Secret Presidential Chemtrail Budget Uncovered

Exposed: Secret Presidential Chemtrail Budget Uncovered – Congress Exceeds Billions To Spray Populace Like Roaches

—The Budget Obama Didn’t Want You To Know About

The Intel Hub
Shepard Ambellas & Avalon
March 30, 2011
© 2011 All Rights Reserved

Geoengineering has now been defined as: “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.” – The Royal Society 2009
Recently, the question has been asked, What In the World Are They Spraying? The documentary with the same name answers many of those questions.
The question the world is now asking is “Who in the World Is Spraying Us?”

The World is Now Demanding Answers and Accountability…

As an introduction to this article, we will first cover information to familiarize the uninformed readers as to the core facts and information so that a more complete understanding is possible, given this complex issue.
A recent report by CBS Atlanta detailed how some local citizens are outraged that such “crimes against humanity” are being carried out right before our eyes in secret.
In the report Sen. Johnny Isakson was interviewed on the subject of chemtrails saying quote:

“That is a theory that some people have, but there is no evidence this is happening. This is not happening.”

It looks as if members of the government’s upper echelon and even members of the Senate will go to extreme lengths to suppress this vital information from reaching the American people.
Not to mention they signed off on the multi-billion dollar per year budgets in an economic crisis, with little to no transparency to the public.
Support The Intel Hub – Berkey Light Water Filters, Storable Food, and More(Ad)
In regards to aerosol spraying into the earth’s atmosphere, a recent update to data assembled by The Carnicom Institute reveals the chemicals used and their respective levels of concentration. The toxic levels that are being used in these aerosols goes beyond shocking – it would appear that these levels are indeed criminal by EPA Standards.

An Updated Look at Aerosol Toxins – Part 1
By Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri –
Copyright © 2011 – All Rights Reserved
February 3, 2011
(Excerpt from Report)

A new preliminary draft report by ArizonaSkyWatch shows dramatic increases in heavy metals that simply do not belong in our air. NOTE: The level of Manganese is so shockingly high that ArizonaSkyWatch also included additional information about it (see below). This report will be posted online shortly.
This is only a preliminary overview of Arizona Air Particulates.

2010 Air Particulates
These figures indicate how many times they are over the allowable toxic limit:

Aluminum: 15.8
Antimony: 63.3
Arsenic: 418
Barium: 5.3
Cadmium: 6.0
Chromium: 6.4
Copper: 9.0
Iron: 43.5
Lead: 15.7
Manganese: 513.8
Nickel: 10.7
Zinc: 7.5
Additional Research & Videos are at the CaliforniaSkyWatch.com & theAgricultureDefenseCoalition.org.

Interestingly enough, Monsanto has just released an Aluminum Resistant Seed which is Genetically Modified to tolerate Aluminum in high levels in the soil. Is this a coincidence, or do they know something?

“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” – Henry Kissinger

See also: Henry Kissinger National Security Study Memorandum 200

“The common enemy of humanity is man.  In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – Richard Haass- Club of Rome

Another famous quote;

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. - Thomas Jefferson

LINKS FOR CURRENT SOURCES
David Keith GeoEngineering
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER)

Purpose

The Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) exists to accelerate the innovative development and evaluation of science and technology to address carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and their environmental consequences.
The non-profit research fund focuses on early-stage innovative research where relatively small and timely grants can significantly advance understanding, especially of the viability and scalability of proposals to address global warming.
Funded research projects are intended to produce peer-reviewed scholarly articles in recognized professional scientific and technical journals. Any intellectual property that may be generated in the course of such research resides with the researchers or their institutions.

Grants for research are provided to the University of Calgary from gifts made by Mr. Bill Gates from his personal funds.

The activities of the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research fall outside the scope of activities of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. FICER is not a Foundation project and has no relationship with it.
The fund has supported research in a wide range of areas. Some examples include:
• understanding carbon dioxide emissions associated with international trade in goods and services;
• developing technologies to capture carbon dioxide out of the air; and
• climate modeling to understand possible environmental consequences of solar radiation management.

Image: Lawrence Livermore National Library

Report On GeoEngineering

A select group of diabolic oligarch globalists and their puppet cronies embedded within the United States government are now involved in what some would say are crimes against humanity. These tyrants will stop at nothing to usher their hush, hush global aerosol agenda into full swing.

According to a report prepared for the Air Force titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the WeatherBy 2025” the U.S. Air Force wants to fully control the weather on earth by the year 2025.

Far surpassing even the most horrific act of terror (real or staged), posing as literal gods, these globalists will stop at nothing to control the world by not only controlling the fraudulent banking systems but by owning the weather through a process (blanket term) calledGeoengineering.
According to globalist sponsored reports, our planet is in a constant state of threat and is being bombarded with radioactive solar rays increasing planetary temperatures due to human carbon emissions.
However, vast bodies of research now show that that is not the case and that global warming is a another globalist myth, a ponzi scheme to collect a Carbon Tax worldwide, benefitting the very same group behind the curtain.
The myth the global warming “Carbon Tax” pushers have been spouting apparently can only be  fixed by spraying deadly toxins in an aerosol particulate form into the earths atmosphere via large sprayer converted aircraft specifically assigned to perform Geoengineering tasks.

Aerosol sprays (slang: Chemtrails) are filled with a variety of chemical and metal compounds and are known to be very hazardous to human, plant, and animal health worldwide. This danger to plant and human and animal health has been documented in films such as “What In the World Are They Spraying” by Michael Murphy & G. Edward Griffin, who have also appeared on the Intel Hub Radio Show with Shepard Ambellas.

Ultimately, this issue was originally a matter for the EPA to rule over considering that they have the authority to sanction geoengineering activities under the National Environmental Policy ACT of 1969. However, documents such as the report to the chairman, Committee of Science and Technology, House of Representatives – “Climate Change” – Sept. 2010, U.S. Gov. Accountability Office which was submitted to all members of congress in 2010 attempt to put control into the hands of even a smaller group of people.
This report clearly is slanted and leans to take control away from the EPA along with other regulatory provisions such as; the Endangered Species ACT, and the Conformity Provision in the Clean Air ACT – total Geoengineering dis-info submitted to members of the Congress and other government branches alike.

