In this world of modern medicine you would believe that our bodies would be in better shape. The medical profession hides behind the guise of treating major medical problems while the truth is we are riddled with more health problems than ever before. We need to investigate the possible causes of the increase of such health problems. We need to examine the changes that the industrialized world has gone through in the last century. Some of these changes must account for the differences in the human body. One of the biggest changes besides diet and technology is the interaction with doctors and medicine. We have allowed doctors to give us numerous medicines and vaccinations without ever knowing any of the details for ourselves. Any major change made to the immune system can have rippling effects through the whole body. Here is an article I found recently examining the effects of such modern medicine in man's best friend (another mammal, like you and me):

by Catherine O'Driscoll 

The Institute of Medicine is supposed to be an unbiased source of medical information to improve health. This article (read the entirety of the article) shows that the funding of the IoM comes from biased sources. The involvement of military and weapons manufacturing brings in dangerous possibilities of the intent of such IoM policy recommendations. If the military and weapons manufactures are involved then there must be an aspect of weaponization involved.


NaturalNews exposes secret vaccine industry ties and military involvement with Institute of Medicine, reveals fatal conflicts of interest at IoM

(NaturalNews) The Institute of Medicine is suddenly in the news following the release of its vaccine "adverse events" research which found that MMR vaccines actually cause measles, seizures and anaphylactic shock. The old media predictably distorted the story and used it to deceptively announce that "vaccines are not linked to autism!"

In falsely reporting this study from the IoM, however, the old media reporters never bothered to even read the adverse reactions report. Nor did they ask a few simple questions such as "Who is funding the Institute of Medicine? And what is the agenda of the IoM?"

Today, NaturalNews publishes a stunning story about the IoM which reveals this government-created non-profit to be a key player in the military medical complex involving a shady network of weapons manufacturers, the Department of Homeland Security, top pharmaceutical companies and population control globalists such as Bill Gates. Here, we expose who's giving the IoM money and why the actual sources of funding behind the IoM destroy any credibility it once claimed to have on the subject of public health.

We've already published the first honest assessment of the IoM's report in a news item posted yesterday:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_I...

That story takes an honest investigative look at the IoM and what its report really says. The old "dinosaur" media, as usual, has predictably twisted this story around and falsely claimed that it gives vaccines a clean bill of health. Only NaturalNews (and other alternative media organizations) dares tell the truth while questioning the IoM's financial ties and funding sources. The entire mainstream media blindly accepts the IoM's "authority" as beyond reproach, neglecting to conduct basic journalism and follow the money as NaturalNews is doing.

By the way, you can view the IoM's full report for yourself at:
http://naturalnews.com/files/Advers...

Why does the truth about the Institute of Medicine really matter?

Because the IoM is positioned by the federal government as an independent, "prestigious" organization whose decisions are based on scientific facts. When the U.S. government rolls out its upcoming mandatory vaccination requirements, it will cite the Institute of Medicine as the source that said vaccines were safe (even though that's a lie).

The FDA, for example, cites the Institute of Medicine is setting its own vaccine policies (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa...). The USDA also turns to the IoM for its recommendations on things like school lunch programs (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/pressre...).

Even more to the point, President Obama's recent demand that health insurance companies pay for birth control medication was based on the Institute of Medicine's recommendation (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/01/...). It was the IoM that put forth the guidelines to "require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services" including "FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling."

Even the CDC commissioned the IoM to study the control of viral hepatitis infections, after which the CDC quickly advised that all infants should be injected with multiple hepatitis vaccines "...as soon as they are stable and washed." In this same set of recommendations, the IoM advised that students who are not vaccinated against hepatitis B should not be allowed to attend school. (http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/IOMnew...)

The IoM, in other words, is the go-to organization for the setting of government health policy. Never mind the fact that the IoM is two-thirds funded by government itself and also takes money from the world's top vaccine manufacturers. The conflicts of interest within the IoM are not merely notable, but severe conflicts of interest. They are so prominent, in fact, that no person in their right mind should believe a word the IoM says about vaccines, yet both the government and the mainstream media is positioning the IoM as (somehow) being a trustworthy independent non-profit that tells the truth about vaccines.

Even the Washington Legal Foundation (http://www.wlf.org), a group that advocates free choice in health care (and personal freedom in general), charged that the FDA could not legally accept recommendations from the Institute of Medicine because the committee members put forth by the IoM did not meet the lawful requirement of being "fairly balanced."

"Using advice from a committee that lacks fair balance encroaches upon Congress' mandate that each Advisory Committee should be representative of a broad range of viewpoints and should include affected individuals," said WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp after filing WLF's Citizen Petition. (http://www.policymed.com/2011/07/in...)

This is where the danger really lies. Everybody else in government listens to the IoM and usually adopts its recommendations as public health policy. And yet the IoM is actually run and financed by a complex network of globalists and vaccine promoters, as you'll see below.

Because of the IoM's unchallenged influence in setting public health policy, we are all being set up for a military-run mass vaccination campaign funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and relying on vaccine-tracking information technology from companies like Northrup Grumman, a weapons manufacturer with a history of illegal international arms trafficking. (More details below.)

This is what vaccines have become in America today: A military agenda against the People. And the IoM sits at the hub of influence for this diabolical command center. This is all explained in more detail in the rest of this story, as well as in upcoming stories about the IoM slated for publication here on NaturalNews.

Please share this story far and wide so that your friends and colleagues can learn the truth about the IoM and where its money really comes from.

I wish to thank the NaturalNews Facebook fans who conducted much of this research to help us find the truth behind the Institute of Medicine (www.Facebook.com/HealthRanger)

The IoM's secret ties to the military and weapons manufacturers

The Institute of Medicine was created by Congress in 1970. On its website, the IoM claims "we do not receive direct federal funding for our work," which as you will soon see is a highly misleading statement, given that 64.9% of the IoM's funds actually come from the federal government.

