co

Boeing is the world’s top manufacturer of commercial airplanes, including the 767 and the 747. The company is also a leading military supplier, making fighter bombers, transport planes and the Apache helicopter. The company regularly lobbies Congress to increase defense spending and to win military contracts, although it lost the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter contract to rival Lockheed Martin in 2001.

Credit Suisse Group

Credit Suisse First Boston is one of the world’s largest securities firms. It advises and invests in virtually every industry affected by federal legislation, including oil and gas, telecommunications, electric utilities and media companies. Credit Suisse has been one of the leading proponents of privatizing Social Security, as well as deregulating the securities industry, a move that would allow investment firms to offer up services usually available only at banks. In August 2002, after a succession of corporate scandals rocked Wall Street and Washington, congressional investigators launched a probe into alleged conflicts of interest in the firm’s dealings with Enron and Global Crossing.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield

Through its 45 local chapters, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association provides health care coverage to more than 80 million people. Blue Cross/Blue Shield also has a contract with the federal government to review and process Medicare claims. The association is lobbying Congress to make it harder for the government to penalize companies if their employees defraud the Medicare program and process false claims. Local Blue Cross chapters have paid about $340 million to the federal government to settle Medicare fraud charges since 1993.

American Hospital Assn

The American Hospital Association represents 37,000 individual members at more than 5,000 hospitals and health care systems. With one-third of the nation’s hospitals in the red, the association’s primary focus is lobbying against any reductions in Medicare payments. The association also supports tort reform that would limit medical malpractice lawsuits, and is pressing Congress for job programs to train nurses.

American Dental Assn

The American Dental Association has more than 140,000 members nationwide. The association lobbies Congress on expanded dental care for uninsured children and for reforms in Medicare. The association has also spent much of its time defending its profession against lawsuits that charge the mercury used in fillings causes health problems.

General Dynamics

General Dynamics is one of the nation’s top defense contractors, assembling virtually every piece of military machinery engaged in modern combat. The company builds warships, nuclear submarines, tanks and combat jets, not to mention the command and control systems that link it all together. One of the company’s biggest lobbying issues has been to encourage lawmakers to step up appropriations for the Navy, one of the company’s biggest clients. Furthermore, the company has fought legislative attempts to shrink the nation’s fleet of submarines and warships—a move that has blocked Defense Department attempts to shift that money to other facets of the nation’s land and air defenses.

American Medical Assn

The American Medical Association (AMA) represents medical doctors across the country, promotes standards in care, and publishes a number of medical journals. The association has traditionally supported Republican candidates, agreeing with the GOP on such issues as medical malpractice reform. But over the last few years, the AMA has also begun to shift support to the Democrats, favoring their attempts to pass patients’ rights legislation and expand Medicare payments.

National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) represents private, not-for-profit, consumer-owned electric utilities. In Washington, the group often goes toe to toe with large investor-owned electric utilities, especially on the issue of electricity restructuring. While investor-owned utilities push for relaxed federal regulations to promote competition, rural cooperatives emphasize the importance of consumer protection and preventing market abuses. The downfall of energy giant Enron gave this argument a significant boost.

Nov 09

Dr. Scott Whitaker On The Alex Jones Show Vaccines, MediSin, Monsanto

Nov 09

Has Baxter Released A Bio Weapon

Evidence appears to suggest that Baxter International may be responsible for a new deadly outbreak of viral pneumonia in Ukraine.

( In February of 2009, Bloomberg reported that Baxter “accidentally” sent vaccine material containing both live Avian bird flu and seasonal influenza to multiple laboratories worldwide. A laboratory decided to test the vaccine on its ferrets and the ferrets all unexpectedly died.


It must be noted that Baxter has made a “mistake” like this before. ( Blood products produced by Baxter once containd HIV. Thousands of haemophiliacs died due to this, and many went on to infect their spouses.

Later in the year, a bizarre story emerged on the internet. The news was full of reports on ( a man named Joseph Moshe who was arrested after a hours long standoff with the police because he had supposedly made threats against the White House. The man was able to withstand multiple rounds of tear gas…which left L.A. police officers amazed.

However, the internet community was very skeptical of the true reasons behind the man’s arrest. Comments on the Huffington Post website immediately began pouring in about an unreported side to this story, namely that Joseph Moshe was a Mossad Agent who specialized in biological warfare and who called into a radio show to warn people about a biological weapn that was being made by Baxter international that would be spread through vaccine and would cause a plague upon its release.

Although anyone can make a doomsday claim and we should never believe anyone (and it must be said that the Truth movement handled this well, the message was spread without being proclaimed as gospel) the amazing part about Moshe’s claim was the location where Moshe said the biological weapon was being produced.

