Sea Level Could Rise 22 Feet by 2016

What happens when you place a couple of pieces of ice into your glass of water?

The Antarctic’s Ice Sheet is 5.4 million square miles and Greenland’s Ice Sheet is 656,000 square miles.

If Greenland’s Ice sheet melted, (moved from land into the ocean), the world wide sea level would rise 20 feet.  If the Antarctic’s Ice sheet moved from land to the ocean through melting, the oceans would rise 200ft.

The Antarctic’s Ice Sheet is melting into the ocean much faster than scientist’s previously believed due to warm water eating away at it from below.

The Arctic Ice is already in the sea and therefore will not have any effect in displacing the oceans’ sea level.  However the Arctic acts like a huge freezer maintaining Greenland’s Ice Sheet and when that goes, so does Greenland.

According to NASA and other scientists the Arctic sea ice is at a record low after consecutive years of chronic yearly depletion.

Some studies indicate that the Arctic could be ice free by 2040 or sooner.   Not coincidentally, Greenland’s Ice sheet melt has broken a 30-year record.

The melting of Greenland’s ice has been so dramatic that scientist’s have been awestruck at the rapid pace which results in revising their earlier estimates of the ice’s disappearance.

Given the inaccurate predictions by scientists over the years it wouldn’t be a surprise to this writer if 10% of Greenland slides into the ocean within the next three years causing a sea level rise of 2ft.  This intern sloshes up onto Antarctica resulting in 10% of Antarctica’s Ice Sheet disintegrating into the ocean resulting in another 20ft rise in world wide sea level by 2016.

100 square miles of ice falls off Greenland and melts into the ocean.

Should a large portion of Greenland or Antarctica go the rise in sea level could happen suddenly.

Instead of receding back to the normal level the shift in sea level would be permanent resulting in the loss of homes and businesses demonstrated by the mild Palo Alto flood of 1998.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man on the Lamb from Ofc. Burger and the PAPD Clan

Update:  Suspect apprehended!

Breaking News:

PAPD Officer Burger in hot pursuit of suspect.

“This is a message from the Palo Alto Police Department. We are asking for your help with locating a suspect who may be hiding in your neighborhood.

Shortly after 12:35 p.m. this afternoon, a suspect fled from a car stop and was chased on foot by officers into the neighborhood north of University Av.  The suspect is currently somewhere in the area of Hawthorne Av. and Waverley St., and we believe he may be hiding in private yards.  We are currently searching residences with a K-9 unit in an attempt to locate the suspect.

The suspect is a black male adult, about 45 years old. He is about six feet tall. He is wearing a white shirt and blue pants. We have no information about whether the suspect is armed or not.  If you see this person, please call 9-1-1 immediately.

We will send another phone message once the search ends or the suspect is apprehended. A press release will follow later this afternoon. This concludes the message from the Palo Alto Police Department.”

 

 

RFID – You are tracked and hunted!

RFID Chips are tiny, nearly microscopic semiconductor chips that emit a radio signal containing digital information when energized by a nearby scanner reader or recorder.

They do no need a battery or internal energy source.  They can operate indefinitely, even through animal or human flesh.

RFID Chips were first used to help simplify inventory, accounting, industrial parts and even cat and dog identification.  However, the chips can now be used to reveal your identity and location anywhere on earth within seconds.

Every time you buy something with a credit or debit card, your account information, number and personal information from the card is linked and encoded in the item purchased if a tiny RFID chip is embedded in the item.

This information is valuable to Corporations as it provides valuable marketing and inventory information about who is buying the product, when and where the transactions occur.  Government Security forces can also use the same tiny RFID chips to determine the identity of the owner or user of a tagged item.

For example, as you enter a public concert venue, you may be scanned by Police equipment placed at the gate.   Police are then able to identify every person entering the concert by the RFID tags in their clothes, credit cards and/or Drivers licenses.  The same holds true for entering any public place, train station, subway, or airport.