NaturalNews learned that the IoM is funded by the Who's Who of the most evil corporations, non-profits and government organizations involved in things like secret medical experiments on humans, global population control agendas, the spread of degenerative disease, international arms trafficking and crimes against humanity (see list below).

The IoM is also blatantly deceptive about where its funding comes from. While its website claims it does not receive federal funding for its work, an investigation by Senator Coburn's office reveals that 55% of the IOM's funding comes from the government (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/ind...). This number varies year to year, of course, and we've found documentation showing this number to be as high as 64.9%.

Reposted from : http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16620

CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Clouds - Global Warming Next?
2011 08 29
By Andrew Orlowski | TheRegister.co.uk



CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN’s director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUD’s lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss’s warning.

"Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere."

Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:

"We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

The team used the Proton Synchotron accelerator (pictured here with Kirkby) to examine the nucleation using combinations of trace gasses at various temperatures, with precision. These first results confirm that cosmic rays increase the formation of cloud-nuclei by a factor of 10 in the troposphere, but additional trace gasses are needed nearer the surface.




Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

"[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.

Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century."

Article from: theregister.co.uk

---

CLOUD Experiment Trashes AGW Theory

Video from: YouTube.com

CERN News

Video from: YouTube.com

---

CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action
From: Calder’sUpdates



A graph they’d prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue).
This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011

Read the full article at: calderup.wordpress.com

     In this modern world of ours we are surrounded by chemicals that are used to produce the products we use everyday. Most of us have no idea all the chemicals that we are surrounded by unusual chemicals used in the production of all the things we use or eat everyday. Those who make money from the manufacturing of this modern world do not want us to think about the implications of this could be.
      We all have heard of the possible cancer causing affects of many of the synthetic chemicals used in manufacturing. Beyond that there is another side effect that seems to becoming more common in the chemicals that we are exposed to. There is an abundance of chemicals that are endocrine disruptors. The most recent instance of this in the news is (continued bellow):

Greenpeace finds toxic chemicals in branded clothing

By Sebastien Blanc (AFP) – 6 days ago

BEIJING — Traces of toxic chemicals harmful to the environment and to human health have been detected in products made by 14 top clothing manufacturers, Greenpeace said Tuesday.

Samples of clothing from top brands including Adidas, Uniqlo, Calvin Klein, H&M, Abercrombie & Fitch, Lacoste, Converse and Ralph Lauren were found to be tainted with the chemicals, known as nonylphenol ethoxylates, the watchdog said at the launch of its report "Dirty Laundry 2".

Greenpeace campaigner Li Yifang said that nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), commonly used as detergents in industries including the production of natural and synthetic textiles, were detected in two-thirds of the samples the group tested.

"NPEs break down to form nonylphenol, which has toxic, persistent and hormone-disrupting properties," Li told journalists in Beijing.

"It mimics female hormones, alters sexual development and affects reproductive systems."

Components of NPEs have been implicated in the widespread "feminisation" of male fish in parts of Europe and also in disrupting hormone processes in some mammals, according to the campaign group WWF.
Read entire article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iifYKDOTnwbgWHV9deZS-5VJmRnw?docId=CNG.7109dd0e08ad5a7e68ee758ca10ce74b.6a1

   We have come across this many times, but usually discount the effects because of the difficulty in avoiding these chemicals that seem to be everywhere. The chemical in this category that seems to be the most saturated in our everyday lives in America is Bisphenol A (BPA). It is an estrogen mimicking chemical that is used in the production of many types of flexible plastics used in food packaging and bottles. Even in the Wikipedia article you can see the laundry list of concerns with BPA ingestion. The concerns are so substantial that numerous governments have already banned the use of BPA in baby bottles.
   There should be many concerns about the effects that these endocrine disruptors have on our reproductive systems, not to mention cancer causing effects. In the last twenty or thirty years the use of these chemicals have grown exponentially. Due to the fact that females are born with all their eggs, we may not know the truwe effects until our youngest now try to reproduce. These effects of chemicals like this also grown with each generation. It is important that we become aware of these problems now before it is too late for our future generations.


Watch this CBC documentary that looks into the effects of these endocrine disrupting chemicals for more details!

The Disappearing Male

When the use of a propaganda technique is all you have left in order to defend your message you have clearly lost the argument. When you label your ideological appoints as this generation's racist you are circumventing the use of actual facts and reasoning. In this day and age people are programed to run from all things conceived as some form of racist or a different labeling mechanism. Don't allow yourself to be labeled unfairly.

Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation’s racists

Published: 11:18 AM 08/28/2011 | Updated: 6:06 AM 08/29/2011

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore.
In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcast on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis. (RELATED: Bill McKibben: Global warming to blame for Hurricane Irene)
“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”
The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.
“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”
“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added.
When Bogusky questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.
“I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.
Gore also took shots at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has lambasted climate change alarmists on the presidential campaign trail, and at other politicians who dare to question the veracity of global warming science.
“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/#ixzz1WQzK5oeC

