ELECTION 2016 Bernie Sanders Is Exceeding Obama’s Historic 2008 Run in Crowds, Donors and Polling

In three key areas, Sanders is actually ahead of the insurgent campaign Barack Obama ran in 2007 and 2008.

When Bernie Sanders announced he would be running for president late in the Spring of 2015, many observers didn’t take it seriously – making analogies to failed perennial candidates like Ron Paul, who had a fervent base but did not make traction in the election.

The problem with these early predictions is that it quickly became clear that they were underestimating the Vermont Senator’s campaign.

In three key areas, Sanders is actually exceeding the insurgent campaign Barack Obama ran in 2007 and 2008.

Record-Breaking Crowds

Over the summer, it became clear that Sanders was drawing some of the largest crowds in Democratic primary history – with tens of thousands pouring out into cities to see the senator.

Up until this point in 2007, the largest rally Obama had held was a rally in New York City, our nation’s most populated location, that brought out 24,000 people. Sanders has exceeded that in numerous locations that are actually much smaller in population – Boston, Portland, and Los Angeles.

Earlier this month, Sanders set a record for the largest Democratic primary rally in Boston’s recorded history.

Sanders also has a campaign that is working hard to translate these crowds into volunteers. In late July, his campaign mobilized over 100,000 people for community meetings to support his bid; today, his campaign has developed a map that shows all of the organizing events currently planned:

Record-Breaking Donations

At the end of September, the Sanders campaign announced that it had hit one million donations – faster than any presidential campaign in history. This was a target that the Obama campaign did not hit until February 2008 during its own challenge to Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps even more remarkable is that this milestone was achieved with an average contribution of $24.86; although the Obama campaign was quick to boast of its sizable number of small donors, 47 percent of his money ended up coming from small donors, less than half.

Polling Stronger Than Barack Obama

Obama managed an upset of frontrunner Hillary Clinton that few believed to be possible. But at this point in his initial campaign, he was polling well behind her. Real Clear Politics has a chart showing polling averages among major pollsters for that primary. In early October, Obama was at 22.6  percent to Hillary Clinton’s 48.2 percent:

They also have one for this primary

Sanders is at 25.4 percent to 42 percent for Hillary Clinton, meaning that the gap is around 17 points, when it was 26 points between Obama and Hillary at this time.

Deciding Days

None of this is to say that Sanders will necessarily defeat Clinton. Much of that depends on his ability to defeat her in early primary and caucus states, which would give him the momentum for Super Tuesday and the rest of the nation’s primary elections. The Obama campaign’s strong ground teams in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina gave him the momentum to increase turnout and defeat the frontrunner who was trouncing him just a few months prior.

For Sanders, these early elections will be the deciding days, to see if he can continue on a viable path to the White House.

The Final Leaked TPP Text Is All That We Feared

thumb73By Jeremy Malcolm

Today’s release by WikiLeaks of what is believed to be the current and essentially final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn’t survive to the end of the negotiations.

Since we now have the agreed text, we’ll be including some paragraph references that you can cross-reference for yourself—but be aware that some of them contain placeholders like “x” that may change in the cleaned-up text. Also, our analysis here is limited to the copyright and Internet-related provisions of the chapter, but analyses of the impacts of other parts of the chapter have been published byWikiLeaks and others.

Binding Rules for Rightsholders, Soft Guidelines for Users

If you skim the chapter without knowing what you’re looking for, it may come across as being quite balanced, including references to the need for IP rules to further the “mutual advantage of producers and users” (QQ.A.X), to “facilitate the diffusion of information” (QQ.A.Z), and recognizing the “importance of a rich and accessible public domain” (QQ.B.x). But that’s how it’s meant to look, and taking this at face value would be a big mistake.

If you dig deeper, you’ll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

Another, and perhaps the most egregious example of this bias against users is the important provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright (QQ.G.17). In a pitifully ineffectual nod towards users, it suggests that parties “endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,” but imposes no hard obligations for them to do so, nor even offers U.S.-style fair use as a template that they might follow. The fact that even big tech was ultimately unable to move the USTR on this issue speaks volumes about how utterly captured by Hollywood the agency is.

Expansion of Copyright Terms

Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.

