There are advantages to learning about history. One of the big ones is that patterns repeat themselves across historical time, and if you know what happened just before other societies went through the important inflection points in their life cycle, you can tolerably often figure out when one of those is abojut to happen in…Potemkin Nation — Potemkin Nation | Ecosophia
By Jon Rappoport
“I have a great idea. We’re the Sherman County government. We have power. Let’s claim Azure Farms can’t control their weeds. Let’s come in and invade them with Roundup and other toxic chemicals. Let’s destroy their organic farm. We know the spraying won’t wipe out the weeds—it’ll make the situation worse. But who cares? Let’s open up ourselves to massive lawsuits. I’m sure Monsanto will give us some legal help. We can set a fantastic precedent. No organic farm is safe. No organic farmer has the right to protect his land from the government. Isn’t that a terrific idea?”
Government trespass, invasion?
So far, I have seen no coverage of this issue in Oregon newspapers. Why not? Also, I find nothing on the Sherman County, Oregon, government website about a massive spraying program.
A local government is going to decimate a huge organic farm with herbicide?
Azure Farms, a 2000-acre organic farm in Oregon, states it is under threat from the local Sherman County government. Why? Because Sherman County officials are re-interpreting a law concerning the “control of noxious weeds,” so it means “eradication.”
These weeds can be controlled on an organic farm, but the only way they can be eliminated (according to conventional “science”) is by spraying. And that means Roundup and other toxic chemicals. That would decimate the organic nature of the farm. That would decertify it as an organic farm.
Further, according to Azure, Sherman County plans to put a lien on the farm, forcing it to pay for the spraying.
The deadline for expressing opposition is May 22. A better deadline is May 17.
Here is the complete press release from Azure Farms and the ways to register your concern:
Azure Farms is a working, certified organic farm located in Moro, central Oregon, in Sherman County. It has been certified organic for about 18 years. The farm produces almost all the organic wheat, field peas, barley, Einkorn, and beef for Azure Standard.
Sherman County is changing the interpretation of its statutory code from controlling noxious weeds to eradicating noxious weeds. These weeds include Morning Glory, Canada Thistle, and Whitetop, all of which have been on the farm for many years, but that only toxic chemicals will eradicate.
Organic farming methods – at least as far as we know today – can only control noxious weeds—it is very difficult to eradicate them.
Sherman County may be issuing a Court Order on May 22, 2017 to quarantine Azure Farms and possibly to spray the whole farm with poisonous herbicides, contaminating them with Milestone, Escort and Roundup herbicides.
This will destroy all the efforts Azure Farms has made for years to produce the very cleanest and healthiest food humanly possible. About 2,000 organic acres would be impacted; that is about 1.5 times the size of the city center of Philadelphia that is about to be sprayed with noxious, toxic, polluting herbicides.
The county would then put a lien on the farm to pay for the expense of the labor and chemicals used.
Contact Sherman County Court before May 17 when the next court discussion will be held.
1. Via email at firstname.lastname@example.org or
2. Call Lauren at 541-565-3416.
Show Sherman County that people care about their food NOT containing toxic chemicals.
Overwhelm the Sherman County representatives with your voices!
—end of Azure Farms statement—
By John Cox
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time
Why do we take issue at the lack of good science data with what is called today, Pesticide PZP? Because subjectivity and science remain two separate situations. The dynamics of each very different. Many of us find Pesticide PZP nothing more than subjective rhetoric – the results on our Public Lands of this endeavor remains quite negative, with no good potential results foreseen in the future. Wild Horses are going extinct! False science, misinformation, ignoring of Ecological demands, and corruption the reasons why . . .
The wild horses on America’s Public Lands is falling victim to what many of us simply refer to as bad, and incompetent white-paper gibberish. As history shows us time and again, government agencies seem to attract this type of research, calls it science, and as history shows us, time after time, until we see the outstanding negative results, in this case a species going extinct, do we finally realize the mistake.