    There are those in the world that seek to alter the perceptions of the rest of us. Through this alteration of perception they mold our minds to tolerate behavior that otherwise would be unacceptable. Through these deviations in our morals we leave our civilization vulnerable to further decay and degradation. Through most of recent history mankind has been going through numerous alterations of our collective moral compass. Within the noble justification of freedom of choice we have forgotten why there were strict taboos. Without vigilance we become more and more vulnerable as each taboo is broken down. With each compromise of our virtue the future becomes more uncertain, because we can never know how far down a chosen path one will try to take us. Progress should not be feared but to do so without proper foresight can release a slow acting venom into the stream on consciousness that can be used to bend our wills or kill all we have.
      At this point and time it is appalling to most to think of something as pedophilia as becoming normal.  This very taboo is attempting to be broke, and there is evidence that this attempt has been underway for quite some time now. We have already been bombarded by the idea through stories in movies and music. Most of us have also been made to feel uncomfortable seeing young boys/girls depicted on TV/movies as sex symbols. The most difficult question about this is to answer why you would want to do such a thing. The short answer is that out of social chaos you can remold society to your own liking (example: Some aspects of Nazism was a manipulated rural conservative backlash against the degradation of social life in the urban areas). The people became mailable and prepared to be changed one way or the other.
     The other question who would work towards the breaking down of such taboos. In this most recent article it is the group named B4U-ACT. At a confrence that this group is holding seeks to have pedophilia reclassified so not all pedophiles are criminals. In a run up to the publication of the newest addition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) there are those who want to see the definition of pedophilia redefined. This group is made up of pedophiles (minor attracted peoples, as they call themselves) and psychologists who wish to see them gain a measure of acceptance in society. The redefining of pedophile to minor attracted person is just an attempt to make you have an emotional response to a person that is seen as a criminal because of sexual preference. From the article (linked here) discussing the conference:

Child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting professor at Liberty University’s School of Law, said the conference is part of a strategy to condition people into accepting pedophiles.
“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathize and sympathize,” Reisman said. “You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning. The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.”

Whenever a definition is being manipulated future generation become vulnerable to the repercussions of forgetting the original meanings. How far down the path will we slip?
      As this group tries to manipulate our understanding of a very clear cut issue today, the major leap towards this direction was made by Alfred Kinsey. In his Rockefeller Foundation funded Kinsey Report he chipped away at all the sexual taboos of the past. He used numerous study methods that skewed our understanding of sexuality to be closer aligned with perversion than reality. In his study of human sexuality subjects were taken from prisons, prostitutes, and known pedophiles. The perversion went so far as to have the perceived orgasms of infants be induced and recorded by recruited pedophiles (to see all about the Kinsey Report see the documentaries posted below). It is impossible to derive a clear understanding of human sexuality from a deviant test subject. Possibly the worst result of this report is that so much of our modern understanding of human sexuality comes from these studies. Since we have already accepted this we have already begun to travel the road of deviance.
    Besides a researcher of human sexuality who is Alfred Kinsey? Some would say a pedophile or sexual deviant himself. More importantly is who enabled Kinsey's studies to become world renowned. It is the Rockefeller Foundation that funded the work he did. Even to the extent of having a institute at Indiana University to do his work.
    Why is the Rockefeller Foundation's involvement so important when there are lone deviants all over the world. Not ever deviant has their work funded and promoted through such a powerful tax exempt foundation. It has been proven in the past that the tax exempt foundations have an agenda for America. It is through their grants and far reaching influence that they desire to remold America to their vision. The Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations or known as the Reece Committee was charged with finding out what the mission of these foundations are (you can hear the head researcher Norman Dodd discuss his findings in the previous post). In short it was found that through their grants they wanted to cause a revolution of thought in America to accept a new American way in their vision.
     What part could pedophilia play in this new America? It is hard to tell. It could be that those in power have a sad predisposition towards pedophilia and sexual deviation of numerous forms (corporations and all political systems are rife with sexual deviants, scandals and crimes - Documentary Conspiracy of Silence, article A history of political sex scandals). It could also be an attempt to baby step us into a chaotic society where we will become apathetic to the victims and results of all deviancy. Whatever the answers may be it is up to us to reclaim or own perception and be on guard for attacks upon it. Who knows where the next victim is, but in this case it is children. If we do not stand up to protect our children what future do we have?
_______________________________________________________________________



The Kinsey Syndrome 1 of 17  (Full 17 Part Playlist)


Kinsey's Paedophiles


_____________________________________________________________________

Updated recent news on the subject:
'Paedophilia is Hollywood's biggest problem,' explosive claim by former child star Corey Feldman

The Lost Boys actor said he was 'literally surrounded' by paedophiles at the age of 14, but didn't realise 'until I was much older what they were and what they wanted.'

     Here is an interview of Norman Dodd by researcher G. Edward Griffin. As will be explained in the interview Norman Dodd rose to a prominent position in New York banking. He researched the problems with banking following the crash of 1929. He was later appointed to investigate the tax exempt foundations for the Reece Committee. He found that America was being undermined by purposeful unsound banking practices and the foundations attempt to destroy the country's founding principles through controlling the education system. Possibly the most shocking detail being that the tax exempt foundations purposefully using their grant giving capability to mold American society to the point that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet system. Hear it in his own words:

Part 1 of 6 -  here is the entire playlist to continue viewing


watch all parts on You Tube

The real question that I have is if this information is available than why is there not a crisis situation in this country? Who decides what is worthy of attention? It is you if you spread the word. Pass ait along, and get this toxin out of our water!

Study Proves: This Everyday Drink Lowers Your IQ

Posted By Dr. Mercola | August 12 2011

By Drs. Paul and Ellen Connett

Paul Connett, co-author of the book, The Case Against Fluoride, is joined by his wife, Ellen, webmaster of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Tara Blank, PhD, Science Liason Officer for FAN, in authoring this article on fluoride and the brain. Together they have recently provided an extensive commentary to the EPA's Office of Drinking water in response to its proposed safe reference dose for fluoride¹.
In an ongoing effort to determine which chemicals may damage the developing brain, scientists from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently conducted an extensive literature review of over 400 chemicals, including fluoride.

Fluoride is Classified as a Neurotoxin

While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) would have us all believe that fluoride is perfectly innocuous and safe, scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity".² Consistent with the EPA's conclusion, a continually growing body of human and animal research strongly suggests that fluoride can damage the developing brain.
Consider for example:

• 24 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children
• Three studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired neurobehavioral development
• Three studies have reported damage to the brain of aborted fetuses in high fluoride areas, and
• Over 100 laboratory studies have reported damage to the brain and/or cognitive function among fluoride-exposed animals³.