RFID chips may be a great help in Prisons, Police and Probation departments but dictatorships, tyrannies and other misguided forces around the world and at home, may already be interested.

Thanks to IBM, Motorola, Zebra Technologies, Smartrac, OMNI-ID, Invengo, MetalCraft, Intermec, Impinj, Confidex, Alien Technologies and other tech companies, microscopic Radio Frequency Identity Chips (RFID) are finding their way into clothing, credit cards, drivers licenses, passports, airline tickets, shoes, windshields, virtually any consumer item.

Next time someone tells you to get lost, ask them, how ?

California Senate Passes Unconstitutional Law?

SB 1303: RED LIGHT CAMERAS (2012)

Senator Joe Simitian introduced Senate Bill 1303 which passed the California Senate under the guise that,

“This bill is designed to establish some ground rules around the use of red-light cameras, and make sure that drivers’ rights are protected,” Simitian said.

The Press Release on Senator Simitian’s Website reads as follows:

Senate Bill 1303 protects drivers’ rights by:

• Requiring that camera locations be chosen because of safety considerations, and not on their potential to generate revenue;
• Requiring cities and counties to follow state standards in the placement and operation of cameras;
• Requiring adequate signs to notify drivers when red-light cameras are in use;
• Prohibiting so called “snitch tickets” (i.e., an innocent ticket recipient may not be required to identify another driver in order to clear an inaccurate ticket); and
• Making it easier for a wrongfully ticketed driver to get a ticket cleared.

Simitian’s deceptive tactic of not revealing the major aspects of his Bill in his press release demonstrates that he has an unknown ulterior motive for enacting the law which will change evidentiary law and allow what is unacceptable hearsay evidence in every other legal circumstance to be used by the government for the enforcement of citations issued by automated traffic enforcement systems. 

Currently Sections 1552 and 1553 of California’s Evidence Code regarding computer data and video or digital images do not apply to automated traffic enforcement systems. 

These sections set a standard of presumption that any digital recording is accurate unless challenged by an apposing party.  In such a case the burden of establishing the accuracy of the recordings by a preponderance of evidence falls on the introducing PARTY.  SB 1303 includes automated traffic enforcement systems.

Section (3) of SB 1303 expressly states that, “..The bill would expressly state that the printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant.

What this means is that the digital images acquired by an automated traffic enforcement systems would not require any person to testify that the images are accurate and authentic representations of what they claim to purport denying defendants the opportunity to confront and question their accusers unless the defendant submitted evidence him/herself that questioned the authenticity of the images.

This is a clear violation of the SIXTH Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which  states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

In the City of Menlo Park, CA employees of Redflex operates an automated traffic enforcement system, in which Redflex employees obtain and submit photographic images/evidence to the Palo Alto Police of motorists who have allegedly violated a vehicle code which are then forwarded back to Redflex whereupon Redflex sends a citation to the accused motorist and the Courts for prosecution.

The videos of automated security cameras that capture people, including police officers, committing crimes are used all the time as evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6G8G3EPBd4&feature=BFa&list=UUQ4OoM4tgYC6BPzNxGVbr4A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApU6W_g1kuI&feature=autoplay&list=UUQ4OoM4tgYC6BPzNxGVbr4A&playnext=1

For the above videos to be accepted as evidence, the people who operated the cameras and obtained the videos must submit that evidence in open court to be confronted by the accused.

Simitian’s legislation does not require that Redflex employees testify in person whereupon they can be confronted with cross-examination by the accused which flies in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings and position.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON

No. 02—9410. Argued November 10, 2003–Decided March 8, 2004

Held: The State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause because, where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. Pp. 5—33.

A witness’s testimony against a defendant is thus inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id., at 54.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS

certiorari to the appeals court of massachusetts

Argued November 10, 2008—Decided June 25, 200 No. 07–591.

Held: The admission of the certificates violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. Pp. 3-23.

Confrontation Clause(of the 6th Amendment),…commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. … Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes.” 541 U. S., at 61-62.