The source of most of the dis-info is Obama’s White House Science Czar John P. Holdren. The following was written on USGCRP letterhead;

“January 2011,
Members of Congress:
On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, I am transmitting a copy of Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change Research Program for Fiscal Year 2011. The report describes the activities and plans of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) established under the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990. The USGCRP coordinates and integrates scientific research on climate and global change and is supported by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. government. This Fiscal Year 2011 edition of Our Changing Planet highlights recent advances and progress made by participating agencies and includes budget information on each agency’s contribution.
This report describes a program in transition. In accordance with the GCRA, the USGCRP agencies requested guidance from the National Research Council on how to best meet the changing needs of the nation to understand climate change and respond to its impacts, and the NRC responded with a 2009 report entitled “Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change”. In accord with that report’s recommendations, the USGCRP is undergoing a strategic realignment that will ensure that the science produced is maximally useful for decision makers at all scales. As described in the new edition of Our Changing Planet, the program going forward will place greater emphasis on impacts, vulnerabilities, and on understanding the options for adapting to the changing climate. The program will also continue its long-standing support for activities that contribute to a better understanding of the Earth system, including observations, research, and predictive modeling.
All of these focuses will be reflected in the USGCRP’s new strategic plan and its National Climate Assessment.
The USGCRP is committed to its mission to build a knowledge base that informs human responses to global change through coordinated and integrated federal programs of research, education, communication, and decision support. I appreciate the close cooperation of the participating agencies, and I look forward to working with the Congress in the continued development and implementation of this essential national program.
Sincerely,
John P. Holdren Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Assistant to the President for Science and Technology” – Our Changing Planet
Even more disturbing then that is the fact that your so called representatives have been approving yearly geoengineering budgets in the upwards of billions of dollars per year (as outlined in the document “Our Changing Planet – The US Global Change Research Program for the Fiscal Year of 2011, which is a supplement to the Presidents Budget for 2011, much of which is unaccounted for and not even included in the budget possible signifying even a more nefarious plot involving some black budget.

Back tracking to the year 2001,  President elect George W. Bush established the (CCRI) Climate Change Research Initiative. A year later it was made public that the USGCRP or United States Global Change Research program and the CCRI both would become what is known as the (CCSP) Climate Change Science Program. Now, under the Obama Administration the legacy continues to move forward as the USGCRP.

Geoengineering Regions

A report entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” released in 2009, documents how the USGCRP divided the US into nine regions similar to FEMA regions. Also tucked into the report was the statement “A central finding of the report was that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced” – Source: Our Changing Planet.
The document goes on to mention the devastating effects of climate change, including the effect on crops, human health and livestock.
But the most startling fact in the document is the actual budget itself, a mere 2.7 billion for 2011 alone (not including many costs) 24% higher than 2010’s budget.
The Global Change Research ACT of 1990, SEC. 102, Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences states;

a) ESTABLISHMENT.–The President, through the Council, shall establish a Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences. The Committee shall carry out Council functions under section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651) relating to global change research, for the purpose of increasing the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal global change research efforts.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.–The Committee shall consist of at least one representative from–

1. the National Science Foundation;
2. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
3. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce;
4. the Environmental Protection Agency;
5. the Department of Energy;
6. the Department of State;
7. the Department of Defense;
8. the Department of the Interior;
9. the Department of Agriculture;
10. the Department of Transportation;
11. the Office of Management and Budget;
12. the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
13. the Council on Environmental Quality;
14. the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; and
15. such other agencies and departments of the United States as the President or the Chairman of the Council considers appropriate.
Such representatives shall be high ranking officials of their agency or department, wherever possible the head of the portion of that agency or department that is most relevant to the purpose of the title described in section 101(b).
(c) CHAIRPERSON.–The Chairman of the Council, in consultation with the Committee, biennially shall select one of the Committee members to serve as Chairperson. The Chairperson shall be knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the administration of scientific research programs, and shall be a representative of an agency that contributes substantially, in terms of scientific research capability and budget, to the Program.
(d) SUPPORT PERSONNEL.–An Executive Secretary shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the
Committee, with the approval of the Committee. The Executive Secretary shall be a permanent employee of one of the agencies or departments represented on the Committee, and shall remain in the employ of such agency or department. The Chairman of the Council shall have the authority to make personnel decisions regarding any employees detailed to the Council for purposes of working on business of the Committee pursuant to section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651).
(e) FUNCTIONS RELATIVE TO GLOBAL CHANGE.–The Council, through the Committee, shall be responsible for planning and coordinating the Program. In carrying out this responsibility, the Committee shall–
1. serve as the forum for developing the Plan and for overseeing its implementation;
2. improve cooperation among Federal agencies and departments with respect to global change research activities;
3. provide budgetary advice as specified in section 105;
4. work with academic, State, industry, and other groups conducting global change research, to
provide for periodic public and peer review of the Program;
5. cooperate with the Secretary of State in– (A) providing representation at international meetings and conferences on global change research in which the United States participates; and
(B) coordinating the Federal activities of the United States with programs of other nations and with international global change research activities such as the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program;
6. consult with actual and potential users of the results of the Program to ensure that such results are useful in developing national and international policy responses to global change; and
7. report at least annually to the President and the Congress, through the Chairman of the Council, on Federal global change research priorities, policies, and programs.”
The following is a list of the members included in the Subcommittee on Global Change Research;

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH
Made up of the following members:

• Thomas Karl -Department of Commerce Chair
• Thomas Armstrong - Department of the Interior Vice Chair, Adaptation Research
• Mike Freilich - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Vice Chair, Integrated Observations
• Timothy Killeen - National Science Foundation Vice Chair, Strategic Planning
• William Breed -U.S. Agency for International Development
• John Balbus - Department of Health and Human Services
• William Hohenstein - Department of Agriculture
• Jack Kaye - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Chester Koblinsky - Department of Commerce
• Linda Lawson - Department of Transportation
• Leonard Hirsch - Smithsonian Institution
• Anna Palmisano - Department of Energy

A description of the subcommittee on (p.2) Our Changing Planet Reads;

“The USGCRP is directed by the Subcommittee for Global Change Research (SGCR), which falls under the National Science and Technology Council. The SGCR comprises representatives from 13 departments and agencies and is led by a Chair from one of the participating agencies (currently from the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]). In order to align the program’s governance with the needs, Vice- Chairs have been identified for Strategic Planning, Integrated Observations, and Adaptation Research. Additional vice-chairs will be identified as needed. The program is supported by the USGCRP Integration and Coordination Office and conducts many of its activities through interagency working groups that plan and implement research and crosscutting activities, such as communications, decision support, and information and data concerns. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) work closely with the SGCR, the Integration and Coordination Office, and the interagency working groups to establish research priorities and funding plans to ensure that the program is aligned with national priorities, reflects agency planning, and meets the requirements of the GCRA. “

The Subcommittee in question has now supplied the President with a supplement to the fiscal budget for 2011, which was presented to members of congress in January of 2011 on behalf of the National Science and Technology Policy – Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, John P. Holdren.
The (USGCRP) brings together a total of 13 different agencies and merges them into one single agency program that has been in the works science 1988 or prior.
In 1990 the USGCRP received generous congressional support under (GCRA P.L. 101-606). It is no mystery that aerosol spraying operations have been ongoing since the early 1990’s. Prior to 1990 one could enjoy a true clear blue sky, a figment of the past in 2011 – where none are to be found.