Most of the 30 studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development, and fetal brain damage have come from China where fluoride occurs at moderate to high levels in the drinking water in what is known as "endemic areas for fluorosis." While there have been shortcomings in the methodologies of some of these studies, they have been remarkably consistent in their findings. Children exposed to excessive fluoride have been consistently observed to suffer from some form of neurological impairment.

Your Brain Under Attack

Statistics tell us that our brains are under attack. For example:

• Autism Spectrum Disorders: The rates in the U.S. are now 1 in 110 children and are "4 to 5 times more likely to occur in boys than in girls," or as many as 1 in 60 boys.
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: According to a November 2010 CDC report, nearly 1 in 10 U.S. children have ADHD - an increase of about 22 percent from 2003.
• Alzheimer's Disease: According to the Alzheimer's Association, 5.4 million Americans are living with it and every 69 seconds an American is diagnosed with it. By 2050, it is estimated that as many as 16 million Americans will have the disease.

We do not know the causes for the alarming increases in these diseases but we do know that wherever possible, everything must be done by regulatory agencies and caregivers to protect the brain from known neurotoxins. Fluoride is a known neurotoxin and it is time to stop adding it to public drinking water systems. However, convincing U.S. regulatory authorities of this urgent necessity is proving very difficult.

Developmental Neurotoxicity

In 2007 Choi and Grandjean⁴ stated:

"In humans, only five substances have so far been documented as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. From this evidence, including our own studies on some of these substances, parallels may be drawn that suggest that fluoride could well belong to the same class of toxins, but uncertainties remain…"

Health Agencies are Ignoring Fluoride-Brain Studies

Even though health agencies in the U.S. and other fluoridating countries have recognized that children are being grossly over-exposed to fluoride (41 percent of American children aged 12-15 now have some form of dental fluorosis⁵), they are unwilling to concede that fluoride may be impacting the brain. Their approach has been either to ignore these studies completely or to challenge the relevance and the methodology of the fluoride-brain studies. They have thus far failed to conduct any IQ studies of their own.

Bottle-Fed Babies at Risk

The level of fluoride in mothers' milk is remarkably low; only about0.004 ppm⁶. In the view of many critics of fluoridation, including Arvid Carlsson, Nobel laureate in medicine/physiology, it is reckless to expose infants to levels of fluoride orders of magnitude higher than that found in breast milk.
In the U.S., infants who are fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water receive the highest levels of fluoride (per kilogram bodyweight) in the human population. Specifically, infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated water at the current level of 1 part-per-million (1 ppm = 1 mg/liter) fluoride will receive a dose up to 250 times more than the breastfed infant.
Even with the proposal by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to lower fluoride to 0.7 ppm in fluoridation schemes, bottle-fed infants will still receive up to 175 times more fluoride than the breastfed infant.
In addition to bottle-fed infants, others at heightened risk include those with poor nutrition and both African American and Mexican-American children.
Recent studies indicate that African American and Mexican-American children have higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis than white children⁷. As dental fluorosis provides a visual indication that fluoride has exerted a toxic effect on your body, it is reasonable to assume that these same children will also be more vulnerable to other toxic effects of fluoride including damage to the brain.

EPA Protecting Fluoridation Program, Not Public Health

On January 7, 2011, the EPA's Office of Water (OW), while pursuing its mandate to set a new safe drinking water standard for fluoride, made it clear that it would do so without jeopardizing the water fluoridation program. According to Peter Silva, EPA Assistant Administrator for the OW:

"EPA's new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride"⁸.

Silva was referring to severe dental fluorosis, broken bones, and skeletal fluorosis as the unwanted health effects. These were the three health effects that the National Research Council of the National Academies in its 2006 report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards singled out. The report recommended that the EPA perform a new health risk assessment to determine a safe drinking water standard for fluoride because they found the current level of 4 ppm was not protective of health.
In its first draft risk assessment, EPA claimed that the most sensitive health effect of fluoride was severe dental fluorosis⁹. Brain effects were ignored by EPA even though many more studies have been published since the NRC made its recommendation. Science does not stand still.
The NRC examined five IQ studies; there have now been nearly five times more at 24!
Making matters worse, the EPA's Office of Water risk assessment excluded the fetus and infants under 6 months of age, as the EPA does not expect them to get dental fluorosis! Whether fluoride impacts the growing tooth enamel during this period or not, this is a very important period for brain development. As noted above, an infant fed formula made with fluoridated water at the proposed lower level of 0.7 ppm will receive 175 times more fluoride than the breast-fed infant.

EPA Research Laboratory Takes Different View

Fortunately, the EPA does not speak with a single voice on fluoride's neurotoxicity. While the EPA's Office of Water ignored any brain effect in its 2011 risk assessment, the Neurotoxicology Division at the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory included fluoride in its list of "Chemicals with Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity", for a new project expected to be launched this year¹⁰.
Ultimately, therefore, the EPA administrator will have to resolve the following question: Is it more important to protect our children's brains or the fluoridation experiment?

Fluoridation Proponents' False Claim

Proponents of fluoridation have dismissed the fluoride-IQ studies on the basis of the claim that the children in these studies were drinking water containing fluoride at much higher levels than used for water fluoridation (approximately 1 ppm).
However, such claims do not bear close scrutiny, Xiang¹¹ estimated that the threshold for IQ lowering was 1.9 ppm and more recently Ding et al. (2011) found a lowering of IQ in the range of 0.3 to 3 ppm. These findings reveal that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect ALL American children drinking uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and ingesting fluoride from other sources (e.g. toothpaste).
While we will discuss this crucial margin of safety argument in more detail below, suffice it to say here that when harm is found in a small human study a safety factor of 10 to 100 is typically applied in order to extrapolate to a level designed to protect a whole population from harm.

The NRC (2006) Review of Fluoride

The NRC panel devoted a whole chapter on the brain in its 507-page 2006 review and concluded:

"it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means."