Could it have been worse? In fact, yes it could have; we were spared a 120-year copyright term for corporate works, as earlier drafts foreshadowed. In the end corporate works are to be protected for 70 years after publication or performance, or if they are not published within 25 years after they were created, for 70 years after their creation. This could make a big difference in practice. It means that the film Casablanca, probably protected in the United States until 2038, would already be in the public domain in other TPP countries, even under a life plus 70 year copyright term.

New to the latest text are the transition periods in Section J, which allow some countries a longer period for complying with some of their obligations, including copyright term. For example, Malaysia has been allowed two years to extend its copyright term to life plus 70 years. For Vietnam, the transition period is five years. New Zealand is the country receiving the most “generous” allowance; its term will increase to life plus 60 years initially, rising to the full life plus 70 year term within eight years. Yet Canada, on the other hand, has not been given any transition period at all.

Ban on Circumventing Digital Rights Management (DRM)

The provisions in QQ.G.10 that prohibit the circumvention of DRM or the supply of devices for doing so are little changed from earlier drafts, other than that the opposition of some countries to the most onerous provisions of those drafts was evidently to no avail. For example, Chile earlier opposed the provision that the offense of DRM circumvention is to be “independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyright and related rights,” yet the final text includes just that requirement.

The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed. Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.

The parties’ flexibility to allow DRM circumvention also requires them to consider whether rightsholders have already taken measures to allow those non-infringing uses to be made. This might mean that rightsholders will rely on the walled-garden sharing capabilities built in to their DRM systems, such as Ultraviolet, to oppose users being granted broader rights to circumvent DRM.

Alongside the prohibition on circumvention of DRM is a similar prohibition (QQ.G.13) on the removal of rights management information, with equivalent civil and criminal penalties. Since this offense is, once again, independent of the infringement of copyright, it could implicate a user who crops out an identifying watermark from an image, even if they are using that image for fair use purposes and even if they otherwise provide attribution of the original author by some other means.

The distribution of devices for decrypting encrypted satellite and cable signals is also separately proscribed (QQ.H.9), posing a further hazard to hackers wishing to experiment with or to repurpose broadcast media.

Criminal Enforcement and Civil Damages

On damages, the text (QQ.H.4) remains as bad as ever: rightsholders can submit “any legitimate measure of value” to a judicial authority for determination of damages, including the suggested retail price of infringing goods. Additionally, judges must have the power to order pre-established damages (at the rightsholder’s election), or additional damages, each of which may go beyond compensating the rightsholder for its actual loss, and thereby create a disproportionate chilling effect for users and innovators.

No exception to these damages provisions is made in cases where the rightsholder cannot be found after a diligent search, which puts the kibosh on ideas for the introduction of an orphan works regime that would cap remedies available against those who reproduce these otherwise-unavailable works.

One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family’s home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center.

In some cases (QQ.H.7), the penalties for copyright infringement can even include jail time. Traditionally, this has because the infringer is operating a business of commercial piracy. But under the TPP, any act of willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale renders the infringer liable to criminal penalties, even if they were not carried out for financial gain, provided that they have a substantial prejudicial impact on the rightsholder. The copying of films that are still playing in movie theaters is also subject to separate criminal penalties, regardless of the scale of the infringement.

Trade Secrets

The severity of the earlier language on trade secrets protection has not been abated in the final text. It continues to criminalize those who gain “unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system,” without any mandatory exception for cases where the information is accessed or disclosed in the public interest, such as by investigative journalists or whistleblowers.

There is no evident explanation for the differential treatment given to trade secrets accessed or misappropriated by means of a computer system, as opposed to by other means; but it is no surprise to find the U.S. pushing such a technophobic provision, which mirrors equivalent provisions of U.S. law that have been used to persecute hackers for offenses that would otherwise have been considered much more minor.

Top-Down Control of the Internet

ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furor earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN’s flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

The TPP’s prescription of rules for domain names completely disregards the fact that most country code domain registries have their own, open, community-driven processes for determining rules for managing domain name disputes. More than that, this top-down rulemaking on domain names is in direct contravention of the U.S. administration’s own firmly-stated commitment to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Obviously, Internet users cannot trust the administration that it means what it says when it gives lip-service to multi-stakeholder governance—and that has ramifications that go even even deeper than this terrible TPP deal.