But only over time is the burden of responsibility taken to task, the fingers point to those who cannot defend themselves, and these elements of destruction, these non-profits and BLM who promote this Pesticide PZP scam, simply move-on to other schemes and scams to obtain taxpayer money differently, is all . . .
Well, as taxpayers and American’s it is time for all of us to Stand Up and say no to any further Pesticide PZP use —
Spotted Owls in the Cascades
For explanation reasons, I am using the Spotted Owl within the Nooksack River watershed, as well as the Skagit River Valley, both in the Cascade Mountains. It shows us, overtime, the dynamic also involved within the wild horses, even though separate ecological zones, separate species for sure, yet similar in population encounter and census.
The biology, when all the variables considered, show situations that remain overlooked, or even ignored, by Pesticide PZP research. Many define, categorically, Pesticide PZP as questionable subjective reasoning of combined-information only, merely passed-off as science –
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” ― Albert Einstein
Many of us accept this fact of facts, as there simply exists too many variables left unexplored from the Pesticide PZP data gathering, to be any type of acceptable science what so ever. Way too many significant data situations ignored or even not thought about what so ever, which would show beyond a doubt Pesticide PZP, a questionable situation at best, and non-useful. The reasoning why significant variables left unexplored? Well, let’s take a look at some of the more obvious, and viability of our wildlife in general.
A census of the Spotted Owl may show twenty-five owls exist, but perhaps only seven are of a reproductive age, and only five sexually active. The outcome of this, within a good biology context, would likely be five-owls, not twenty-five. To assimilate across the board a 20% to 38% increase, as they do with wild horses, is simply bad management, untruthful, and no good-science or biology would back up such claims what so ever – as variables do exist on this planet, always.
When we refuse to consider significant variables, that do exist and apparent should not be ignored, then we have to question the supposed science involved. On the same scale of research, if we ignore the habitats, or Ecological Zones that exist, deduction through subjectivity only, and as if Pesticide PZP unharmful within any circumstance – but never explored, through due diligence and good data gathering, we never find out if harmful or not in Ecological Zones of any type. . . Used on something like Wild Horses, we become very concerned at this monumental error in judgement, that certainly lacks scientific responsibility, and one can also attest, irresponsible within an ethical or humane context as well . . . – John Cox, The Cascades
“The provision in the latest omnibus bill was requested last year as part of President Obama’s fiscal 2017 budget proposal (Greenwire, Feb. 10, 2016).”
The omnibus spending package the Senate approved today contains a provision that would make it easier for the Bureau of Land Management to adopt out or transfer wild horses and burros, reducing the growing number of animals under the agency’s care.
But the provision has angered animal rights advocates, who say it contains too many loopholes to protect thousands of wild horses and burros from being slaughtered.
At issue is a section in the omnibus package to fund the federal government through September — originally requested by the Obama administration last year — that would allow the Interior secretary to “transfer excess wild horses or burros” BLM has removed from federal rangelands “to other Federal, State, and local government agencies for use as work animals.”
The provision would authorize the secretary to “make any such transfer immediately upon request” of a government agency, such as the U.S. Border Patrol. The provision includes language stating that the animals cannot be killed or sold or transferred to any entity that would slaughter them “for processing into commercial products.”
But it allows transferred horses and burros to be euthanized “upon the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian, in cases of severe injury, illness, or advanced age.”
It’s that language that has wild horse advocates outraged.
Ginger Kathrens, executive director of the Colorado-based Cloud Foundation, said BLM “has a history of misinforming the public” about issues related to wild horses.
“Couple this with the vague ‘illness’ and ‘advanced age’ language” in the omnibus provision, “and the potential exists for the killing of thousands of horses,” said Kathrens, a member of the BLM National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board…(CONTINUED)
By Jon Rappoport
Senator Chuck Schumer on MSNBC: “We’re no longer fact-based. The founding fathers created a country based on fact. We don’t have a fact base. If Breitbart News and the New York Times are regarded with equal credibility, you worry about this democracy.”