Airship Proposed for Chemtrail Spraying

So just how deep does the geoengineering/terraforming rabbit hole go? The Intel Hub was able to obtain a copy of the final report prepared by the University of Calgary under contract by Aurora Flight Sciences titled “Geoengineering cost analysis.”
In the report there is smoking gun evidence of the entire geoengineering saga from the secret bases, to the payload, to what type of aircraft or “airship” will be the most cost effective to spread toxic particulates throughout the earths atmosphere.
The final report also included budgets for different applications for aerosol dispersal within the atmosphere.

“Existing aircraft are evaluated based on cost of acquisition and operations. An in-depth new aircraft design study and cost analysis was conducted to determine the cost of developing and operating a dedicated geoengineering airplane type. Similarly, an airship design study and cost analysis was conducted. Finally a survey of non-aircraft systems was conducted to determine how their costs compare to aircraft and airships.
Yearly costs of 1M tonne geoengineering operations for all the systems examined are presented in Figure 2. Some systems are easily written off due to extremely high costs. Rocket based systems are not cost competitive due to the large number of launches required and the impact of occasional rocket failures on required fleet size. A system based on 16Σ” naval Mark 7 guns was analyzed and compared to previous work by the National Research Council.4 This system requires large numbers of shots increasing projectile costs and driving yearly costs over $100B. Gun costs become more competitive if the projectile payload fraction can be increased from about 10% for a standard shell to 50%. With this and a few improvements over the 1940-era Mark 7 gun yearly costs are still in the $20B range….The primary vehicles examined to lift particulate to stratospheric altitudes and disperse them at a predetermined release rate are airplanes and airships; rockets and other non- aircraft methods such as guns and suspended pipes are also surveyed.” –Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.5)

“Geoengineering may provide a means to create a time buffer against catastrophic cli- mate change while long-term emissions reduction actions take effect. One approach is to disperse sulfur compounds at high altitude to reduce the effective solar flux entering the atmosphere. This report will evaluate the means of delivering sufficient mass of this or similar material to affect climate change on a global scale. The goal of this study is to use engineering design and cost analysis to determine the feasibility and cost of a delivering material to the stratosphere for solar radiation management (SRM). This study does notexamine effectiveness or risks of injecting material into the stratosphere for SRM. Its goal is simply to compare a range of delivery systems on a single cost basis.” – Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.6)

Operational Costs – Not Including Payload

The report mentions how payload costs are not included in the estimate nor are the base/facility costs and continues on (p.8) to say;

“This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft operations, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also examined….For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized.” – Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final report Yearly cost estimates from different dispersal methods ranged from over 1 billion dollars a year all the way up to rocket dispersed aerosol in the upper atmosphere at the cost of over 100 billion dollars per year.

GeoEngineering Research 2011

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.” – Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.
Note: Websites/News Agencies are welcome to post 50% of this article linking back to us. Or contact us to post in full.

UPDATE – March 31st, 2011

•  Aluminum resistant gene patent # 7582809
•  Patent granted on September 1, 2009
•  Patent developed at the Robert W. Holley Center for Agricultural Health at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.
•  Leon Kochian and Jurandir Vieira de Magallhaes are the primary inventors/ researchers
•  Patent assigned to US Department of Agriculture and Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research
•  According to Cornell University Chronicle Online, the research project was supported in part by the McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop Research Program, the Generation Challenge Program, the National Science Foundation and the USDA.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a contributor to both the McKnight Foundation and the Generation Challenge Program.
http://www.mcknight.org/international/cropresearch.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/molecular-breeding-platform-aims-to-enhance-plant-breeding-090901.aspx
Hundreds of Rain and Snow Tests HAVE BEEN DONE!
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/htm/tests.html

Update 4/23/2011 – Amazing Chemtrail Pictures Taken In Phoenix Arizona

Taken 4/22/11 west of Phoenix, AZ suburbs.


From: Tim White
Subject: CHEMTRAILS-my phone call to PATRICK MINNIS of NASA
To: “Rosalind Peterson”
Received: Monday, July 27, 2009, 1:41 PM
I had the distinct DISpleasure of talking to this NASA/CIA/NOAA/NCAR/EPA mouthpiece and fool Patrick Minnis back in May of ’99 when his name first started to come out as the debunker for us CHEMTRAIL WHISTLEBLOWERS.He started to give me his standard bullshit when I told him “STOP RIGHT THERE YOU LYING SACK OF SH%#@” ! I happen to be ex Air Force,a Viet Nam Vet who is VERY familiar with aircraft and I take extreme resentment of you not only lying to me but to all of your victims who are clueless and also insulting my intelligence. Your bulls%$# will NOT work on me so don’t continue. I will do my utmost to expose you and this whole program for what it is. I know a lot more than you realize so why don’t you jamb it and pass the message along to your buddies at that other 3 letter agency at Langley across the way from you”. His next question to me was “What group are you with”? I answer “I’m not with any group. I’m independant of any group. Why do I have to be in a group to have enough balls and initiative to call you as an outraged individual,as a Concerned Citizen”? He responded,”Well,well,a Conceerrned Citttizenn huh….hmmmm? You just don’t want to hear the facts do you? All you conspiracy theorists are all alike-you are all ignorant. Just run your mouths with no facts. I think you’re the problem”. My response,”I sure hope that you’re proud of yourself and all your Project Paperclip Nazi buddies should be too because this IS Nazis at work so take your lies and shove them Minnis,I’m done with you”!CLICK. Gee,that son of a bitch hung up on me! What cheek! I guess he didn’t want to hear anymore,do ya suppose?
Tim White, Viet Nam Vet(USAF)
Concerned Citizen,Researcher,Investigator,Whistleblower
==========================================
NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails are Real-91 viewswww.mail.archive.com/WeatherShapingChemtrailsarereal
NASA: S-L-O-W To Spit Out The Truth
by Lisa Guliani
In the June 17, 2002 issue of the American Free Press newspaper, a bold headline caught my attention: “NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails”. What?? Could it be? Do I dare believe my eyes? NASA is confirming that chemtrails are real? Naturally, I had to read this article written by Mike Blair.
You betcha, the good ole boys at NASA are FINALLY admitting what many of us already know and have been saying for quite some time – that chemtrails are not only REAL, but are also wreaking their deleterious effects on weather conditions. Well, whaddaya know? It must be a holiday or something. Gee, maybe if they REALLY try, they will even come across with the truth about HAARP someday in this lifetime. I can only dream.
If we assume the “glass-is-half-full” attitude, we might say that this sloooow admission is “progress” since governmental agencies have notoriously denied the existence of chemtrails despite Representative Dennis Kucinich legitimizing them in House Resolution 2977 as a form of “exotic weaponry” back in October, 2001. Sometimes I think if Jesus came down off the cross and declared that chemtrails are real, there would still be some moron to argue with Him about it. Duh.
The American Free Press article further states that NASA researchers (in all their wisdom, I’m sure) have even “concluded that this POLLUTION can create cirrus clouds.” Did you read that, folks? NASA called chemtrails POLLUTION. Ahhh, maybe next time they’ll grow a ball and call it just what it is – POISON. Moreover, NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia went on to say that these artificially created cirrus clouds “have an impact on climate because they spread over large areas and effectively trap sunlight”. Woohoo!! NASA began this latest bit of “research” after the events of 9/11/2001, so ten months of “study” and NASA has managed to officially connect the first dot or two. Bravo, fellas. It’s nice to see ya catching up with the rest of us – finally.
Blair’s article continues on to say NASA “came to its startling conclusions while conducting research while all NON-MILITARY aircraft were grounded” in the initial days following the events of September 11th. First of all, “startling conclusions?” Why is NASA startled at all? NASA has known about chemtrails all along. After all, isn’t it NASA that obtained and holds the U.S. patent numbered 3813875? Why, YES, it is!!! Gee, maybe they forgot or something, ya think? They procured this patent in 1974. It is linked with a program that utilizes BARIUM for the purpose of creating ion clouds in our atmosphere. Fancy that. But NASA is “startled” to conclude that chemtrails are affecting our climate, eh?
According to AFP, Patrick Minnis, a senior researcher at Langley, stated that the man-made “cirrus clouds are already having an impact on climate, increasing temperatures on regional levels as much as two to five percent.” Hmmm … I wonder how long it will take my chemtrail debunker knuckledraggers to smear and eat their own? Think they’ll be calling Minnis a kooky conspiracy theorist anytime soon? We’ll see, won’t we?

Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know

Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know

 

Are we raising the stupidest generation in American history?  The statistics that you are about to read below are incredibly shocking.  They indicate that U.S. high school students are basically as dumb as a rock.  As you read the rest of this article, you will be absolutely amazed at the things that U.S. high school students do not know.  At this point, it is really hard to argue that the U.S. education system is a success.  Our children are spoiled and lazy, our schools do not challenge them and students in Europe and in Asia routinely outperform our students very badly on standardized tests.  In particular, schools in America do an incredibly poor job of teaching our students subjects such as history, economics and geography that are necessary for understanding the things that are taking place in our world today.  For example, according to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can find Iraq on a map of the world.  According to that same survey, 50 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can't even find the state of New York on a map.  If our students cannot even find Iraq and New York on a map, what hope is there that they will be able to think critically about the important world events of our day?

Sadly, almost every survey or study about high school students that gets done shows that most of our students are not even receiving a basic education.

For example, the following comes from an article posted on MSNBC....

Just 13 percent of high school seniors who took the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress — called the Nation's Report Card — showed solid academic performance in American history.

So only 13 percent of our high school seniors are proficient in history?

That doesn't sound good.

So what does that mean exactly?

Well, there have been some other surveys and studies that have quizzed U.S. high school students about specific historical facts.

The following are some of the absolutely amazing results of a study conducted a few years ago by Common Core....

*Only 43 percent of all U.S. high school students knew that the Civil War was fought some time between 1850 and 1900.

*More than a quarter of all U.S. high school students thought that Christopher Columbus made his famous voyage across the Atlantic Ocean after the year 1750.

*Approximately a third of all U.S. high school students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  (This is a topic that I touched on yesterday).

*Only 60 percent of all U.S. students knew that World War I was fought some time between 1900 and 1950.

Even more shocking were the results of a survey of Oklahoma high school students conducted back in 2009.  The following is a list of the questions that were asked and the percentage of students that answered correctly....

What is the supreme law of the land? 28 percent

What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution? 26 percent

What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress? 27 percent

How many justices are there on the Supreme Court? 10 percent

Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? 14 percent

What ocean is on the east coast of the United States? 61 percent

What are the two major political parties in the United States? 43 percent

We elect a U.S. senator for how many years? 11 percent

Who was the first President of the United States? 23 percent

Who is in charge of the executive branch? 29 percent

Some have criticized the survey results above because they came from a telephone survey, but the truth is that they are not some sort of an anomaly.  Many other surveys have produced similar results.  It doesn't take a genius to realize that a large percentage of our high school students are as dumb as a rock.

The following is from an article written by reporter Mark Morford in which he described his conversations with a longtime Oakland high school teacher that was nearing retirement....

It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.
Now, you may think he's merely a curmudgeon, a tired old teacher who stopped caring long ago. Not true. Teaching is his life. He says he loves his students, loves education and learning and watching young minds awaken. Problem is, he is seeing much less of it.

Later on in that same article, Morford tells us that the high school teacher even admitted that very few of his students even know how to put a sentence together....

It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school students he estimates he's taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently, after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler.

It is not that our students do not have the capacity to be great.

It is just that they have learned to be incredibly lazy and our schools do not challenge them at all.

One study found that 55 percent of all U.S. high school students spend 3 hours or less per week preparing for class.

Other nations require their students to work far longer and far harder.

And they get much better results.

Today, American 15-year-olds do not even rank in the top half of all advanced nations when it comes to math or science literacy.

So how do we expect to compete if this continues?

If we would just challenge our students and require more out of them we could do so much better.  What most public schools are doing right now simply does not work.  The following is from a report that John Stossel did a few years ago entitled "Stupid In America"....

I talked with 18-year-old Dorian Cain in South Carolina, who was still struggling to read a single sentence in a first-grade level book when I met him. Although his public schools had spent nearly $100,000 on him over 12 years, he still couldn't read.
So "20/20" sent Dorian to a private learning center, Sylvan, to see if teachers there could teach Dorian to read when the South Carolina public schools failed to.
Using computers and workbooks, Dorian's reading went up two grade levels -- after just 72 hours of instruction.
His mother, Gena Cain, is thrilled with Dorian's progress but disappointed with his public schools. "With Sylvan, it's a huge improvement. And they're doing what they're supposed to do. They're on point. But I can't say the same for the public schools," she said.

It absolutely amazes me how millions upon millions of our students can get all the way through high school without ever learning how to read, write or speak at a functional level.

Instead of producing the leaders of tomorrow, our education system is producing a bunch of sheep that are trained to take orders and that are pretty good at taking multiple choice tests.

If you want to get really depressed about the future of America, just watch some of the Jaywalking segments that Jay Leno does.  Yes, it is funny to watch as he demonstrates how little Americans actually know about world events.  But it is also a sign of how far our education system has fallen.

If Americans cannot even answer basic factual questions about our own government, then how in the world will anyone ever be able to persuade them to think critically about the Federal Reserve, the economic crisis or about our corrupt political system?

Our children are the future of this nation, and right now that future is looking quite bleak.

So what do all of you think about the U.S. education system?  Do any of you have any education horror stories to share?  Do you believe that our schools have rapidly gone downhill?  Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts below....