ISP Liability

The provisions on ISP liability (Appendix Section I), as we previously found in the last leaked text, are not quite as permissive as we hoped. It will still require most countries to adopt a version of the flawed U.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown system, albeit with a few safeguards such as penalties for those who issue wrongful takedown notices, and allowing (but not requiring) a Japanese-style system of verification of takedown notices by an independent body of ISPs and rightsholders.

It is true that Canada’s notice-and-notice regime is also allowed, but effectively only for Canada—no other country that did not have an equivalent system as of the date of the agreement is allowed to benefit from that flexibility. Even in Canada’s case, this largesse is only afforded because of the other enforcement measures that rightsholders enjoy there—such as a tough regime of secondary liability for authorization of copyright infringement.

Similarly Chile’s system under which ISPs are not required to take down content without a judicial order is explicitly grandfathered in, but no other country joining the TPP in the future will be allowed to have a similar system.

In addition, although there is no explicit requirement for a graduated response regime of copyright penalties against users, ISPs are still roped in as copyright enforcers with the vague requirement (Appendix Section 1) that they be given “legal incentives…to cooperate with copyright owners to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyright materials.”

Good Points?

Quite honestly there are no parts of this agreement that are positively good for users. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s not improved over the earlier, horrendous demands of the U.S. negotiators. Some of the areas in which countries rightly pushed back against the U.S., and which are reflected in the final text are:

  • The exhaustion of rights provision (QQ.A.11) that upholds the first sale doctrine of U.S. law, preventing copyright owners from extending their control over the resale of copyright works once they have first been placed in the market. In particular, this makes parallel importation of cheaper versions of copyright works lawful—and complementing this is an explicit authorization of devices that bypass region-coding on physical copies of such works (QQ.G.10, though this does not extend to bypassing geoblocking of streaming services).
  • A thoroughly-misguided provision that would have extended copyright protection to temporary or “buffer” copies in a computer system was one of the earliest rightsholder demands dropped by the USTR, and rightfully so, given the damage this would have wreaked to tech companies and users alike.

But we have struggled to come up with more than two positive points about the TPP, and even then the absence of these tragic mistakes is a pretty poor example of a positive point. If you look for provisions in the TPP that actually afford new benefits to users, rather than to large, rights-holding corporations, you will look in vain. The TPP is the archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled, politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over the last eight years.

There is nothing in here for users and innovators to support, and much for us to fear—the ratcheting up of the copyright term across the Pacific rim, the punitive sanctions for DRM circumvention, and the full frontal attack on hackers and journalists in the trade secrets provision, just to mention three. This latest leak has confirmed our greatest fears—and strengthened our resolve to kill this agreement for good once it reaches Congress.

Image Credit

To read the latest news in digital privacy and activism, please visit and support EFF.org.

David Cameron Forced To Explain His Support Of Saudi Arabia

“It’s because we receive important intelligence and security information from them that keeps us safe…”

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — On Tuesday’s Channel 4 news, David Cameron repeatedly refused to answer journalist Jon Snow’s questions on Britain’s secret pact with Saudi Arabia, one of the worst human rights abusing regimes on earth. The toe-curling interview shows slippery Cameron grasping for words and wheeling out the terror threat as Snow pushes for answers on why Britain initiated a secret deal with Saudi Arabia ensuring both were elected onto the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Demanding to know what Britain is doing to prevent the planned execution of a young pro-democracy activist in Saudi Arabia, Snow’s technique was straight to the point as ever: “You’ve been asked to intercede with the Saudis in the case of 17-year-old Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was arrested at the age of 14 and who faces execution and crucifixion. Have you?” he asked.

“We have raised this as a government, yes.” Cameron replied.

“But have you personally?” Snow interrupted.

Appearing flustered, Cameron responded: “No, the foreign secretary has raised this, our Embassy has raised this, we raised this in the proper way. I’ll look to see if there’s an opportunity for me to raise this as well,” he bluffed, insisting that Britain opposes the death penalty “anywhere and everywhere.”

Snow then seized the opportunity to question the PM on the secret deal — exposed by Wikileaks—  that saw both Saudi Arabia and the U.K. elected to the Human Rights Council. He referred to it as “squalid.”

Defending the relationship with Saudi Arabia, Cameron said Britain “completely disagrees” with the butchering state’s punishment routines. Snow then asks three times why, if this is the case, the sordid deal was made. “Well, I’ve answered the question,” Cameron retorts, not answering the question.