Moshe claimed that Baxter’s laboratory in the Ukraine out of all places was creating this biological weapon. All of this came out in the beginning of August, which is more than 2 months before the situation that is currently unfolding. For Moshe to correctly name the country where a new epidemic would be unleashed, requires either inside information, or an incredible coincidence as anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics can confirm for himself.

Let us assume for a moment that every person on our planet has an equal chance of giving rise to a new lethal epidemic due to a virus that mutates as it spreads through his body. (

( Ukraine has 46 million inhabitants. ( The current estimated global population is about 6.7 billion. This means that if a new epidemic were to arise, the chance of this epidemic starting in the Ukraine would be 0.69%. ( However, it appears that this virus is a form of flu. This makes the odds of being right when guessing that a deadly flu is going to break out in the Ukraine even smaller. The reason for this is that back in early August the vast majority of influenza infections were found in different countries than the Ukraine. (,
ukraine-confirms-first-swine-flu-death-quarantine-ordered.html) In fact, on 30 Oktober, Earthtimes reported that Ukraine had officially reported only two cases of swine flu, and no deaths, until last Friday. This deadly epidemic appears to have arrived out of nowhere in the Ukraine.

( Moshe’s biomed profile appears to confirm his position as a microbiologist. Furthermore, this page with Baxter’s contact information for its Ukraine office confirms that Baxter has a presence in the Ukraine.

( It must also be noted that massive numbers of microbiologists have been dying bizarre deaths. This case of what appears to be a brave man who sacrificed it all to bring us this message may explain why so many microbiologists have been murdered. The fact that this man managed to predict an outbreak of highly lethal influenza in a place where we would least expect it, 2 months before it a actually occured, lends credence to his claim that Baxter International is responsible for the outbreak and shows that top microbiologists can pose a problem to the people responsible for this ongoing disaster.

This is a developing story, expect to see possible updates on David Rothscum Reports as more information on what is happening in Ukraine becomes available.

Update 1: For the purpose of keeping information from disappearing, I am going to mirror most information I can find on here.

Comments on the Huffington post website on an article about Moshe’s arrest documenting his claim that the Influenza virus in a vaccine manufactured by Baxter in Ukraine replicates RNA from the 1918 flu and is meant as a bioweapon:


Update 2: ( The Ukrainian government wants to impose travel restrictions on people across the nation to stop the virus from spreading.

Update 3: According to the Huffington post comments I cited above, Dr. Moshe claimed that the virus used replicated RNA of the 1918 Spanish flu. (
20phil%201918.htm) Symptoms of the 1919 Flu include victims being drenched in blood:

American were familiar with the flu; it sent you to bed, made you miserable for 3 or 4 days with fever, muscle aches, and congestion, then left you shaky for about a week. It made millions sick, yet killed only the oldest, youngest, and most feeble.

The 1918 influenza was not the flu Americans were familiar with. It was a horror that turned victims bluish-black then drowned them with their own body fluids. the death toll was highest in the ages 15 to 40, those in the peak of health. The victims would be fine one minute and the next incapacitated, fever-racked, and delirious. Temperatures rose to 104-106 degrees, skin turned blue, purple, or deep brown from lack of oxygen. Massive pneumonia attacked the lungs, filling them with fluid; blood gushed from the nose. Death was quick, savage, and terrifying.

( Compare this to reports that are coming out from Ukraine:

Five persons have died from the flue in Lviv, four men and one woman, says emergency hospital chief doctor Myron Borysevych.

Two of the dead patients were in the 22-35 age group, with 2 others over 60. He diagnosed the disease as viral pneumonia.

Viral tests can last from one to two weeks. They are complicated and not done in Lviv. The course of the disease was very quick. The symptoms included very high temperature and short-wind cough.

All the six dead young people had symptoms of severe hemmorhagic pneumonia. The disease starts slowly, with temperature rising to 37.2 37.3 degrees, slight cough and pain in joints. Nasal catarrh developed at the end of the second or third day. Autopsy revealed that the lungs were soaked with blood, the oblast chief specialist said. Continue reading →

Nov 09

Global Treaty Could Throw File-Sharers Off Internet After ‘Three Strikes’

Leaked details of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated in secret by most of the world’s largest economies suggest Internet file-sharers could be blocked from accessing the Internet if they are repeatedly accused of sharing copyrighted material, say media and digital-rights watchdogs.

And the worst-case scenario could see popular Web sites like YouTube and Flickr shut down because of a provision in the treaty that would force them to monitor everything uploaded to the site for copyright violations.