Honeybee Deaths Linked To Seed Insecticide Exposure

Researchers: Honeybee Deaths Linked To Seed Insecticide Exposure

 

Thu Jan 12 19:25

Honeybee populations have been in serious decline for years, and Purdue University scientists may have identified one of the factors that cause bee deaths around agricultural fields.

Analyses of bees found dead in and around hives from several apiaries over two years in Indiana showed the presence of neonicotinoid insecticides, which are commonly used to coat corn and soybean seeds before planting. The research showed that those insecticides were present at high concentrations in waste talc that is exhausted from farm machinery during planting.

 

Honey Bees

Credit: Wikipedia

The insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam were also consistently found at low levels in soil - up to two years after treated seed was planted - on nearby dandelion flowers and in corn pollen gathered by the bees, according to the findings released in the journal PLoS One this month.

"We know that these insecticides are highly toxic to bees; we found them in each sample of dead and dying bees," said Christian Krupke, associate professor of entomology and a co-author of the findings.

The United States is losing about one-third of its honeybee hives each year, according to Greg Hunt, a Purdue professor of behavioral genetics, honeybee specialist and co-author of the findings. Hunt said no one factor is to blame, though scientists believe that others such as mites and insecticides are all working against the bees, which are important for pollinating food crops and wild plants.

"It’s like death by a thousand cuts for these bees," Hunt said.

Krupke and Hunt received reports that bee deaths in 2010 and 2011 were occurring at planting time in hives near agricultural fields. Toxicological screenings performed by Brian Eitzer, a co-author of the study from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, for an array of pesticides showed that the neonicotinoids used to treat corn and soybean seed were present in each sample of affected bees. Krupke said other bees at those hives exhibited tremors, uncoordinated movement and convulsions, all signs of insecticide poisoning.

Seeds of most annual crops are coated in neonicotinoid insecticides for protection after planting. All corn seed and about half of all soybean seed is treated. The coatings are sticky, and in order to keep seeds flowing freely in the vacuum systems used in planters, they are mixed with talc. Excess talc used in the process is released during planting and routine planter cleaning procedures.

"Given the rates of corn planting and talc usage, we are blowing large amounts of contaminated talc into the environment. The dust is quite light and appears to be quite mobile," Krupke said.

Krupke said the corn pollen that bees were bringing back to hives later in the year tested positive for neonicotinoids at levels roughly below 100 parts per billion.

"That's enough to kill bees if sufficient amounts are consumed, but it is not acutely toxic," he said.

On the other hand, the exhausted talc showed extremely high levels of the insecticides - up to about 700,000 times the lethal contact dose for a bee.

"Whatever was on the seed was being exhausted into the environment," Krupke said. "This material is so concentrated that even small amounts landing on flowering plants around a field can kill foragers or be transported to the hive in contaminated pollen. This might be why we found these insecticides in pollen that the bees had collected and brought back to their hives."

Krupke suggested that efforts could be made to limit or eliminate talc emissions during planting.

"That's the first target for corrective action," he said. "It stands out as being an enormous source of potential environmental contamination, not just for honeybees, but for any insects living in or near these fields. The fact that these compounds can persist for months or years means that plants growing in these soils can take up these compounds in leaf tissue or pollen."

Although corn and soybean production does not require insect pollinators, that is not the case for most plants that provide food. Krupke said protecting bees benefits agriculture since most fruit, nut and vegetable crop plants depend upon honeybees for pollination. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the value of honeybees to commercial agriculture at $15 billion to $20 billion annually.

Hunt said he would continue to study the sublethal effects of neonicotinoids. He said for bees that do not die from the insecticide there could be other effects, such as loss of homing ability or less resistance to disease or mites.

"I think we need to stop and try to understand the risks associated with these insecticides," Hunt said.

The North American Pollinator Protection Campaign and the USDA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative funded the research.


Contacts and sources:
Brian Wallheimer
Purdue University

Saudi Arabia's old regime grows older!

Saudi Arabia's old regime grows older!

The death of Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz al-Saud highlights the decrepit nature of the Saudi leadership.

Mai Yamani Last Modified: 26 Oct 2011 12:13

The body of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Sultan is carried during his funeral in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [REUTERS]

The contrast between the deaths, within two days of each other, of Libya's Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi and Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdel Aziz is one of terminal buffoonery versus decadent gerontocracy. And their demise is likely to lead to very different outcomes: liberation for the Libyans and stagnation for the Saudis.

But the death of Sultan, at 86, marks the beginning of a critical period of domestic and foreign uncertainty for the Kingdom. After all, Sultan's half-brother, King Abdullah, 87, is still hospitalised in Riyadh, following a major operation last month. The regime is ageing and ailing, and is perceived by the population as being on life support.
 
Meanwhile, the succession is still being argued. Sultan's death is the first time that the burial of a Saudi royal has been delayed to give the ruling family time to decide on the next in line - a sign of internal discord (and concord on the continuation of dynastic rule).

Who will be next in line?

The Saudi regime's stability now depends on its ability to maintain unity and establish clarity in its system of succession. With the Crown Prince's death, schisms are particularly threatening to the Kingdom's stability (and that of oil exports), because the ruling Al Saud have swelled to 22,000 members, which has given rise to factional clashes among increasingly numerous claimants to power.

Sultan had already been dead - politically, that is - for the last three years; indeed, since June 2011, when he left for New York for medical treatment, young Saudis speculated on numerous websites that this was also literally the case.

Abdullah's octogenarian line of successors recalls the final years of the Soviet Union, when one infirm leader after another succeeded to power for a brief period of inert rule. Many Saudi subjects feel the same pattern of continuous uncertainty and torpor.

Making matters worse, the rule of succession is ambiguous. After Abdullah succeeded his brother Fahd, who ruled for 23 years until his death in 2005, he created an Allegiance Council, an ambiguous and mysterious family body that resembled the Vatican's College of Cardinals. But here, restrictions are not based entirely on age, but on family bloodlines. The Council included the surviving royal princes of the 43 sons of Ibn Saud, the Kingdom's founder, and the sons of their deceased brothers - for example, the late King Faisal's brood.

But, as Sultan's health deteriorated, Abdullah bypassed his own creation and appointed Prince Naif, the interior minister, as a second deputy. In other words, Naif will be anointed Crown Prince. But, befitting this increasingly exsanguinous imperium, Naif, 82, is known to suffer from leukaemia.

Sultan's fortune is estimated at $270bn, which he distributed between his sons prior to his death in order to shore up their political position in the competitive princely arena. The reality is that every senior prince has placed his favorite sons in important positions in the Kingdom. Sultan secured the defence ministry for his son Khaled, and brought back Khaled's notorious brother, Bandar, to head the Intelligence Security Council. Abdullah guaranteed his son Mitaeb's position as head of the National Guard. The new Crown Prince-in-waiting, Naif, has established his son Mohammed as the next interior minister.