First of all, in Schumer’s opening sentence, who is this “we”? There is an implication that the “we” is somehow monolithic and centralized. But people have been in disagreement about facts and what they mean since the dawn of time. People have rejected centralized sources of facts, from kings and queens and priests, to newspapers and television news.
In the same way that 99% of economists assume society must be planned and centralized, Schumer and “the people in power” assume media must operate as a centralized force—as if it’s a natural law.
They just assume it, because until recently, it was the case, it was cozy and easy. But not now. And they’re angry and shocked. They see their foundation of propaganda and mind control slipping away.
You must appreciate how secure they used to feel. It was a cake walk, a picnic in the park. The definition of “fact” was: whatever centralized media said it was. What could be simpler? And to them, that was “democracy.”
Feed the people lies, hide deeper truth, slam dunk.
Then along came independent media.
It turned out millions of people were interested.
The cat jumped out of the bag.
I know about this. I’ve been letting cats out of bags since 1982.
That’s longer than some of my readers have been alive.
I also know about censorship, because almost from the beginning of my work as a reporter, I had stories turned down by major media outlets and even alternative outlets. I saw the handwriting on the wall.
Chuck Schumer is echoing what many of his colleagues—and far more powerful people—are worrying about. Their vaunted mouthpieces, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc., are failing. They can’t carry the same old freight with impunity.
So Schumer “worries about the future of democracy.” What he’s actually worried about has nothing to do with democracy, and it certainly has nothing to do with a Republic, which was the form of this nation from the beginning.
Schumer is worried about decentralization.
He’s worried that people are defecting from the authoritarian arrogant Castle of Truth.
And, given his position, he should be worried.
We are at a tipping point. Needless to say—but I will say it—independent media need your support. Your choice about where you obtain your news makes a difference.
Until a few years ago, I never considered that I was relentless. I was just doing my work. But as I saw the counter-efforts of major media, social media, government, Globalists, and other players, as they tried to reassert their primacy, I found a deeper level of commitment. A person can find many reasons to stop what he is doing. Every person eventually realizes that. But will he give in? Or will he decide to keep going? My choice is reflected on these pages, where I write every day.
Many of my colleagues have made the same choice. As for myself, I take the long, long view. Whatever befalls this civilization, the individual survives. He cannot be erased. I know that as surely as I know I am sitting here.
People like Chuck Schumer are living on a foundation of sand. Their power depends on obfuscation and deception and exchanging favors. When they feel the ground shifting under their feet, they growl and accuse and declaim and resort to fake ideals. If they see their con isn’t working and isn’t selling, then they panic.
Which is a good sign.
Many, many years ago, I had a good relationship with a media outlet. Then one day, the man in charge told me I was “positioning myself” outside the scope of his audience. I was speaking to “different people,” and therefore I should “go my own way.” I could tell he wasn’t happy about saying this, because he thought of himself as an independent, but there it was. He was bending to the demands of “his people.” So we parted company.
I was now further “out there” than I had been before. I was “independent of an ‘independent’ media outlet.” It took me about five minutes to see the joke. A good and useful joke.
As the years rolled on, I kept finding myself in a more independent position, which meant I was writing what I wanted to write, and in the process I was discovering deeper levels of what I wanted to write.
Understanding this changed my political view. If I didn’t stand for the free and independent individual, what did I stand for? If I didn’t keep coming back to THAT, what could I come back to?
It made sense to me then, and it makes sense to me now.
This is why I keep writing about collective, the group, the mass, and the generality, those fake representations of life.
The individual is always free, whether he knows it or not. And therefore, he can choose.
This is what the Chuck Schumers of this world vaguely apprehend on the horizon. They can’t believe what they’re seeing; it’s too horrible a prospect. They reject it as a fantasy. A random nightmare.
But it isn’t a random nightmare.
It’s the potential for an open future.
Back from obscurity.