“Confrontation is designed to weed out no only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well.  Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.  ‘[t]he legal community now concedes, with varying degrees of urgency, that our system produces erroneous convictions based on discredited forensics,’ Metzger, Cheating the Constitution, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 475, 491 (2006)..  Respondent and the dissent may be right that there are other ways and in some cases better ways-to challenge or verify the results of forensic tests.  But the Constitution guarantees one way: confrontation.”

The submission of technical data and analysis as in MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS case is analogous to submitting digital images and computer print from automated traffic enforcement systems.   The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the person[s] submitting affidavits/evidence/testimony must do so in person to allow confrontation by the accused.

Simitian turns the justice system upside down.  Camera’s are not witnesses that provide testimony.  Videos are not witnesses that provide testimony.  Camera’s and videos are evidence that can be submitted to the court upon the testimony of a witness.  By asserting that no one need testify, Simitian is essentially stating that the Camera itself is the witness providing testimony and citing motorists.

“Senate Bill 1303 would protect the rights of Californians cited by traffic enforcement cameras.”  Senator Joe Simitian

LINK: 

Additionally Redflex has a financial motive to obtain convictions, thus the potential incentive to edit and tamper with the evidence to ensure convictions or lie to cover up a malfunctioning system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9UQlTca290

When compared to the fine of the offense of running a red-light, it would be financially prohibitive to any accused motorist to come up with expert analysis and testimony to prove the images have been adulterated.  This financial barrier prevents accused motorists from challenging potentially fraudulently incriminating images.

When an officer issues a ticket in person and testifies in person the accused has a fundamentally fair opportunity to defend him/herself against false accusations and representations made by the officer.

It is a fundamentally unfair advantage to the government and private enterprises that earn a profit from the sale and service, of automated red light camera systems to use images from said systems to incriminate citizens of a crime while not providing equal adversarial analysis to counter the images provided by Reflex and the government.  This unfair advantage is a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments Due Process Clause and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause since the accused is not being provided with equal protection.

“Unfortunately, in order for a motorist to be cited for an infraction, it would have to be witnessed by an officer. No, I don’t mean witnessed via video or digital camera, but live,” CHP Public Information Officer Art Montiel said.

LINK:

Officer Montiel then cited California Penal Codes 836. (a) (1) and 19.7 which state that a peace officer can only arrest a person for a misdemeanor and or cite a person for an infraction when the offense has been committed in the officer’s presence.

According to Menlo Park’s Red Light Camera Procedures, an officer does not witness the red light violations.

As pointed out, it is an employee from Redflex who is doing all of the work of obtaining the images and citing motorists for the City of Menlo Park even though an officer signs off on the citation after reviewing the images.  The Officer has up to 10 days to view the images after the incident was recorded.

The current law 21455.5 of the California Vehicle Code and Senator Simitian’s proposed SB 1303 which allows Cities to erect and use red light camera systems contradict California Penal Codes California Penal Codes 836. (a) (1) and 19.7 and is therefore a violation of 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

When asked what the difference is between an employee of Redflex, (who may not even be a U.S. Citizen), and any other person providing the Menlo Park Police with images and digital documentation of vehicle violations Menlo Park Police Sergeant Sharon Kaufman replied by stating, “Whether citizen or company, all laws applicable to operate and/or run a program must be met.”

Sgt. Kaufman deftly avoids answering the question by providing an answer that does not address the question.

At it’s core, Senator Simitian’s 1303 Bill is allowing some companies, some people and the police to submit hearsay evidence to the court in violation of existing law while denying the same right to all other citizens which is a violation of Article 1 Section 7. (b) of the California Constitution which states, “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”

The contract between the City of Menlo Parkand Redflex states, “Cost neutrality is assured to Customer using this methodology as Customer, (Menlo Park), will never pay Redflex more than cash received.” Pg. 25

“Before any payment is due to Redflex, Customer, (Menlo Park), shall be entitled to recover the sum of $8,500 per month from the gross cash received….”  Pg. 25

Thus, to ensure that Redflex obtains its monthly service fee, Redflex has to generate enough tickets to pay the City of Menlo Park up front.  If Redflex is not generating enough tickets then it will lose its $6,350 fee per each automated red light system, the number of intersections.