Of the five IQ studies reviewed by the NRC the panel drew special attention to the study by Xiang et al.¹², which they indicated had the strongest design. The panel described this study:

"This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The IQ test was administered in a double-blind manner. The high-fluoride area had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L). The populations studied had comparable iodine and creatinine concentrations, family incomes, family educational levels, and other factors.
The populations were not exposed to other significant sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires, industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount in the drinking water… the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao was found to be significantly lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai (100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128).
The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure."

The shift in the IQ curves for both males and females are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Distribution of IQ scores from males in Wiamiao and Xinuai. Source: data from Xiang et al. 2003a (as shown in NRC, 2006, Figure 7-2, p. 207).

Figure 2. Distribution of IQ scores from females in Wiamiao and Xinuai. Source: data from Xiang et al. 2003a (as shown in NRC, 2006, Figure 7-1, p. 207).
According to the NRC (p. 206):

"A follow-up study to determine whether the lower IQ scores of the children in Wamiao might be related to differences in lead exposure disclosed no significant difference in blood lead concentrations in the two groups of children¹³."

Xiang extrapolating from the whole set of data estimated that the threshold for IQ lowering would be 1.9 ppm. Below we use this estimate in a margin of safety analysis to calculate a level that would be sufficient to protect all children drinking fluoridated water.
The NRC panel's overall conclusion based on its review of these five IQ studies was:

"A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence."

Incredibly, no fluoridating country has followed up on this. We continue to fly blind on this critical issue. One of the animal studies reviewed by the NRC was the study by Julie A. Varner and co-workers¹⁴ from the State University of New York at Binghamton. These authors fed rats for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water. One group received sodium fluoride, the other aluminum fluoride.
In the rats treated with either fluoride compound, Varner et al. discovered the following:

• Morphological changes in the kidney and the brain
• An increased uptake of aluminum into the brain
• The formation of beta-amyloid deposits, which are a hallmark for Alzheimer's disease

More Brain Studies Published Since NRC 2006 Review

Since the NRC panel wrote its report in 2006 many more animal studies have been published and another 14 IQ studies have either been published or translated. Five more IQ studies wait translation from the original Chinese. This brings the total to 24 IQ studies that have found exposure to fluoride associated with lowered IQ¹⁵.
At least 16 studies on animals have shown that fluoride has an effect upon the hippocampus and nine of these have been published since the NRC's 2006 review. Damage in this area of your brain usually results in difficulties in forming new memories and recalling events that occurred prior to the damage¹⁶.

Xiang Updates His Work¹⁷

An updated version of Xiang et al.'s (2003a) work¹⁸, which included new information about the relationship between the level of fluoride in the children's plasma and IQ was accepted for publication in Environmental Health Perspectives (the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and made available online on December 17, 2010.
This article was later withdrawn when it was found that some of the material had been previously published. However, for those who have used criticisms of the methodologies of some of the 24 IQ studies to justify ignoring the issue completely, it is important to note that the Xiang et al. paper successfully passed the peer-review process of this important journal.

Another Important Fluoride IQ Study

An IQ study published in 2011 by Ding et al.¹⁹ investigated the effects of low levels of fluoride on IQ. Children were exposed to 0.3 to 3 mg F/L fluoride via drinking water. The authors found a very significant linear correlation (p <0.0001) between fluoride levels in the children's urine and lowered IQ (Figure 3). They calculated that there will be a lowering of IQ by 0.59 points for each increase of 1 mg/L urinary fluoride.

Figure 3. The relationship between IQ differences and urine fluoride concentrations. Multiple linear regression model was carried out to confirm the association with urine fluoride exposure and IQ scores (F=9.85, p < 0.0001) (Figure 2, Ding et al., 2011)

Margin of Safety: The Safety Factors Used in Toxicological Assessments

Promoters of fluoridation, either through ignorance or design, betray little understanding of the concept of margin of safety. This is revealed when they dismiss studies carried out at levels higher than 1 ppm as being irrelevant for assessing the risks posed by water fluoridation.
This indicates that they have no appreciation of the difference between concentration and dose.
Someone drinking three liters of water with 1 ppm fluoride would get a higher dose (3 mg) than someone drinking one liter of water with 2 ppm fluoride (2 mg). In other words, it is the dose that hurts people, and thus finding harm at levels as high as 4 ppm are still relevant to a high water consumer drinking water at 1 ppm.
Toxicologists usually have to work from high dose animal experiments to extrapolate to a safe level for humans.
This typically requires the application of a safety factor of 10, when extrapolating from the dose that causes harm in animals to predict a safe dose for humans (in order to account for the potential variation between species). Then a second safety factor of 10 is commonly applied to take into account the full range of sensitivity to any toxic substance that is to be expected in any large population. In other words some individuals are likely to be 10 times more sensitive to fluoride than others.
In the case of fluoride we are in the unusual situation of having quite a large amount of human data to work with, especially in the case of its neurotoxic effects, so it is only necessary to address the variation in sensitivity expected in a large population.
In its January 7, 2011, draft risk assessment the EPA Office of Water took the most unusual tack of not using any safety factor at all when extrapolating from the dose that causes severe dental fluorosis²⁰.
In other words they believed that they had enough data to state – with no uncertainty—that no one consuming less than 0.08 mg of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight per day would develop severe dental fluorosis. For them to legitimately forego any safety factor they need to demonstrate that this purported "threshold" dose is based on sufficiently large numbers of subjects to represent the full range of different vulnerabilities and sensitivities in the U.S. population.
Such variations include: age, income levels, nutritional status, genetic and ethnic variability.
It is notable therefore, that the study on which the EPA's calculations were based²¹ did not include African American or Mexican-American children, or children from a full range of family income levels.
Dr. Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network believes that the EPA Office of Water was forced to choose this "uncertainty factor" of 1 in order to produce a "safe reference dose" that was higher than the dose deemed necessary to protect teeth against decay. In other words, this was a political decision made to protect the water fluoridation program. Even more political was the EPA's willingness to ignore the studies that indicate that fluoride lowers IQ.