Injection of young blood needed

In short, despite Abdullah's innovations in the succession process, it is an open secret that nothing guarantees a transition to a younger generation of leaders - or that an effective ruler will emerge. The story of the Al Saud's succession struggle is no longer whispered behind closed doors. The internet has opened a window on all of the royal family's plots, ambitions and double-dealings.

The Al Saud resembles a family business, established in 1932. Ibn Saud managed to conquer and unite the vast territory of the Arabian Peninsula, give it his family name, and alienate, divide, and control his cousins and brothers in order to establish a clear and undisputed line of succession through his sons. After Ibn Saud's death, his sons, though never entirely united, maintained enough coherence to keep the store running. That is no longer true of the thousands of princes that they produced. As the older generation dies off, the new generation has fallen to fighting in front of the customers.

Indeed, with the ratio of royals to commoners now at one to a thousand (compared to one to five million in the United Kingdom), the challenge of managing princely privileges, salaries, and demand for jobs has never been more intense. Royal perks include lifetime sinecures and domination of the civil service, which enable the princes to award contracts and receive commissions on top of their salaries.

So the Saudi regime is divided, its legitimacy is questioned, and sectarian tensions are growing. Moreover, while oil-export revenue is booming, the neighborhood is in revolutionary flames.

In the short term, the iron-fisted Naif, as Crown Prince, will push the Kingdom into greater repression, in part by strengthening the hardline Wahhabi clerics' place in the country's power nexus. Magnificent sums of money, backed by Wahhabi dogma, will be deployed to ensure popular submission and silence. Whereas Abdullah at least talked about reform (though with no real consequences), Naif can barely bring himself to utter the word.

Denial remains the Saudi rulers' dominant mindset. The royals believe that custodianship of Islam's holy places gives them a special status in the Arab world, and that no revolution can touch them. And, if anyone tries, they will follow Naif's counsel: “What we took by the sword we will hold by the sword.”

Throughout the region, newly mobilised (and thus empowered) Arab youth are trying to move their countries towards reform and liberalisation. Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, is moving in the opposite direction.

Mai Yamani's most recent book is Cradle of Islam.

A version of this article first appeared on Project Syndicate.

WHY the Wall Street protests ?

WHY  the Wall Street protests ?

Immunity and impunity in elite America

 
The top one per cent of US society is enjoying a two-tiered system of justice and politics.

 
Glenn Greenwald Last Modified: 27 Oct 2011 16:08

As intense protests spawned by Occupy Wall Street continue to grow, it is worth asking: Why now? The answer is not obvious. After all, severe income and wealth inequality have long plagued the United States. In fact, it could reasonably be claimed that this form of inequality is part of the design of the American foundation - indeed, an integral part of it.

Income inequality has worsened over the past several years and is at its highest level since the Great Depression. This is not, however, a new trend. Income inequality has been growing at rapid rates for three decades.
As journalist Tim Noah described the process: "During the late 1980s and the late 1990s, the United States experienced two unprecedentedly long periods of sustained economic growth - the ‘seven fat years’ and the ‘long boom’. Yet from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 per cent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top one per cent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts [the first decade of the new century], but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 per cent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes, an outcome that left many economists scratching their heads."
The 2008 financial crisis exacerbated the trend, but not radically: the top one per cent of earners in the US have been feeding ever more greedily at the trough for decades.
 

Inferiors and superiors

In addition, substantial wealth inequality is so embedded in US political culture that, standing alone, it would not be sufficient to trigger citizen rage of the type we are finally witnessing. The American founders were clear that they viewed inequality in wealth, power, and prestige as not merely inevitable, but desirable and, for some, even divinely ordained. Jefferson praised "the natural aristocracy" as "the most precious gift of nature" for the "government of society". John Adams concurred: "It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors and inferiors, because God has laid in the… course of nature the foundation of the distinction."
 

Not only have the overwhelming majority of those in the US long acquiesced to vast income and wealth disparities, but some of those most oppressed by these outcomes have cheered it loudly. Americans have been inculcated not only to accept, but to revere those who are the greatest beneficiaries of this inequality.
In the 1980s, this paradox - whereby even those most trampled upon come to cheer those responsible for their state - became more firmly entrenched. That's because it found a folksy, friendly face. Ronald Reagan, adept at feeding the populace a slew of Orwellian clichés that induced them to defend the interests of the wealthiest. "A rising tide," as one former US president put it, "lifts all boats". 

The sum of his wisdom being: It is in your interest when the rich get richer.
Implicit in this framework was the claim that inequality was justified and legitimate. The core propagandistic premise was that the rich were rich because they deserved to be. They innovated in industry, invented technologies, discovered cures, created jobs, took risks, and boldly found ways to improve our lives. In other words, they deserved to be enriched. Indeed, it was in our common interest to allow them to fly as high as possible, because that would increase their motivation to produce more, bestowing on us ever greater life-improving gifts.

Gratefulness for the leadership

We should not, so the thinking went, begrudge the multimillionaire living behind his 15-foot walls for his success; we should admire him. Corporate bosses deserved not our resentment but our gratitude. It was in our own interest not to demand more in taxes from the wealthiest but less, as their enhanced wealth - their pocket change - would trickle down in various ways to all of us.
This is the mentality that enabled massive growth in income and wealth inequality over the past several decades without much at all in the way of citizen protest. And yet something has indeed changed. It’s not that Americans suddenly woke up one day and decided that substantial income and wealth inequality are themselves unfair or intolerable. What changed was the perception of how that wealth was gotten and so of the ensuing inequality as legitimate.
 

Many Americans who once accepted or even cheered such inequality now see the gains of the richest as ill-gotten, as undeserved, as cheating. Most of all, the legal system that once served as the legitimising anchor for outcome inequality, the rule of law - that most basic of American ideals, that a common set of rules are equally applied to all - has now become irrevocably corrupted and is seen as such.
While the founders accepted outcome inequality, they emphasised - over and over - that its legitimacy hinged on subjecting everyone to the law’s mandates on an equal basis. Jefferson wrote that the essence of America would be that "the poorest labourer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favoured one whenever their rights seem to jar". Benjamin Franklin warned that creating a privileged legal class would produce "total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections" between the rulers and those they ruled. Tom Paine repeatedly railed against "counterfeit nobles", those whose superior status was grounded not in merit but in unearned legal privilege.