Back from the late 18th century, when the ideas embedded in the Constitution reflected the desire to unleash the free and independent individual and afford him protection from the powers-that-be.
by Jon Rappoport
April 25, 2017
Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter’s scheduled speech at the U of California Berkeley is off, it’s on, it’s been delayed, the student groups sponsoring her appearance are suing the University, she’ll speak indoors, she’ll speak outdoors, and on it goes.
University officials have said they can’t guarantee Coulter’s security, unless, apparently, she gives her speech during the week in the afternoon while most students are studying for their final exams. Why don’t they schedule her talk somewhere in Alaska at three in the morning? That’ll work, and free speech will emerge victorious.
Aside from paid agitators brought in from the outside by George Soros money, the student body at the University is opposed to Coulter speaking, or they’re too passive to care, or they’re too cowed to step up and demand she has the right to air her ideas.
Here is the op: the University bosses have brought all this on themselves. Their claim that they can’t protect Coulter may be true, but that’s because, for decades, professors have been teaching crap and pap and programmatic socialism and various forms of collectivism, and they have purposely neglected the Bill of Rights and individual freedom.
University bosses have been seeding departments with teachers who are so far to the Left they can’t get dressed in the morning without government aid. And the radical Left is all about debate only in the sense that they want to curtail it, shut it down, destroy dissident voices, and thereby save the world.
So naturally, in the fullness of time, students are going to follow suit and get in line. Rational discussion of opposing ideas? Never heard of it. Why in the world would they allow Ann Coulter on campus to spread dangerous thoughts?
Dangerous=someone somehow might start to think on his/her own, against the prevailing tide.
There is no room for this at UC Berkeley.
Behind this buzzing swarming cloud of totalitarian policy, there are, of course, genuine issues students could be investigating. But that must not happen. I’m talking about money, as in: who is sponsoring research projects at Berkeley? Projects related to the war machine; psychiatric “mental health” toxic-drug research; GMO research; and other mega-corporate favorites.
For example, the book, “Engineering and War: Militarism, Ethics, Institutions, Alternatives,” mentions a $70 million program that links no less than 200 US colleges in a Homeland Security program, to establish a DHS “center of excellence.” “Experts” from UC Berkeley are involved. What’s that all about? Colleges all over the US are cooperating and collaborating.
“Well, let’s keep that project quiet. Instead, let’s have students protesting and rioting against free speech. Let’s have them feeling triggered and demanding safe spaces where they can drink hot chocolate and play with model trains and dolls.”
For many decades, US colleges have been feeding from a federal money trench to aid and abet the national security state. That would include expanding surveillance on American citizens, profiling, and various forms of propaganda, for starters. If you factor in DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon, you would be talking about research on the brain and cutting edge mind control.
But instead, no, don’t look there; keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley. Save humanity.
As I reported several months ago, 25% of US college students, last year, were diagnosed or treated for a mental disorder. Let’s not have students thinking about that. Let’s not have them thinking about the toxic effects of the psychiatric drugs. No. Let’s not have them realize they’re guinea pigs in an unending op to addle their brains.
Instead, let’s have them keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley.
And certainly, as colleges and universities across the US raise their tuition and matriculating costs to the sky—BECAUSE the federal government has a deep-pockets student loan program—let’s not make that connection. Instead, let’s saddle college graduates with massive debt.
As they walk off campus for the last time, contemplating their future of trying to pay down that debt, they can congratulate themselves, because they kept Ann Coulter from coming to Berkeley.
And thus saved the world.
“What did you do at college, Daddy?”
“You mean way back when, before I went on Welfare? I kept a fascist from giving a speech. I can’t remember her name now. But she was a threat, believe me. We had guts. It took a few thousand of us to keep her away. There were rumors she was bringing a few tanks and weaponized anthrax with her…”
Photo post by @ZyMarquiez.
Source: FDA | Toxins – TheBreakAway
April 22, 2017
Mike Papantonio is joined by Farron Cousins, Executive Editor of the Trial Lawyer Magazine, to discuss Nestle’s water extraction efforts in the San Bernardino National Forest.