Asked how he can be sure that some Saudi clerics and Wahhabi radicals are not involved in fueling the very people Britain are trying to defeat (ISIS), Cameron again avoided the question by stressing the terror threat and maneuvering onto his favourite topic ─ national security.

“It’s because we receive important intelligence and security information from them that keeps us safe,” he claimed, giving the example of a bomb that could potentially of blown up over Britain — if it weren’t for Saudi Arabian intelligence.

Although he didn’t address the £1.8 bn in U.K. arms export licenses to the Saudis, Britain needs more journalists like Snow ─ if only to expose the shifty double-speak and spin our politicians resort to when cornered.


This article (Watch Journalist Force David Cameron to Explain His Support of Saudi Arabia) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org.

Cowspiracy The Sustainability Secret:

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret is a groundbreaking feature-length environmental documentary following intrepid filmmaker Kip Andersen as he uncovers the most destructive industry facing the planet today – and investigates why the world’s leading environmental organizations are too afraid to talk about it.

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, water consumption and pollution, is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry, and is a primary driver of rainforest destruction, species extinction, habitat loss, topsoil erosion, ocean “dead zones,” and virtually every other environmental ill. Yet it goes on, almost entirely unchallenged.

As Andersen approaches leaders in the environmental movement, he increasingly uncovers what appears to be an intentional refusal to discuss the issue of animal agriculture, while industry whistleblowers and watchdogs warn him of the risks to his freedom and even his life if he dares to persist.

As eye-opening as Blackfish and as inspiring as An Inconvenient Truth, this shocking yet humorous documentary reveals the absolutely devastating environmental impact large-scale factory farming has on our planet, and offers a path to global sustainability for a growing population.

This movie is not available on youtube

https://www.primewire.ag/watch-2755886-Cowspiracy-The-Sustainability-Secret-online-free

click on vidzi.tv link

Energy-hungry desalination plants will turn all California residents into global warming sinners and destroyers of life

by Mike Adams

The irony is inescapable: In reaction to the historic drought that has transformed the California dream into California dust, the state is now embarking on the construction of a wave of desalination plants that will turn ocean water into fresh water. Tragically, these power-hungry desalination plants will be running primarily on fossil fuel-generated electricity, meaning that California residents will have to commit global warming crimes (i.e. producing carbon dioxide) every time they flush their toilets or take a shower.

Fresh water, in other words, is about to have a “fossil fuel consumption equivalent” across the state. Every gallon of water consumed will have a calculable CO2 emission profile and mercury pollution factor, meaning that a person will not be able to live in California without being a global warming sinner.

California, of course, is the state that prides itself on being progressive and environmentally conscious. Yes its non-sustainable lifestyle consumed the region’s limited fossil water supplies to the point of near-collapse. Now, it must become America’s worst carbon dioxide producer just to provide basic water supplies to its people. And where will all the natural gas and coal come from that powers these desalination plants?The very same energy-producing states that Californians typically condemn for producing fossil fuels.

Flush a toilet and you destroy the planet

Most eco-conscious Californians are unaware that the energy they use comes predominantly from fossil fuels. (See source.) Natural gas — which produces carbon dioxide when burned — generates almost half the state’s electricity. Coal generates another eight percent or so, meaning that fossil fuels provide the majority of California’s electricity. (Renewables only provide about 18 percent, and nuclear provides another nine percent or so.)

What this means is that as more and more desalination plants come online, they’ll be using primarily fossil fuels to process water — an energy-intensive operation.

“A $1 billion desalination plant to supply booming San Diego County is under construction here and due to open as early as November, providing a major test of whether California cities will be able to resort to the ocean to solve their water woes,” reports the New York Times. “Plans are far along for a large plant in Huntington Beach that would supply water to populous Orange County. A mothballed plant in Santa Barbara may soon be reactivated. And more than a dozen communities along the California coast are studying the issue.”

As each of these plants comes online, they will add an extremely high energy cost to the water consumed by California residents. Every act that consumes water — washing your hands, watering a garden, flushing a toilet — will carry a heightened ecological cost. When water simply falls out of the sky, consuming that water is ecologically sound. But when water has to be procured using extremely energy-intensive desalination systems, it can no longer be considered a “green” resource.