This is a significant conflict of interest in providing testimony to the court.

Should the Court’s deem that the use of hearsay evidence submitted by private companies in association with the government from Red Light Camera Systems is acceptable then the government will have a precedent to use use hearsay evidence in all other forms and circumstances.

For More Info See Below:

SENATE BILL  1303

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1301-1350/sb_1303_bill_20120529_amended_sen_v98.pdf

Senator Simitian’s Press Release:

http://www.senatorsimitian.com/entry/senate_passes_simitian_bill_to_curb_red-light_camera_abuses/

Menlo ParkRed Light Enforcement Program:

http://www.menloparkpolice.org/photoenforce/pdf/MPBusinessRules.pdf

Redflex Contract With Menlo Park:

http://www.menloparkpolice.org/photoenforce/pdf/MPRedflexAgreement.pdf

California Penal Codes:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=2-24

CaliforniaVehicle Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21450-21468

Constitutional Law:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON

No. 02—9410. Argued November 10, 2003–Decided March 8, 2004

Held: The State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause because, where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. Pp. 5—33.

The Clause’s primary object is testimonial hearsay, and interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class.  Second, the Framers, (of the Constitution), would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.  Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243. Pp. 5—21.

 (b) This Court’s decisions have generally remained faithful to the Confrontation Clause’s original meaning. See, e.g., Mattox, supra. Pp. 21—23.

 (d) The Confrontation Clause commands that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS

certiorari to the appeals court of massachusetts

Argued November 10, 2008—Decided June 25, 200 No. 07–591.

Held: The admission of the certificates violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. Pp. 3-23.

At petitioner’s state-court drug trial, the prosecution introduced certificates, (affidavits), of state laboratory analysts stating that material seized by police and connected to petitioner was cocaine of a certain quantity.

(b) The arguments advanced to avoid this rather straightforward application of Crawford are rejected. Respondent’s claim that the analysts are not subject to confrontation because they are not “accusatory” witnesses finds no support in the Sixth Amendment ’s text or in this Court’s case law. 

 The argument that the analysts should not be subject to confrontation because their statements result from neutral scientific testing is little more than an invitation to return to the since-overruled decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 ,

 “To be sure, the Clause’s ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. … Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes.” 541 U. S., at 61-62.

“Confrontation is one means of assuring accurate forensic analysis. While it is true, as the dissent notes, that an honest analyst will not alter his testimony when forced to confront the defendant, post,at 10, the same cannot be said of the fraudulent analyst.”

541 U. S., at 51. A witness’s testimony against a defendant is thus inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id., at 54.

More fundamentally, the Confrontation Clause imposes a burden on the prosecution to present its witnesses, not on the defendant to bring those adverse witnesses into court. Its value to the defendant is not replaced by a system in which the prosecution presents its evidence via ex parte affidavits and waits for the defendant to subpoena the affiants if he chooses.

 “This case involves little more than the application of our holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36. The Sixth Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex parte out-of-court affidavits, and the admission of such evidence against Melendez-Diaz was error.”

 “Confrontation is designed to weed out no only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well.  Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.  ‘[t]he legal community now concedes, with varying degrees of urgency, that our system produces erroneous convictions based on discredited forensics,’ Metzger, Cheating the Constitution, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 475, 491 (2006)..  Respondent and the dissent may be right that there are otrher ways and in some cases better ways-to challenge or verify the results of forensic tests.  But the Constitution guarantees one way: confrontation.”

Originally published on June 2, 2012

Public Urination – Palo Alto city attorney Molly Stump to deal with main concern

Newly planned vehicle habitation ordinance schedule to come before city council Mid-September designed to deal with the growing population of unwanted over-night parking and those who find themselves inhabiting their vehicles some say, will be enacted soon now dubbed, operation “Hydrant”.