Wild horse & burro advocate Bonnie Kohleriter gives her opinion below about an article in Range Magazine written by Rachel Dahl, a sixth generation Nevadan. Dahl worked as a campaign manager for the former Sen. John Ensign and served on his Senate staff by managing his Carson City office. (Sen. John Ensign later resigned after an ethics investigation.)
The Queen of Fake News in Nevada
by Bonnie Kohleriter
Rachel Dahl is a writer for the Range magazine in Nevada, a pro cattle magazine, and is a resident in Mesquite, Nevada.
Grabbing a twisted tidbit from here and a twisted bit from there, Rachel Dahl attempts to impress her readers as a journalist. Having read her winter rant in the Range magazine, I feel compelled to retort with the following comments.
As Ms. Dahl reported, in the fall of 2016, at the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board Meeting, the Board did not vote to remove excess horses nor did it vote to sell the animals with no limitations or to euthanize the sick and the aged. The Board, on the other hand, voted to euthanize 47,000 wild horses and burros in holdings off the range.
The horses, according to Ms. Dahl, are to blame for the ruinous condition of our public lands. All hope is rested in removing them. Or is all hope rested in removing cattle from the 27 M acres where the horses only are able to be and allowing cattle to be on the other 155 M acres of our public lands where they are currently. It is understood cattle grazing on our public lands is a privilege and not a right as some ranchers want the public to believe. Then, in addition, perhaps all hope is rested in the ranchers not being allowed to divert and cut off water from the horses. Oh, horrors, Ms. Dahl, that there should be another way to look at managing our resources.
Again as Ms. Dahl reported, in the fall of 1916, the Board spent the day viewing where horses forage and viewing dead horses. The Board spent the day viewing no dead horses and viewing where horses drink. Dead horses were dramatically reported by Goicoechea who is a known horse hater and multi-generational cattle rancher. The devastated land, according to the permittee, was done when overgrazing was done by animals other than horses and burros and not by the horses themselves.
According to Ms. Dahl, Ben Masters, a member of the Board, said the viewing that day was “one of the worst disasters he had ever seen.” Ben is a young man who made a “movie” using Mustangs who were abused in the movie. It is an absurdity that Ms. Dahl should use him as a source to substantiate her argument that horses have devastated our public lands. Masters is no expert on our public lands. He is also new to the wild horse and burro issues on our public lands.
Then Ms. Dahl brought up the name of Boyd Spratling to substantiate her argument as well. Boyd Spratling had been on the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board and is from Elko, where the Board was currently conferring. Boyd is primarily a cattle veterinarian, represents cattlemen on the State Agricultural Board, promotes harvesting our wild horses, and presents falsified pictures to tug at the heartstrings to convince the public of those poor, poor horses on the range. But he can’t tell you where he gets his pictures and the dates they were taken. Boyd Spratling is a traitor to wild horses and burros. He does not have their best interests in mind.
Ms. Dahl sounds the alarm wild horses and burros are dying everywhere on the range and in private sanctuaries in Nevada and even in WOW! South Dakota. Wild animals die in times of environmental disaster just as humans are dying due drought and famine in Kenya, South Sudan, and Niger. Is the answer to kill them?
Ms. Dahl has pulled out all stops to degrade horses using Mrs. Pickens and Mrs. Sussman, who have taken care of wild horses, but have nothing to do with our herd management areas for wild horse and burros on our public lands. Can she find any other areas in which to attack horses or the people who have and/or care for horses. Her article is like “Let’s talk about dinner foods, now think about Cheerios.”
“Every ranch kid learns you are responsible for taking care of an animal when you take custody of them,” says Ms. Dahl. So Ms. Dahl, you are a part of the public who by law, has custody of our wild horses and burros? Are you simply going to kill them for meat because some ranchers and politicians have manipulated their allowable numbers on the range to be less than genetically viable numbers for perpetuity? Or are you going to try to come up with solutions for them to keep them on the range as healthy horses, celebrating their place on our public lands as part of our cultural, historical heritage?
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.” – Mark Twain*