“[Desalination plants] will use a huge amount of electricity, increasing the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming, which further strains water supplies,” writes the New York Times, reiterating what the liberal media calls “concluded science” which claims modern-day global warming is almost entirely caused by human activity. If that’s the case, however, then Californians who consume water produced by desalination plants must categorize themselves as global warming sinners who are destroying the planet every time they drink a cup of water.

As Food and Water Watch writes:

Enormous amounts of energy are needed to force ocean water through tiny membrane filters at a high pressure. Ocean water desalination can be greater than ten times more energy intensive than other supply sources. Ocean desalination proponents, such as private corporations Poseidon Resources and American Water, plan to locate plants alongside existing coastal power plants, thus potentially spurring their emission of global warming pollution.

To be consistent with their beliefs, then, California’s environmentalists must now either reject all water consumption or leave the region. The mere act of living in California and consuming any water at all — such as flushing a toilet — will soon be a direct violation of fundamental ecological principles.

Simultaneously, California itself will become a symbol of ecological destruction as it burns fossil fuels to generate water for cities that probably never should have been built in the desert in the first place.

Ironically, California’s heavy dependence on fossil fuels to produce water will worsen the drought, according to those who follow the global warming narrative. Even according to the New York Times as stated above, fossil fuel-powered desalination will cause California to accelerate its own demise as it contributes to a worsening of global warming. This, ecologically speaking, is a “spiral of death” that can only lead to California ultimately becoming all but uninhabitable by humans.

Desalination also destroys ocean life

Desalinating ocean water, by the way, has destructive ecological consequences far beyond the fossil fuels needed to power it.

“Both the intake of seawater and the disposal of excess salt into the ocean can harm sea life,” explains the New York Times. “Sucking in huge amounts of seawater, for instance, can kill fish eggs and larvae by the billions.”

It also dumps concentrated salt (brine) back into the ocean, where it contaminates the water due to unusually high salt concentration, functioning as a kind of localized poison that kills off nearby marine species. “The brine, or super salty wastewater created from the desalination process, also has the potential to upset our delicate coastal ecosystems,” writes Food and Water Watch.

This means the daily consumption of water in California is not just equated with carbon dioxide emissions… it also directly contributes to the death of life in the Pacific Ocean.

In the near future dominated by desalination, then, merely living in California makes you a bad person because you are killing ocean life and destroying the environment with every drop of water you consume or waste.

“Desalination of the sea is not the answer to our water problems. It is survival technology, a life support system, an admission of the extent of our failure.” — John Archer (Food and Water Watch Desalination Report – PDF)

Californians about to put evil corporations in charge of their water lifeline

There’s another surprising angle on all this: Shifting to water desalination puts “evil corporations” in charge of your water lifeline. As Food and Water Watch writes:

Ocean desalination provides a new opportunity for private corporations to own and sell water. Currently, there is little regulation of these facilities, creating the possibility that private corporations would rate-gouge thirsty populations — similar to what happened in the Enron energy scheme.

Corporate control of water supplies is a top concern among environmentalists and those focused on “environmental justice.” When corporations like Nestle seize control of water systems in third world countries, the company is (rightly) condemned by activists who point out that water should never be controlled by for-profit corporations that can price gouge the local population. Yet that’s exactly what California is now pursuing!

As we all learned from the Enron fiasco, when there’s money to be made, corporations consistently place profits as a higher priority than human compassion or human rights. To hand over a significant portion of the state’s water supply to for-profit corporations is to invite an inevitable humanitarian catastrophe as those corporations realize people can be forced to pay almost anything for water.

Population reduction is the “ultimate solution” to the water problem, say death-promoting extremist scientists

To save the state from a hydrological collapse, water must now be portrayed as evil. People who consume water must be tattled on, reported to authorities or publicly humiliated. Social pressures will now turn California into a state where un-showered people living in overpriced homes manicured with dead lawns and abandoned swimming pools will triple stack their toilet bowls before flushing in order to live within their own self-imposed boundaries of ecological guilt. They will drink their own recycled urine, condemn corporate-owned water bottling plants and vandalize golf courses as a form of ecological protest.

And yet, despite their best efforts, every breath they exhale will be their own personal reminder of how they are destroying the planet. It’s not just the CO2 they’re exhaling, of course: it’s also the water that’s lost with each breath. Replacing that water now requires contributing to global warming by burning fossil fuels, meaning the very act of human respiration is a crime against the planet if you live in California.