At the core of this newly developed city planned ordinance according to city attorney Donald Larkin as discussed in previously held behind closed door meetings and confirmed by one source in an email below, is too deal with what Mr. Larkin describes as the continued flow of public urination.

“during the first Working Group Meeting Mr. Larkin stated that the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance was necessary to prevent public urination.

During the last Working Group Meeting I asked Mr. Larkin how the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance would prevent: public urination, littering, disturbing the peace etc.. all of the acts that he is using to justify enacting the ordinance however he refused to respond and Curtis Williams intervened by stating that that is not why we are here. Mr. Williams intervened not once but twice and I never received an explanation.

The city is not capable of engaging in a meaningful dialog regarding the proposed ordinance because the city’s justification lacks any merit and would be exposed as such if they did engage in meaningful debate.

This unwillingness to subject their position to examination and then foist it upon u.s. citizens demonstrates that we do not live a democracy but a form of oligarchy.”

As of this writing, city attorney Molly Stump as well as All city council members have refused All public urination comment.  Mr. Ciampi, we believe, just may have a leg up on everyone……

Monsanto and the GMO Industry Ashamed of Their Products

If someone offered you a pill for your headache but refused to tell you what it was even though it was perfectly safe, would you swallow it?

The GMO industry wants to force that pill down your throat against your will.

This November California voters will decide whether or not foods derived from Genetic Engineering also known as Genetically Modified Organisms must me labeled and identified as such when sold in California, Proposition 37.

Monsanto and other Big Ag companies are so embarrassed by their genetically engineered products that they are spending $25,000,000.00 or more in order to defeat the measure and prevent the public from knowing what Big Ag is selling to the public.

Kathy Fairbanks is the spokeswoman for The Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition was interviewed by Curve Wire, Click Here for Interview:

Ms Fairbanks states that lawyers will reap tens of millions of dollars suing food companies, grocers, and farmers if they do not comply by labeling their Genetically Engineered foods.

Ms. Fairbanks, the lawyers will only make money if the farmers, food companies and grocers fail to comply with the legislation, should the farmers, food companies and grocers comply with the legislation then no lawyer will earn a dime from suing the food producers.

Ms. Fairbanks continues by citing the Legislative Analyst Office’s review of the ballot measure, “According to the measure, violation of the measure’s provisions could be prosecuted by state, local, or private parties. … In order to bring such action forward, the consumer would not be required to demonstrate any specific damage from the alleged violation.”

Ms Fairbanks and the LAO negligently leave out the entire context of the legislation which also includes:, “The failure to make any disclosure required by Section 110890, or the making of a statement prohibited by section 110809. 1, shall each be deemed to cause damage in at least the amount of the actual or offered retail price of each package or product alleged to be in violation.”  CLICK HERE: 

By enabling individuals to sue offenders, the legislation relieves the state and the tax payers of the financial burden of holding offenders accountable.  The LAO determined that the cost to the state to oversee that foods are properly labeled would be a few hundred thousand dollars to a million annually and negligible to the courts, a miniscule amount compared to the billions of dollars of food products sold in the state.

Courts are prickly when it comes to damages, thus in order for this initiative to have any teeth that will compel farmers, food companies and grocers to comply with its demands it is necessary to define a damage as the very act of failing to comply.  Without creating the offense as an actual damage offenders would essentially be free to violate the law without suffering any consequences, thus, the necessity of creating a damage.

Ms Fairbanks complains that the proposition excludes alcohol from the same requirements as orange juice.  Orange juice is a food that has Vitamin C and bioflavonoids which are good and healthy for the human body.  Alcohol is a poison to the body destroying the liver with every ounce.  Alcohol is illegal for people under 21 to consume.

The federal government requires strict labeling of alcoholic beverages that must state that alcohol may cause health problems and birth defects.  Alcohol is not even germane to the issue of food consumption for people generally don’t consume alcohol to nourish their body, but to numb their brains.