No Margin of Safety for Fluoride

The level at which Ding et al. (2011) researchers found a lowering of IQ (0.3-3 ppm) overlaps the range at which fluoride is added to water in the US (0.7 – 1.2 ppm). Even without applying a safety margin to this finding, it would suggest that there is no safe level that would protect ALL of America's children from potential interference with mental development from fluoride exposure via the water supply.
However, Ding et al. state that this is a preliminary finding, and more work should be done to control for possible confounding factors. Meanwhile, it is possible to use the findings of Xiang et al.²² to estimate a safe reference dose to protect all American children from this effect.
This is the task that the EPA Office of Water should have undertaken.
However, as indicated above, their preliminary calculations for the safe reference dose published on January 7, 2011, failed to consider fluoride's potential to lower IQ. The EPA defended its decision to only consider severe dental fluorosis, by claiming that this is the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride's toxicity. The EPA made this claim despite the fact that, in both the Ding and Xiang studies, reductions in IQ were observed among children without severe dental fluorosis. This clearly challenges the EPA's claim that severe dental fluorosis is the most sensitive adverse effect of fluoride.

Other Human Brain Studies

Three other studies from China²³ indicate that aborted fetuses in endemic areas for fluorosis show signs of brain changes compared to aborted fetuses in non-endemic areas.
Moreover, in a study from Mexico²⁴, Rocha-Amador et al found that children exposed to moderate levels of fluoride had impaired visual-spatial recognition abilities. Such impairments could affect a child's development. In 2009 the Rocha-Amador team performed tests²⁵ on children exposed to various neurotoxicants (Fluoride, Arsenic, Lead, DDT, DDE or PCBs). Fluoride exposed children were selected if they had dental fluorosis (a bio-marker for fluoride over-exposure).
All the children exposed to the various neurotoxicants "had very poor performance in Copy and Immediate Recall tests and in general they recalled less information on the Construction/Memory score."
As the authors of these studies note, fluoride's impact on the brain may be evident in the absence of crude reductions in IQ. Indeed, the authors note that IQ tests may well fail to detect fluoride's more subtle effects on cognitive function.
Consistent with Rocha-Amador's research on non-IQ effects, Li et al.²⁶ reported that infants born in areas with high fluoride levels had "significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory orientation reaction" compared to infants born in areas with low fluoride levels.

If this is allowed to stand it will create a dangerous precedent for corporations being able to own parts of your genetic make up. Who knows what freedoms will be curtailed for those of us that have patented genes.

Who Owns Your Genes? The Case Continues…

Today, a divided appellate court upheld patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The ruling partially reverses a landmark decision by a federal district court in March 2010 that concluded that human genes cannot be patented. The appellate court did affirm the district court’s invalidation of several claims on methods for comparing two genetic sequences.
The decision today allows companies like Myriad Genetics, which controls the patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, to exclude others from testing and conducting research on patented genes. Patients who want to obtain genetic testing to determine whether they are at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer have only one option for full genetic sequencing: Myriad Genetics. Myriad decides what tests are offered, which mutations are included, at what cost, and what research can be conducted without fear of patent infringement liability.
The Supreme Court, the court that would hear any appeal, has long held that products of nature are not patentable subject matter. A gene, even once removed from the cell, remains a product of nature. The patentholder did not “invent” the genetic information it embodies, and we will continue to fight for that principle.

I have very little to no trust in anyone that can play the politics game, but it is nice to see one of them ask the right questions.

   One of the biggest drains on the U.S. government's budget is the Drug War. Billions of dollars a year are spent to mostly put non-violent offenders in jail. Obviously drug abuse is not conducive to a productive society, but it is also lucrative for bureaucracy and government corruption. The danger with any type of bureaucracy is that it employees people who need to continue to justify their funding. In the worst case scenario this need will grow into full corruption. The drug war has done just that in America.
    All throughout time drugs have been a money and power generating business. You can look at time periods going back to the beginning of history or as recently as the Opium Wars or prohibition in the 1920's, and you will see powerful people looking to make money off of the drug trades of their days. Some of the most wealthy families of today made their fortunes through the drug trade past and present. In our modern times those who seek to make money off of drugs have found a new way. This bureaucracy is that method.
    As the drugs have been made illegal the war against these drugs have only increased exponentially. With the billions now needed to fund all of the people that fight this drug war the need to justify these expenditures grow. The best way(as with most things)  to ensure these budgets to keep increasing is to make the problem at the same time. This has been shown time and time again. Everyone has heard the rumors of the government shipping in the drugs or police dealing drugs. As they do this it is possible to make money off of selling the drugs while creating the excuse to increase there funding to fight the same drugs.
    Here in America the fact of this practice has become public in the past. However attempted to downplay more recently the Iran Contra Affair is the most well know on a federal level. It is also known in many large cities that certain police work in conjunction with drug traffickers for information and kickbacks.
     Recently there has been a new story that is shinning light on U.S. involvement in drugs coming into America. Federal documents are showing that the U.S. may have let the Sinaloa drug cartel traffic cocaine into the country for intelligence on rival drug cartels involved in the Mexican drug wars. Vicente Zambada-Niebla who is a top lieutenant of drug kingpin Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman and the son of Ismael "Mayo" Zambada-Garcia (possible master mind of the Sinaloa cartel) is shedding light on how Sinaloa was allowed to bring drugs into the U.S. 
    This is coming on the heels of major revelations in the fast and furious scandal. Zambada-Niebla is asking for documents to be presented showing a link between these two scandals and America attempting to divide and concur the drug cartels for their own gains. 
    The real point of this story is the drug war is a scam. You can not rightly put people in jail for something you do business in as well. It is akin to a complicated for of entrapment. Anyway, the constitution of the U.S. doesn't give the right to the government to regulate food or drugs. So, the next time you see someone arrested for some cocaine, ask yourself if that came through channels that the government opened up is that right to arrest that person and ruin their livelihood anymore than the drug already does on its own? Seems like undue punishment.