Definition of tyranny

After all, one of their principal grievances against the British king was his power to exempt his cronies from legal obligations. Almost every founder repeatedly warned that a failure to apply the law equally to the politically powerful and the rich would ensure a warped and unjust society. In many ways, that was their definition of tyranny.
Americans understand this implicitly. If you watch a competition among sprinters, you can accept that whoever crosses the finish line first is the superior runner. But only if all the competitors are bound by the same rules: everyone begins at the same starting line, is penalised for invading the lane of another runner, is barred from making physical contact or using performance-enhancing substances, and so on.
If some of the runners start ahead of others and have relationships with the judges that enable them to receive dispensation for violating the rules as they wish, then viewers understand that the outcome can no longer be considered legitimate. Once the process is seen as not only unfair but utterly corrupted, once it’s obvious that a common set of rules no longer binds all the competitors, the winner will be resented, not heralded.

That catches the mood of the US in 2011. It may not explain the Occupy Wall Street movement, but it helps explain why it has spread like wildfire and why so many Americans seem instantly to accept and support it. As was not true in recent decades, the American relationship with wealth inequality is in a state of rapid transformation.

It is now clearly understood that, rather than apply the law equally to all, Wall Street tycoons have engaged in egregious criminality - acts which destroyed the economic security of millions of people around the world - without experiencing the slightest legal repercussions. Giant financial institutions were caught red-handed engaging in massive, systematic fraud to foreclose on people’s homes and the reaction of the political class, led by the Obama administration, was to shield them from meaningful consequences. Rather than submit on an equal basis to the rules, through an oligarchical, democracy-subverting control of the political process, they now control the process of writing those rules and how they are applied.

Writing laws

Today, it is glaringly obvious to a wide range of those in the US that the wealth of the top one per cent is the byproduct not of risk-taking entrepreneurship, but of corrupted control of our legal and political systems. Thanks to this control, they can write laws that have no purpose than to abolish the few limits that still constrain them, as happened during the Wall Street deregulation orgy of the 1990s. They can retroactively immunise themselves for crimes they deliberately committed for profit, as happened when the 2008 Congress shielded the nation’s telecom giants for their role in Bush’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping programme.

It is equally obvious that they are using that power not to lift the boats of ordinary Americans, but to sink them. In short, Americans are now well aware of what the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, Illinois’s Dick Durbin, blurted out in 2009 about the body in which he serves: the banks "frankly own the place".

If you were to assess the state of the union in 2011, you might sum it up this way: rather than being subjected to the rule of law, the nation’s most powerful oligarchs control the law and are so exempt from it; and increasing numbers of Americans understand that and are outraged. At exactly the same time that the nation’s elites enjoy legal immunity even for egregious crimes, ordinary Americans are being subjected to the world's largest and one of its harshest penal states, under which they are unable to secure competent legal counsel and are harshly punished with lengthy prison terms for even trivial infractions. 

‘Two-tiered justice system’

In lieu of the rule of law - the equal application of rules to everyone - what we have now is a two-tiered justice system in which the powerful are immunised, while the powerless are punished with increasing mercilessness. As a guarantor of outcomes, the law has, by now, been so completely perverted that it is an incomparably potent weapon for entrenching inequality further, controlling the powerless, and ensuring corrupted outcomes.

The tide that was supposed to lift all ships has, in fact, left startling numbers of Americans underwater. In the process, we lost any sense that a common set of rules applies to everyone, and so there is no longer a legitimising anchor for the vast income and wealth inequalities that plague the nation.

That is what has changed, and a growing recognition of what it means is fuelling rising citizen anger and protest. The inequality under which so many suffer is not only vast, but illegitimate, rooted as it is in lawlessness and corruption. Obscuring that fact has long been the linchpin for inducing Americans to accept vast and growing inequalities. That fact is now too glaring to obscure any longer.
 ---------------

Glenn Greenwald is a former constitutional and civil rights litigator and a current contributing writer at Salon.com. He is the author of two New York Times bestselling books on the Bush administration's executive power and foreign policy abuses. His just-released book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful (Metropolitan Books), is a scathing indictment of America's two-tiered system of justice.  He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism.
A version of this article previously appeared on TomDispatch.com.

• 
  

Europe to destroy traditional family and sexual identity

10.10.2011 18:17

Traditional words 'father' and 'mother' will be replaced with official terms Parent 1 and Parent 2 in Britain. The terms will be used in official documents. The authorities decided to make such a "politically correct" move to accommodate same-sex couples. Experts are sure, though, that the matter is not about the requirements of certain social groups. The decision is another step towards the destruction of traditional families.

The words 'father' and 'mother' will be removed from British passport applications before December 2011. This became an achievement of Stonewall group, which defends the rights of sex minorities. The US State Department tried to do the same before, but it was eventually decided not to remove the two words from US passport applications.

The subject about novelties in the field of gender relations has been getting more and more popular recently. Not so long ago, Pravda.Ru wrote about the kindergarten in Sweden, which became world-famous after its administration decided to simply abolish the use of 'he' and 'she' pronouns.

Last year, the European Parliament published the brochure, which recommended not to use the words 'Missus' and 'Miss', 'Mademoiselle', 'Seniora' and 'Seniorita'.  From the point of view of the European parliament, the use of such words was discriminating against women because they directly indicated their sexual identity.

One does not have to be an expert to realize that such novelties in various countries are not just a coincidence. It is a trend, the goal of which is to change the public perception of the role of the sexes in the society.

Pavel Parfentyev, the chairman of the inter-regional public organization "For Family Rights" also shares this point of view.

"Indeed, this is a serious international trend. It started back in the seventies and the eighties as a powerful movement to defend the rights of sexual minorities. There were organizations that tried to defend even the rights of pedophiles, who, as they believed, also had the rights for their own sexual preferences.

"The organizations publicly said that their goal was to destroy family. Afterwards, under the pressure of public opinion, many activists decided to refuse from the openly sexual bias in their activities. They proceeded towards the protection of human rights. This is how they approach children's rights today. They think that children must be protected from the despotism of their parents - from any forms of traditional upbringing, that is to say. In order to accomplish that, one has to destroy the traditional family first and to make the family become a form that enslaves and binds children," the expert said.

In order to be more efficient, representatives of such movements began to cooperate with large international organizations such as the UN and the Council of Europe. This led to the creation of a small, albeit a very strong lobby for the protection of the rights of sexual minorities on the international level, Pavel Parfentyev believes. The lobby intends to distort the perception of traditional family in the modern society.

As a result, European officials already try to avoid the use of the word 'family' in top-level international documents. Instead, they use "family in all of its forms" expression, which implies all forms of cohabitation. As a matter of fact, they deliberately erode and expand the notion of family. The family as we know it has virtually disappeared from the new term.

"The lobby prefers to move in small steps. At first they say that one should not discriminate human beings on their gender rights and sexual orientation. It is hard to argue with this indeed. In Russia, there is no discrimination of real human rights on the base of sexual preferences. At the same time, they create special, previously unseen "rights" and preferences for homosexuals on the international level. As a result, they attach special importance to sexual orientation, which distinguishes a person and makes them stand higher than others," Pavel Parfentyev said.