Ms. Faribanks states: “The biggest misconception is that GE foods are new and untested. In fact, genetic engineering of foods has been done for literally thousands of years”

Interesting, given that on her website it states “Biotechnology, also called genetic engineering (GE), has been used for nearly two decades….”

Well, which is it, thousands of years or twenty?

One Genetically Engineered crop is “BT-Corn.”    To create BT-Corn engineers merge genetic material from a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, into the genetic makeup of corn.  This genetic makeup is an endotoxin to insects that damage corn, specifically the European corn borer.  When the insects ingest the corn the endotoxin from the bacterium breaks down the gut wall enabling the normal gut bacteria to enter into the bloodstream resulting in Septicaemia and death of the insect.  The government and Big Ag claim that this endotoxin is harmless to humans.

I don’t know about you, but I find it difficult to believe that scientists were creating Bactocorn and Bactobean via In vitro nucleic acid techniques a  hundred-fifty years ago let alone a couple of thousand.

Toxic pesticides that have been implanted into genetically modified crops have been found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn children according to scientists from the University of Sherbrooke

      Hospital Centre in Quebec.  So much for claiming that the toxin does not enter the human body.

Interestingly, it now appears that this super corn has inadvertently created super worms that are resistant to the BT-Corn and are enjoying it like never before due to the recent droughts.

 

Bruce Potter a pest management specialist from the University of Minnesota who has been investigating the problem has found that the genetically modified corn is basically backfiring.  “Instead of making things easier, we’ve just made corn rootworm management harder and a heck of a lot more expensive,” Potter said.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the crops that have been Genetically Engineered to tolerate the herbicide of “Roundup” have resulted in weeds that are now resistant to the herbicide

When you thought it couldn’t get any worse, Professor Don M. Huber from Purdue University claims that there may be a link between Roundup resistant crops and a new pathogen which infects plants causing sudden-death-syndrome and animals resulting in miscarriages and infertility.

Mr. Huber states in an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack:       This new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.  I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status….it should be treated as an emergency.

Two Genetically Modified (GM) foods whose commercialization was stopped because of negative test results of give a chilling example of what may be getting through.  Rats fed GM potatoes had potentially precancerous cell growth in the stomach and intestines, less developed brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems.   GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that the peas might trigger a deadly anaphylactic shock in allergic humans.

Opponents to Prop 37 claim that it will be too costly for the State to regulate yet they themselves have already amassed a minimum of $25,000,000 to spend on defeating Prop-37, that’s enough money to regulate the labeling for 25 years.

Additionally critics claim that the measure will force a billion dollar expense upon farmers and food companies due to re-labeling their  products, an expense that will be passed on to consumers.

First off, every food product sold in grocery stores is labeled.  Manufacturers are constantly re-labeling their products with newer and livelier labels in order to entice consumers to purchase their specific products, thus the argument of adding a couple of words “Genetically Engineered” to existing labels is somehow expensive or burdensome is a ludicrous straw man.  Secondarily, Prop 37 does not require that food producers use higher cost ingredients.

In her interview with  Curvewire  Ms. Fairbanks goes  even further by stating, “A flaw in the measure also prohibits processed foods from being labeled as natural, even if they contain no GE ingredients.”

Hmmm, does Ms. Fairbanks understand what she is saying?

If something has been quote, “processed,” unquote, then it is NOT “natural.”  If it is not “natural,” then companies should not be labeling their product as “natural” in order to mislead the public.

The flaw is not with Prop 37, the flaw is with Ms. Fairbanks and the entities that wish to mislead the public about their products through deceptive and false advertising.

Anybody who is on the side of secrecy is openly at war with honesty.  Anybody who is not honest is not trustworthy.

If  Ms. Fairbanks, Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont Pioneer and the others truly believe that their genetically modified organisms, herbicides and pesticides are harmless to humans and the environment and are a panacea for the world’s food needs then they would want to plaster the Label, GMO, Genetically Engineered, all over their products.