Saman Mohammadi
THE EXCAVATOR
Aug 4, 2011
This agenda includes the gutting of Social Security and Medicare, an endless war for empire, the economic, security and political unification of Mexico, America and Canada, and top-down control of the economy and society by a technocratic class that answers to criminal bankers and criminal corporations.
The creation of the Super Congress is another step in a process that began long ago, and won’t end until the structures that underpin the American constitutional republic are destroyed once and for all.
By the swish of a pen, the treasonous political leaders from both parties overstepped their colleagues, who are considered half-wits that are blocking their secret agenda of control.
“This provision,” said Congressman Ron Paul, commenting on the Super Congress, “is an excellent way to keep spending decisions out of the reach of members who are not on board with the leadership’s agenda.”
Both President Obama and his treasonous comrades on the other side of the aisle are taking advantage of this hyped crisis to fundamentally change the character of the American political system and pass draconian laws without the active resistance of Congress.
During a calmer state of affairs in Washington they would not have been able to get away with establishing a new legislative body which decisively ends the illusion that Washington can be held accountable to the American people through the voting box.
Time after time, we’ve seen the Hegelian dialectic being used in Washington against the American people. The 9/11 attacks produced a crisis of insecurity and public fear that led to the criminal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and gave the American people the Patriot(Traitor) Act.
Then in September 2008, the big criminal banks on Wall Street, led by Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, generated their own crisis by threatening to blow up the financial system if Congressmen and Senators refused to pass the TARP Bailout bill. The American people’s representatives were bombarded with a campaign of fear and propaganda, with the threat of Martial Law and economic collapse hanging over their heads, if they did not hand over trillions of dollars of the American people’s money to the banks.
As financial analyst Max Kesier, economist Dean Baker, economist Michael Hudson, and others have said over and over again: Wall Street banks and private central bankers regularly use terrorist tactics to get what they want, while leaving the American people to starve and die in their own country, and forcing millions of human beings to live like slaves without homes, without jobs, and without a future.
The crisis that should define the political discourse in America and set the terms of the public debate is a political crisis and a legitimacy crisis, as pointed out by Catherine Austin Fitts, the former Assistant Secretary of Housing, in this interview.
This political crisis centers around the manipulations and hidden machinations of private bankers, aka financial terrorists, who are occupying America with the help of paid-off politicians, including President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.
Once this crisis is recognized by the great majority of the American people it will be an easy thing to overcome it and restore America’s financial independence. And the roots of this political crisis are very, very deep. It goes back to the assassination of JFK, and the creation of the illegal Federal Reserve System. Over the years this crisis has evolved for a reason: it has not been faced yet.
The crisis cannot be fully understood if people overlook the fact that a silent mutiny against America’s constitutional republic took place in November 1963, when the security-intelligence-military-financial apparatus basically took over the office of the Presidency. The traitors had names and faces. Former CIA Director Allen Dulles is one of them. Another is former CIA Director/President George H. W. Bush.
Washington shifted from a constitutional republic to an invisible plutocratic dictatorship after the CIA’s assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Ever since, real American history has been ignored, whitewashed and censored by the CIA-controlled mass media, and academia.
Investigative journalist Russ Baker is one of the few journalists who has a handle on the scale of the treason that was committed against America in 1963. Baker recently wrote in his article,”The NY Times’ Ostrich Act On JFK Assassination Getting Old:
The crisis of legitimacy in Washington extends to other Western capitals, especially London and Ottawa. People in these countries are fed up with the left/right political puppets, the parasitic oligarchy, the secret intelligence agencies that are breaking the law, and the entire Western political system that masquerades as democratic and free.
But the political crisis is not the only crisis that we face in this century. We live in an age of mega-crisis. There exists a true state of global emergency. However, there are fake crises which are generated by greedy oligarchs and authoritarian politicians who are only interested in advancing their own private objectives and interests, and there are real crises that impact us all like endless global war, false flag state terrorism, unemployment, lack of truthful reporting in the media, environmental degradation, and many more. Here is a general list:
Energy Crisis
Crisis of Endless War
Environmental Crisis
Poverty Crisis
Financial Crisis
Political Crisis
Immigration Crisis
Health Care Crisis
Unemployment Crisis
Hunger Crisis
False Flag Terrorism Crisis
Crisis of Conscience
Moral Crisis
Crisis of Confidence in Political Leaders
Accountability Crisis in most Western governments
Constitutional Crisis
U.S. Dollar Crisis
Mainstream Media Crisis
Government Secrecy Crisis
Crisis of Understanding
Crisis of Communication, Truth, and Knowledge
The greatest crisis in the list above is the moral crisis. All the other crises can be fixed if we use our creative and collective imagination. We must stop listening to power-mongering politicians and criminal private bankers that want to bring upon us a tyrannical and totalitarian world system.
Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
King, John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy faced the moral crisis head-on by challenging the forces of the global financial-militarist empire, and showed America that the way towards national redemption and renewal requires unbreakable courage.
All three brave men got their heads cut off in public by the cabal of treasonous usurpers in Washington who are now about to cut the American people’s head off after stuffing it all these years with totalitarian propaganda and evil lies. But the American people’s head is not as soft as these wicked traitors imagine it to be.
Setting up a super global corporate dictatorship on the ruins of America and other collapsing Western countries will be met with resistance.