The solution to all this, according to an alarming number of technology billionaires, death-loving scientists and radical activists, is to forcibly reduce human population. If the mere act of breathing makes you a threat to the planet, then the world can be saved by literally stopping a few billion people breathing, they believe.

Remember Bill Gates’ famous population reduction equation? As I wrote in this Natural News article in 2010:

In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.”

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number — P (for People) — might be reduced. He says:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

It’s no surprise, then, that vaccines given to young women in Kenya were recently found to be spiked with sterilization chemicals for population control. “We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”

It’s also no surprise that many academics in the United States, such as Dr. Eric Pianka, openly talk about solving the population problem with weaponized viral pandemics. “Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a Texas ecologist and herpetologist … suggested during a meeting at the Texas Academy of Sciences that, were Ebola to become airborne, it would likely kill 90 percent of the human population and instantly solve what he called the ‘overpopulation problem.'” (Natural News)

Similarly, Dr. Charles Arntzen, head of The Biodesign Institute for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, publicly joked about using a genetically engineered virus to kill off 25 percent of the population: (SOURCE)

Has anybody seen “Contagion?” (laughter) That’s the answer! Go out and use genetic engineering to create a better virus. (laughter) Twenty-five percent of the population is supposed to go in “Contagion.”

Read more about vaccine-induced population reduction at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/047571_vaccines_s…

Watch the Bill Gates population reduction video at:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A155D11345…

America’s Red Meat Horror Show: Why We Must Get Rid of Factory Farms

It’s time to stop fighting among ourselves about whether or not to eat meat.
 

For the first time since the advent of industrial agriculture, the federal government is considering advising Americans to eat “less red and processed meat.”

That advice is the outcome of studies conducted by an independent panel of “experts” which was asked by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for recommended changes to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.

The February 19 “eat less red and processed meat” pronouncement by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) was reported widely in mainstream media. It set off a heated debate about whether or not consumers should eat meat, a debate that included the standard name-calling by factory farm front groups, including the Farm Bureau, denouncing consumers and environmentalists (and their alleged pawns on the DGAC) for being “anti-meat” and “anti-farmer.”

Unfortunately in its recommendations, the DGAC didn’t really come out and tell us the whole truth, which would go something like this: “Americans should eat less, or rather no red and processed meat from filthy, inhumane factory farms or feedlots, where the animals are cruelly crammed together and routinely fed a diet of herbicide-drenched, genetically engineered grains, supplemented by a witch’s brew of antibiotics, artificial hormones, steroids, blood, manure and slaughterhouse waste, contributing to a deadly public health epidemic of obesity, heart disease, cancer, antibiotic resistance, hormone disruption and food allergies.”

If the DGAC had really told us the truth about America’s red meat horror show (95 percent of our red meat comes from these Confined Animal Feeding Operations or CAFOs), we’d be having a conversation about how we can get rid of factory farms, instead of a rather abstract debate on the ethics of eating meat.

With a real debate we could conceivably start to change the self-destructive purchasing and eating habits (the average American carnivore consumes nine ounces or more of toxic CAFO meat and animal products daily) of most Americans. Instead we are having a slightly more high-volume replay of the same old debate, whereby vegetarians and vegans, constituting approximately 5 percent of the population, tell the other 95 percent, who are omnivores, to stop eating meat. Nothing much ever comes of that particular debate, which leaves thousands of hard-working, conscientious ranchers, and millions of health-, environment- and humane-minded omnivores, out of the conversation.

I say thousands of “hard-working, conscientious,” ranchers are being left out of the conversation because I know lots of them.

North American cattle ranchers, for the most part, have no love for Cargill, Tyson, Monsanto, JBS, Smithfield, Elanco (animal drugs) or McDonald’s. Most of these ranchers practice traditional animal husbandry, conscientiously taking care of their animals from birth. They graze their cattle free-range on grass, as nature intended, before they’re forced to sell these heretofore-healthy animals at rock-bottom prices to the monopolistic meat cartel.

Before these hapless creatures are dragged away to hell, to be fattened up on GMO grains and drugged up in America’s CAFOs, their meat is high in beneficial Omega 3 and conjugated linoleic acids (LA), and low in “bad” fats.