The organic food industry is proud of their products wants to inform consumers what their products are by accurately and boldly labeling what they are and where they come from without hiding information about them.  On the other hand you have the genetically engineered food industry that is so ashamed of their products they do everything in their power to conceal what their products are to the point of actually refusing to identify the true identify of their products and where they come from.

The campaign to defeat Prop 37 is about to blitz the airways with their biased view of GMOs.  If you truly want to have a grasp of the opposing side to make an informed decision you should check out the book, “Seeds of Deception.”

“Outrageous! That’s what you’ll say over and over again when you read how the biotechnology companies have manipulated the government, our food, and the media, and put an entire generation at risk.”  Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry’s)

“The revelations in this book are being made public at a pivotal time in the global GM debate, and could tip the scales against the biotech industry. The evidence in the book refutes U.S. science and safety claims, and undermines the basis of their WTO challenge.”
—Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Food Safety

Ultimately this article is not about the safety or harmful effects of genetically modified organisms and the herbicides and insecticides related to their implementation.  Genetically Engineered foods could be everything that Ms. Fairbanks and Monsanto claim them to be.  This article is about cutting through the morass and exposing the naked truth that something is wrong when a business entity, an industry, that wants to hide the ingredients of its products from the public especially when those ingredients end up in the majority of food products consumed by the unaware public.

It boils down to choice.  If a person chooses not to eat genetically modified organisms and is subjected to those organisms without his knowledge as a result of not being informed what is in his food, his right to choose has been taken from him.

Typically, Genetically Modified Organisms are the result of fabricating two or more separate ingredients into one product such as combining Corn and Bacillus thuringiensis.

As originally enacted in 1938, section 403(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required that the label of a food that is fabricated from two or more ingredients declare each ingredient by its common or usual name….

According to federal law, if we took corn and the Bacteria ingredient, Bacillus thuringiensis and combined them together placing them in a package to sell for human consumption in the marketplace we would have to list the ingredients on the label of the product.

Ingredients:  Corn and Bacillus thuringiensis

I don’t think that too many people would be ingesting tortilla chips which can cause Septicaemia and death to certain insects.

The Organic industry wants you to know what you are putting into your body.

The GMO industry and Ms. Fairbanks do not want you to know what you are putting into your body.

If someone offered you a pill for your headache but refused to tell you what it was even though it was perfectly safe, would you swallow it?

Attorney General Kamala Harris Imprisons Innocent Man

California Attorney General Kamala Harris and California Police Officers like to convict and imprison the innocent and let the guilty go free.

A Federal Court Judge has ruled that Daniel Larson is innocent of the crime he was convicted of and ordered his release from prison.  He had already served 10+ years of a 28 year to life sentence for falsely being in possession of a knife and throwing it away.

Numerous witnesses including a Police Chief verified that another man, William Hewitt, was in possession of the knife.

Let me ask you a simple question, should a person who desires to imprison the innocent and let the guilty go free be the Attorney General of California or even a prosecutor?

What kind of person wants to imprison innocent people while allowing the guilty to go free?

It has been two years since Mr. Larson was found to be innocent, two years in which Kamala Harris has continued to persecute him, why?

It is impossible to convict an innocent person of a crime if you don’t want to.  The only way innocent people are convicted of crimes is because the prosecutors, the police, the attorney generals, Kamala Harris, want to convict the innocent and thereby let the guilty go free.

Prosecutors, who are supposed to represent the People of California, have no obligation to produce the truth, they only have put on a decent prosecution.  Once a prosecution commences anything that would undermine the prosecution’s efforts to achieve a conviction are considered adversarial, including the truth.

Once a prosecutor initiates a case against a citizen, he/she has absolutely no incentive to produce any evidence to the court or the defense that would undermine his/her case in seeking a conviction.

Truth is no longer relevant, only a conviction.

The perversion does not end there.

When police officers commit crimes, does Attorney General Kamala Harris hold them accountable, no!