Internet law professor Michael Geist published details of “leaked” portions of the discussions on ACTA on his blog Tuesday, as a new round of ACTA negotiations began in Seoul, South Korea. The US, along with all the countries of the European Union as well as Japan, Canada, Australia and a handful of other countries, are involved in the negotiations.

“The provisions would pave the way for a globalized three-strikes and you’re out system,” Geistblogged Wednesday, referring to a proposal from copyright holders to have Internet service providers cut off service to anyone accused at least three times of illegally sharing copyrighted material.

“This means that your entire family could be denied [access] to the Internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel,” bloggedtech writer and digital-rights supporter Cory Doctorow.

Doctorow also noted that another provision being proposed for the treaty would mean “that ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.”

And, as Geist noted in a follow-up article on Wednesday, the proposed treaty could end up seeing file-sharers jailed for sharing copyrighted material, even if they had no financial gain from the transaction.

Geist wrote that the treaty, as currently proposed, would “extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. In other words, non-commercial infringement could lead to criminal penalties.”

“The US government appears to be pushing for Three Strikes to be part of the new global IP enforcement regime which ACTA is intended to create -– despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European Parliament and by national policymakers in several ACTA negotiating countries, and has never been proposed by US legislators,” writes Gwen Hinze at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

ACTA negotiations were being held entirely in secret until this past May, when the Wikileaks Web site released a 2007 draft proposal.

The Obama administration has resisted attempts to make the negotiations public, though it didmake an exemption for a long list of senior executives at major corporations.

In June, the administration announced it would continue the ACTA negotiations started under the previous administration.

Nov 09

Climate Bill Clears Senate Committee 11-1

(Washington)   A Senate committee cleared its version of a climate and energy bill, despite a Republican boycott of the vote and a “no” from powerful Montana Democrat Max Baucus. Continue reading →

Nov 09

Al Gore Admits C02 Does Not Cause Majority Of Global Warming

(Paul Joseph Watson)  In a new development that is potentially devastating to the agenda to introduce a global carbon tax and a cap and trade system, Al Gore admits that the majority of global warming that occurred until 2001 was not primarily caused by CO2.

Before we get too excited, Gore is not backing away from his support for the theory of man-made climate change, but his concession that carbon dioxide only accounted for 40% of warming according to new studies could seriously harm efforts to tax CO2, that evil, life-giving gas that humans exhale and plants absorb.

“Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions,” reports BB News.

Yesterday we reported on how Gore was set to become the first “carbon billionaire” on the back of vast profits from companies invested in the “green revolution” that the former vice-president has a hefty stake in.

We also highlighted how the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Gore stands to make windfall profits from his stake in carbon trading systems that would be used to manage the cap and trade system currently being readied for passage in the Senate, but his admission that CO2 is far less of a threat than global warming alarmists have been claiming could be a terminal blow for such a proposal.

As Andrew Bolt writes in today’s Australian Herald Sun, his flip-flopping “Suggests not only that was Gore wrong to claim the science was “settled”, but that the hugely expensive schemes to “stop” warming by slashing carbon dioxide emissions will be less than half as effective as claimed.”

“Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that’s still justified,” Gore told Newsweek . “But a comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all” of the greenhouse culprits identified in the Nasa study.”

Gore now blames soot and methane for the majority of global warming, leaving the door open for a tax on livestock, a tax on meat, a tax on milk, and on and on until he changes his mind again and blames another culprit so that too can be taxed.

In another indictment of Gore’s accuracy in warning about climate change, he has now virtually abandoned scientific “facts” in favor of characterizing his Inconvenient Truth presentation in the context of a religious sermon.

“Simply laying out the facts won’t work,” admits Gore.

That’s right, the church of environmentalism has come full circle with Gore’s intention to deliver his widely debunked presentation with spiritual overtones, a move that will shock most hard-headed empirical scientists.

“I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It’s probably my favorite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytizing,” Gore tells Newsweek.

In a new book Gore has been working on, he attempts to address the rapidly growing skepticism towards global warming alarmism not with science, but by blaming people’s own thoughts, a Kafkaesque cop-out if ever there was one.

According to the book’s press release, “Among the most unique approaches Gore takes in the book is showing readers how our own minds can be an impediment to change.”

“Our own minds are the enemy! Don’t free the minds – imprison them!,” scoffs Tim Blair.

Nov 09

House Of Numbers Documentary

(You Tube) What is HIV? What is AIDS? What is being done to cure it? These questions sent Canadian filmmaker Brent Leung on a worldwide journey, from the highest echelons of the medical research establishment to the slums of South Africa, where death and disease are the order of the day. In this up-to-the-minute documentary, he observes that although AIDS has been front-page news for over 29 years, it is barely understood. Despite the great effort, time, and money spent, no cure is in sight.