Unfortunately by the time their abused and contaminated carcasses arrive, all neatly packaged, at your local supermarket, restaurant or school cafeteria, the meat is low in Omega 3 and good “fats,” and routinely tainted by harmful bacteria, not to mention pesticide, steroid and antibiotic residues. What was once a healthy food has now become a literal poison that clogs up your veins, makes you fat, and heightens your risk of heart attack or cancer.

I mention millions of “health-, environment-, and humane-minded” consumers being left out of the “meat versus no meat” conversation because, as director of the two million-strong, Organic Consumers Association, I talk and exchange emails with conscious consumers every day.

No organic consumer, vegetarian or omnivore I’ve ever encountered consciously supports the cruelty of intensive confinement for farm animals. Nor do they support feeding herbivores genetically engineered, herbicide-drenched grains, mixed with slaughterhouse waste. No one supports dosing factory farmed animals with antibiotics and hormones that then end up in your kid’s hamburger at school (unless it’s organic or 100-percent grass-fed.)

No one in their right mind, or at least no one who has ever experienced a factory farm first-hand or even read a book or watched a video about what’s going on, supports CAFOs. That’s why corporate agribusiness is working overtime to pass state “Ag Gag” laws making it a crime to take photos of CAFOs. That’s why the beef cartel and Big Food spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to keep you in the dark about CAFOs, about whether or not your food contains genetically engineered ingredients, and about the country-of-origin of your food.

If CAFO meat and animal products had to be labeled (a proposition I support wholeheartedly), the entire factory farm industry would collapse. If CAFO meat had to be labeled, not only in grocery stores but also in restaurants,

McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s and the rest would immediately be on the phone, contacting ranchers directly to buy their grass-fed, healthy, free- range beef.

Before we go any further, let’s identify the real culprits in this CAFO horror show.

Four multi-billion dollar transnational companies—Tyson JBS, Cargill and Smithfield—produce about 85 percent of the factory farm meat in the U.S., making it difficult for ranchers to sell their livestock to anyone but the Big Four. And of course these same Big Four companies, along with their front groups such as the North American Meat Institute, are lobbying the government to ditch the 2015 dietary guidelines to “eat less red and processed meat” recommendation because they understand what that recommendation will do to their bottom lines.

But what the Big Four fear even more is the thought of consumers waking up to the horrors of factory farms, and the filthy, contaminated meat that comes out of these animal prisons.

Fortunately, demand for healthier, sustainably raised grass-fed beef is growing rapidly. Here in Minneapolis-St. Paul where I spend a good part of the year, there are now over 100 restaurants that offer grass-fed beef on their menus. Local co-ops and natural food grocery stores are barely able to keep up with the increasing consumer demand.

But unfortunately 95 percent of beef today still comes from factory farms and feedlots. Meanwhile most of the 100-percent grass-fed meat sold at restaurants such as Chipotle or Carl’s Jr. (a popular chain on the West Coast) is imported from Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay and Argentina, rather than produced here in the US. Why? It’s not because consumers don’t want healthier, more humanely raised 100-percent grass fed beef. It’s because Cargill and Big Food have monopolized the market by brainwashing the public into believing that cheap CAFO meat is OK, while controlling nearly all of the meat processing plants in the country.

The time has come to shift the American diet away from unhealthy, inhumane, GMO factory farmed food. But as Kendra Kimbirauskas of the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project (SRAP) pointed out at her TEDx talk in New York City recently, we, conscious consumers and farmers, “need to get on common ground” and stop “in-fighting over whether to eat ethical meat, go meat-free, or advocate for bigger cages…” As Kimbirauskas emphasizes, we need to enlist environmentalists in our anti-CAFO campaigning as well.

“As long as animals are in factory farms, they are polluting our environment”… And, Kimbirauskas added, “Those most impacted by the problem (farmers and rural people adjacent to CAFOs) need to be most visible in the fight to change It.”

Meat (along with eggs and dairy products) from factory farms is literally killing people with diet-related diseases. Factory farms are a disaster, not only for the animals, but also for the communities where manure and chemical fertilizers and pesticides pollute the air, the soil, streams, lakes, rivers and drinking water.