Through direct evidence I have proven that numerous Palo Alto Police Officers and the Santa Clara County DA violated numerous California Laws in attempting to wrongfully convict me of a crime.

The California Attorney General refused to hold the Santa Clara County District Attorney and the Palo Alto Police accountable despite the overwhelming evidence that the Palo Alto Police and the Santa Clara DA tampered with and destroyed the evidence which would have incriminated them.

Instead of taking control of the case and obtaining the evidence pursuant to Article 5 Section 13 of the California Constitution the California Attorney General allowed the criminals to escape justice.

Why does the Attorney General of California not want to prosecute police officers and district attorneys who violate California Law?

Kamala Harris and prosecutors do not want to prosecute corrupt cops because they want to deceive the public into believing that they are above violating the law.

Kamala Harris and the justice system in general does not believe in the rule of law when the they themselves are the ones who are violating it.

“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.”     Proverbs 17:15

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/release-daniel-larsen-ruled-innocent

http://www.californiainnocenceproject.org/index.php/component/content/article/2/13-daniel-larsen

http://harrisandrosen.weebly.com/

http://injusticesystem.weebly.com/

http://innocencemarch.com/daniel-larsen/

Elect Romney To Outsource Your Job

Romney-Ryan Pink Slip Flyering Event

Corner of Laurel and Olive, San Carlos, 799 Laurel St. (Map)
San Carlos, CA 94070
Thursday, August 16th, 4:00 PM

Message from your host, Phyllis H.: We may not know what’s hiding in Mitt Romney’s tax records, but now we know what’s hiding in his tax plan: TAX BREAKS FOR AMERICAN COMPANIES that outsource jobs, which could create 800,000 jobs overseas and PINK SLIPS AT HOME!

To expose the real impact of Romney’s outsourcing plan, MoveOn member…(more)s are hitting the streets on Thursday, August 16 and passing out Pink Slips to symbolize the crisis that will occur if Romney is elected and his Tax Plan becomes a reality.

Join members of the MidPeninsula American Dream Council and other activists as we gather at the Hot Harvest Nights Farmer’s Market in San Carlos to pass out Pink Slips and spread the news about the truth in Romney’s Tax Plan. We’re only 81 days from the November 6 election…help us get out the message and get out the vote!

Click Here To Sign Up:
http://moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=131924&id=48878-22699769-f7VpYnx&t=105

Military to test hypersonic jet that could zip across the U.S. in less than 1 hour

A superfast jet that could fly from L.A. to New York City in less than an hour may be one step closer to reality after a key test this week.

The  X-51A WaveRider, an unmanned aircraft that could reach speeds up to Mach 6 will be launched from the wing of a B-52 bomber high above the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The WaveRider is expected to zip up into the atmosphere and fly at hypersonic speeds—3,600 mph—for 300 seconds, before breaking up into the ocean.

If successful, if would be the longest jaunt for the test aircraft. The newspaper noted that the development of WaveRider could lead to progress on a passenger jet that could theoretically travel across the U.S. in 46 minutes.

“Attaining sustained hypersonic flight is like going from propeller-driven aircraft to jet aircraft,” Robert A. Mercier, deputy for technology in the high speed systems division at the Air Force Research Laboratory in Ohio told the L.A. Times.

But beyond passenger flights, achieving hypersonic speeds could also lead to the development of the next generation of missiles, space vehicles and military aircraft, the Times points out.

The WaveRider program had an issue in June of 2011 when the test vehicle in a similar test to the one planned for Tuesday failed to reach full power.

The Pentagon said it spent about $2 billion on technology and engineering around hypersonic flight over the last decade, the Times reports. This program is estimated to cost $140 million, according to Globalsecurity.org, a military policy research website.

If you’re keeping score, the Concorde, a supersonic airliner, crossed the Atlantic at 1,350 mph.

It would take about 3.5 hours, about twice as fast as current commercial airlines. The Concorde was retired in 2003.

By Ron Recinto | The Lookout