Born in 1980 (on the cusp of the epidemic), Leung reveals a research establishment in disarray, and health policy gone tragically off course. Gaining access to a remarkable array of the most prominent and influential figures in the field — among them the co-discoverers of HIV, presidential advisors, Nobel laureates, and the Executive Director of UNAIDS, as well as survivors and activists — his restrained approach yields surprising revelations and stunning contradictions.

The HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten, and this is the first film to present the uncensored POVs of virtually all the major players — in their own settings, in their own words. It rocks the foundation upon which all conventional wisdom regarding HIV/AIDS is based. If, as South African health advocate Pephsile Maseko remarks, “this is the beginning of a war…a war to reclaim our health,” then House of Numbers could well be the opening salvo in the battle to bring sanity and clarity to an epidemic clearly gone away.

More info at:
More info at:

Nov 09

Notes From Codex Alimentarius 2009

(Ralph Fucetola JD)  Our intrepid Health Freedom trustees, Dr Rima E. Laibow MD and Maj Gen Bert Stubblebine (US Army ret) traveled from the Foundation eco demonstration project at the Valley of the Moon in Panama to Dussledorf Germany for a Codex Alimentarius meeting, the Committee on Nutrients and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. Dr Laibow just skyped me some information about the events at the meeting that we wanted to share with you all. Continue reading →

Nov 09

Copenhagen: Deal Or No Deal?

(HSBC)  Nearly two thirds (65 per cent) of people surveyed across the globe believe a new international deal to cut emissions is ‘very important’, according to the annual Climate Confidence Monitor released today.

The 12 country study, commissioned by the HSBC Climate Partnership, sends a clear message to governments preparing to attend the UN climate change summit in December to agree on a policy framework to tackle climate change.

The third Climate Confidence Monitor reveals a global consensus on emission reduction targets. 79 per cent want to see a commitment to ‘meet or significantly exceed’ a 50-80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050. This demand for commitment to reduction targets is highest in Mexico (91 per cent), Brazil (90 per cent), Hong Kong (84 per cent) and China (82 per cent) and lowest in India (75 per cent), UK (71 per cent) and the US (66 per cent).

Despite the deepening of the global recession since last year’s surveywas conducted, seven in 10 people (69 per cent) agreed that addressing climate change is at least as important, if not more important than supporting their national economy during the downturn. Respondents to this question were asked to prioritise spending public money on healthcare, crime, national defence, education and supporting the national economy during the downturn.

Lord Stern, adviser to HSBC on economic development and climate change said: “With just over a month to go before Copenhagen, this is a clear call from the global population for a strong and effective deal. Rich and developing countries must act together to create an agreement that will lay the foundations for a future era of dynamic low-carbon growth.”

The Climate Confidence Monitor 2009 also revealed:

Emerging v Developed Markets: For the third year running, the Climate Confidence Monitor shows that there is a stronger desire for action in emerging economies than in the developed world. In Brazil, 86 per cent and in Mexico, 83 per cent believe it is very important that a deal in Copenhagen is reached. Globally only two per cent of people feel a new climate deal isn’t important at all.

Stephen Green, Group Chairman HSBC Holdings plc said: “We know that the impacts of climate change will particularly affect the emerging markets and clearly the people of those countries are concerned. We look to the Copenhagen meeting to create a framework for a low carbon economy that will allow emerging
markets to prosper and create attractive investment opportunities for businesses worldwide.”

Climate Change v other global issues: In a year that brought media headlines of pandemic flu and economic meltdown, a third of all respondents (34 per cent) believe climate change is one of the biggest issues they worry about today. They were asked to rank climate change as an issue compared to global economic stability, terrorism, violence, pandemic disease, global poverty, natural disasters and social breakdown. In Mexico, 22 per cent of respondents ranked climate change as the number one issue.

Personal commitment to low carbon choices: Commitment to reduce personal impact on climate change by adapting lifestyle choices rose four percentage points from 2008 to 36 per cent this year. In particular, France and Mexico show increases in commitment of at least 15 percentage points in the past 12 months. The most popular steps people are taking to reduce their carbon footprint are recycling, turning off electronic equipment and using energy-saving light bulbs. People living in China, Hong Kong, India and France claimed to be most active in making low-carbon lifestyle choices.

Steve Howard, Chief Executive of the Climate Group commented on this trend: “World leaders must agree a deal in Copenhagen that unlocks low carbon jobs and growth, and enables the rest of us to make smarter, greener choices about the ways we heat our homes, fuel our cars and power our businesses.”

The Climate Confidence Monitor is part of the HSBC Climate Partnership’s aim to raise awareness of climate change issues and to facilitate action to address them. For more information on the results of the research, visit