Factory farms and the GMO farms that supply them with animal feed are a disaster for the climate as well, releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases, including CO2, methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. The grasslands that support grass-fed beef, on the other hand, if grazed properly, sequester CO2 from the air and put it in the soil, while drastically reducing or eliminating altogether methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

It’s time to stop fighting among ourselves about whether or not to eat meat. Americans need to boycott all factory farmed meat and animal products. Period.

Beyond boycotting CAFO products, if consumers care about their health and the health of the planet, we need to reduce our consumption of sustainable grass-fed animal products to approximately three or four ounces a day (not nine ounces a day, the current average).

We are what we eat. We must get rid of factory farms and put the Earth’s billions of confined farm animals back outside on the land, grazing and foraging, where they belong.

‘People vs. Shell’: High Seas Protest as Greenpeace Boards Arctic-Bound Ship

U.S. Department of Interior has approved Shell’s drilling lease for the Chukchi Sea in the Alaskan Arctic, but the international green group has vowed to escalate its opposition

Six Greenpeace climbers have intercepted an Arctic-bound Shell oil rig in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, 750 miles north-west of Hawaii and have scaled the enormous ship. (Photo: Vincenzo Floramo/Greenpeace)

In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a team of Greenpeace activists has boarded an Arctic-bound drilling vessel owned by the Shell oil company.

“I’m just one voice out here, but I know I’m not alone, and millions if not billions of voices demanding the right to safe and healthy lives will have a huge chance of changing things.” —Johno SmithApproximately 750 miles north-west of Hawaii, the team of six campaigners intercepted the ship—which they’ve been tracking across the Pacific since last month—and scaled the 38,000 ton drilling platform which is being hauled by a larger transportation vessel. According to Greenpeace, its campaigners will set up camp on the underside of the rig’s main deck and are equipped with supplies to last for several days and technology which will allow them to communicate with supporters around the world in real-time, despite being hundreds of miles from land.

The group is using the hastag #TheCrossing to post photos and live updates from the rig:

Named the Polar Pioneer, the Shell drilling rig is destined for the Chukchi Sea, off the coast of Alaska, where the company—despite the enormous risks posed to the fragile region and the global outcry calling for a ban on Arctic drilling—intends to begin exploratory drilling later this year. According to Greenpeace, its international team of activists—including campaigners from the USA, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and Austria—landed on the larger ship transporting the Polar Pioneer, the 700-foot long heavy-lift vessel called the Blue Marlin, using inflatable boats launched from the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, which has been following the 400 foot vessel for weeks.

Aliyah Field, one of the six, tweeted from the Polar Pioneer: “We made it! We’re on Shell’s platform. And we’re not alone. Everyone can help turn this into a platform for people power! #TheCrossing.”

Johno Smith from New Zealand, another one of the six, said: “We’re here to highlight that in less than 100 days Shell is going to the Arctic to drill for oil. This pristine environment needs protecting for future generations and all life that will call it home. But instead Shell’s actions are exploiting the melting ice to increase a man-made disaster. Climate change is real and already inflicting pain and suffering on my brothers and sisters in the Pacific.”

The group, according to a statement, has plans to hang a banner from the ship that includes millions of names from people around the world who have signed onto petitions objecting to oil or gas drilling in the Arctic.

As Smith continued, “I believe that shining a light on what Shell is doing will encourage more people to take a strong stand against them and other companies who are seeking to destroy this planet for profit. I’m just one voice out here, but I know I’m not alone, and millions if not billions of voices demanding the right to safe and healthy lives will have a huge chance of changing things.”

Shell spokesperson Kelly op de Weegh, in a statement, called the boarding of its ship by Greenpeace “illegal” and said that “these stunts” would not “distract from preparations underway” to begin its  drilling operations in the Arctic, which she described as a “safe and responsible exploration program.”

In recent weeks, a decision by the Obama administration to give final approval for Shell to resume its drilling operations in the waters off the Alaskan coast was met by a chorus of outrage and criticism by Greenpeace and other experts who say there is no such thing as safely drilling in the Arctic.

“It is unconscionable that the federal government is willing to risk the health and safety of the people and wildlife that live near and within the Chukchi Sea for Shell’s reckless pursuit of oil,” said Marissa Knodel, a climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth, at the time. “Shell’s dismal record of safety violations and accidents, coupled with the inability to clean up or contain an oil spill in the remote, dangerous Arctic waters, equals a disaster waiting to happen.”