   Order out of chaos is the mantra of the wise men who make a living out of guiding the direction of humanity. Whether it is in politics or banking, these men know that through crisis and fear they can introduce solutions that would otherwise not be accepted by the general populace. Although highly adaptable humans do not desire change. We as a species gravitate towards the familiar. Due to our nature their is this need for fear of/or crisis to move us to change. Many sciences like psychology, sociology, anthropology and more come together to create the understanding of how to manage human behavior. Whether or not you can see the possibility of the elites of the world to plan in such a manner it is becoming undeniable that these same factors are coming together to create a huge change through all the world, and especially here in America.
     We have been warned of the debt limit crisis numerous times over the past year with the fear being ramped up in the last few weeks.  We have been warned of the possible problems which could be created for America's credit, which will not be adverted regardless of the outcome of this debt limit "crisis". Just as the economic crisis at the end of 2008 people began to feel the fear when the president comes out and tells people that there is something to be afraid of. Traditionally the government, especially the President should try to calm fears because of the irrevocable damage that can be done to the confidence in the economy. This building of tension could just be the fear of a powerful man being expressed, but the result is the priming of the public for a desperate answer for desperate times.
    Like any other mammal Humans can only take so many crises before they break down. Once the someone sees crisis all around them, like Pavlov's dog that person will sit and cower. The human version of this is apathy and addictive consumption of forms of distraction. This would explain the never ending success of all forms of mass media since the complexity of the modern era has been our way of life. This type of aversion or apathy creates a situation ripe for change beyond the normal human tolerance.
    We have come to a moment of major change in what is arguably the most powerful country the world has ever seen. Due to the planned post industrial economy that has been put into place the nation's economy is in dire straits, along with the rest of the industrialized world. In order to avert this crisis of their own creation the House and Senate has passed a bill that will overhaul the very fabric of the legislative body while eroding a major principle of the separation of powers. Relief may wash over the many that will get their social security, payroll, and benefit checks while the rise of a new form of government takes place within this (very) former Republic.
   We have been fear mongered into this decision because Congress could not compromise and act fast enough. The Founding Fathers of this nation knew what the enemies to the liberties of free people. They warned of the power of a King, and the manipulation of the herd mentality of the masses. If this continues it will be the manipulation of the masses that will have allowed the consolidation of power into fewer hands. Now we are looking at something foreign to the principles of American government.
    This new deal will create the recently talked about Super Congress. A group of 13 people will have the authority to create bills and present them to the legislative body for a simple up down vote with out the ability to amend the bills as presented. If the bill does not pass the still have the ability to enact it due to the need to avoid another stalemate in emergency matters such as this debt issue which brought this "problem" in the first place. This group would consist of  6 House members and 6 Senate members with the President the 13th member of this hand picked (without any voice from the people) Super Congress. The legislation that the Super Congress will not be able to be amended or filibustered. It can be passed by a simple majority, and if not it automatically triggers massive spending cuts (possibly to put the fear into politicians to go along with the legislation).
   There are many issues with transparency that is also coming to light. The super congress will be able to receive recommendations, but there will be no public disclosure of such proceedings. At a time when there has been continuing promises of transparency in such issues, this is a huge set back for the calls for the public to have more insight into the inner workings of the nations legislative processes. Some believe that if the public is not aloud to see the source of legislation this super congress will become a breeding ground for ideas that originate from lobbyists that would otherwise be undesirable to most of the public.
    This Super Congress idea was presented to us as only being for solving the debt limit crisis, but even before the bill was passed by both houses of congress high ranking members will announcing how this will be used in any situation that has proved a problem for the powers that be. Just as before this Super committee was dreamed of legislation of all kinds have been wrapped up in budget bills. Many people in government and out of fear that the issues that divide Americans the most will be decided with secret recommendations to this shadowy congressional "star chamber". Groups such as Gun Owners of America have sent out alerts about the possible threat to the 2nd amendment due to the repeated threats of this administration's desire to change this right.
    Some in the media has compared this to be a kind of Leninist takeover of the issue. Lenin like the other tyrannical and socialist governments believe that only select experts have the wisdom to run the country for the benefit of all. If we read the histories, we know that the only benefit is for the experts in government and the bureaucracy. That is obviously the direction in which this steps in. The true voice of the people are being entirely cut out through this new committee. Whether or not it may be something as bad as Leninist, it certainly is not constitutional.
    Despite the passing of this deal which is being hailed as saving us at the last minute there are many saying that this will do nothing to save the country from a major economic crisis unlike what has been seen before. The former Comptroller General David Walker has responded to these fears recently:

“The fact of the matter is that government has grown too big, promised too much and waited too long to restructure. Our problem is overwhelmingly a spending problem.”
“Lets understand something very simple. If you have escalating deficits and mounting debt, that means you have to increase the debt ceiling limit at some point and it means absent structural reforms in entitlement programs, defense and other spending, those represent deferred tax increases.”
“We are not exempt from a debt crisis,” he said. “We’re never going to default, because we can print money. At the same point in time, we have serious interest rate risk, we have serious currency risk, we have serious inflation risk over time. If it happens, it will be sudden and it will be very painful.”

These problems with inflation has destroyed the value of our money, and as a result we do not pay back our debt with the proper value. In order for our creditors to get the proper value for the loans made our credit rating will still have to be downgraded. The fixes are all propaganda because, China has even declared it publicly that America has already begun to default on our debt.
    However true it is that our government has not been wise in it's economic policy, it needs to be noticed that the majority of the post industrial countries in the world have taken a similar economic policy. You need production capabilities to make money, but the governments have legislated and along with international finance bankers have funded the pooling of production capabilities in a select few countries (examples: China, India, Brazil). This along with the government taking on the debt of failed banks and all that entails has backed us into a debt corner where we can't ever pay it all back.
    We have possible seen the rise of a new government out of the confusion and apathy of fear. A new government that will only be for the benefit of the elite and the parasite bankers/corporations that have been feeding off of the taxes we pay.
    This situation is the very definition for the meaning of the quote from Plato, “Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” That is why it is those who are not enveloped by the fog which is created by this modern times and propaganda to sound the alarms that the form of government that has protected our liberties for all of our history has had a war started upon it. We can't allow the author Plato (teacher to the elite) be correct. Human will and freedom can defeat all.