The words indicating the sexual identity of people gradually disappear from official speech and documents. If they abolish 'he', 'she', 'father' and 'mother' they will not be able to abolish the gender per se. However, it can be possible to undermine the traditional perception of gender.

"A family is much more than a marital union of two people. It is a reproduction mechanism for the whole society. The movements for the protection of rights of sexual minorities are trying to undermine the traditional or natural family, as we call it. They want to take it beyond the scope of public values. More importantly, they want to separate the process of procreation and childcare from marriage and family. According to them, children and parents are two different things that must exist separately from each other. They cast doubts on the special role of parents in raising children," the expert added.

Many people in Britain claimed that the above-mentioned novelties undermine family grounds in the country.

Svetlana Smetanina

 

Muslim immigrants want Switzerland to change national flag

12.10.2011 10:33

A group of Muslim immigrants wants to force Switzerland to abandon the current flag - a white cross on the red background. They say that it violates the rights of the representatives of non-Christian confessions. They seem to have been hurt by the recent ban on minarets construction. However, their proposal is unlikely to be welcomed by the native Swiss and will only increase the number of votes in favor of the treasury of the local far-right People's Party.
   

The first suggestion to remove the cross from the Swiss flag was made not by a Muslim, but (judging by the name) an ethnic Croat and Catholic vice-president of the association of immigrants Secondos Plus Ivica Petrushich. "The cross does not fit today's multicultural Switzerland," he said. The organization of the Turkish, Albanian and other immigrants from Muslim countries followed with a similar initiative. Instead, they suggested using a green-yellow-red flag of Helvetic Republic that existed at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. It has no cross on it.

It is hardly coincidental that the issue of replacing the flag was raised by the representatives of immigrant organizations. Today, over 20 percent of seven million-strong Swiss population is immigrants. Naturally, the Muslims will be more than others insistent on replacing the flag. There are nearly 400,000 of them (more than five percent of the population). The largest "ethnic Muslim" community is Albanian, followed by the Turkish one. Arabs and Bosnian Muslims also reside in Switzerland. Many of them certainly do not like the cross.

The vast majority of Swiss Muslims virtually broke off with the religion of their ancestors. No more than 50 thousand of the faithful pray five times a day. However, women in headscarves have become an integral part of the cityscape of Zurich or Geneva. Furthermore, the birthrate in religious Muslim families is much higher than among the other population. Finally, all Swiss followers of Islam are not natives, but immigrants and their descendants. Their support of changing the appearance of the flag is, to say the least, ambiguous.


Apparently, this circumstance was taken into account by the head of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland Mayzar Hisham, who called the idea of ​​changing the flag "counterproductive." He said that they did not demand anyone to change the ancient traditions of their countries. It is hard not to agree with his words. The relations of the indigenous Swiss and immigrants have already passed a difficult strength test. The desire to change the flag will only add fuel to the fire.
Two years ago the Muslim community wanted to attach minarets to the existing mosques. However, Switzerland is different from all other countries in a way that each more or less relevant issue is solved by holding a referendum. Negotiations with the government officials were not sufficient, and they had to ask the opinion of the population. This opinion was not in favor of the Muslim immigrants.

The initiator of the referendum two years ago was the ultra-right Swiss People's Party that called to stop the "creeping Islamization". A deputy of the Swiss Parliament Ulrich Shlyuer said that minarets were a political symbol of the implementation of Islam. Step by step, Sharia was conquering Switzerland, acting in parallel with the Swiss law. Statistics show that the degree of religiosity of the local Muslim population is exaggerated, but for the ordinary Swiss even a hint of a violation of their habitual way of living was sufficient.

The results of voting on November 29, 2009 shocked Europe. 57.5 percent of the Swiss population was in favor of a ban on construction of minarets. At the same time kosher and halal slaughter of animals was banned (because of cruelty). Islamic organizations, human rights activists, and many European politicians expressed their outrage. However, the law came into force. The EU could not influence Switzerland as it is not its member.
 
Many of those dissatisfied with the verdict (including indigenous Europeans who had departed from the religion) were eager for revenge, and eventually decided to strike from the other side. They inquired why the flag of the Swiss Confederation had a Christian cross on it if construction of minarets was banned. Allegedly, it violated the rights of not only Muslims but also non-believers. That is why the red-green-yellow flag of the Helvetic Republic would be better.

Would the majority of the Swiss agree with this point of view?

Unlike neighboring France and Germany, the Swiss society is rather conservative. While there is no case of absolute religiousness of the Swiss society, the number of believers in Switzerland is higher than in the neighboring countries. This can be partially explained by a high proportion of rural population scattered along numerous mountain valleys in 20 cantons and six half-cantons of the country. Approximately half of the indigenous Swiss are Catholics; a little fewer are Protestant Calvinists. The cross on the flag is something that unites the country, and does not divide it.

As for the flag, the current symbol was first used in Switzerland in 1339, when the union of separate cantons just started to take shape. It achieved its official status in 1848, when the last standoff on this land ended, crowned with a robust Swiss Confederation. To some extent, it is a symbol of freedom and peace, a path to which took many centuries and numerous wars. 
The Helvetic Republic, whose flag is offered instead of the current one, is not particularly respected by the Swiss. It was created by Napoleon who occupied the country and decided to build entities supervised by the French on its territory. For the free-spirited Swiss this flag is a symbol of oppression.

Not to mention the fact that the combination of green, red and yellow colors is characteristic mainly of African countries. In Europe, only Lithuania has a similar flag.
 
Do the immigrants have a right to teach the Swiss tolerance? For over 160 years there has been no bloodshed on this territory. This is all the more surprising considering that the country is multinational. Nearly three-quarters of the indigenous Swiss speak German, one-fifth speaks French, five or six percent speak Italian, and a little less than one percent - the Romansh language. All these languages ​​have the official status, but there is one dominant language group in each canton (with rare exceptions). They managed to combine small mono-national "houses" with a multinational one. The country is not threated by a collapse.
 
Encroaching on the foundation of the state, immigrants cause a reaction from the German Swiss, French Swiss and Italian Swiss.  

Ultra People's Party is gaining popularity among all of them. Its symbol is three white sheep (the number of the top three language groups), kicking the fourth, black one. This is a clear hint to what should be done with immigrants. Four years ago, the party secured 29 percent of the Swiss votes, and it was a shock to Europe. In the parliamentary elections scheduled for October 23, the result may be even higher.



As is evident from the story with the restrictions on ritual slaughter of animals and minarets construction, the Swiss are not afraid to challenge the infamous political correctness. A ban on wearing the veil is to follow. The more you attempt to encroach on the foundation of the Swiss state, the stronger will be the response. It took Switzerland and its people too long to achieve stability and peace of mind to just give up on their values.


Vadim Trukhachev


GENOCIDE IN JAPAN! - Professor Chris Busby