Welcome to The Truth News.Info

Hope you enjoy your visit!

Birke Baehr -"what's Wrong With Our Food System?

And How Can We Make A Difference?"

Robert said...

"He's only 11 years old, but Birke Baehr wowed a large audience with his speech on "What's Wrong with our Food System and How We Can Make a Difference."

Birke sees through corporate efforts that aim to maneuver kids into persuading their parents to buy brightly disguised junk food cereal. Citing genetically-engineered seeds, he sees the "dark side" of our industrialized food system. "Creepy" is the word he used to describe this process of making food that "causes cancer in lab animals." He mentions pesticides, irradiation, and use of petroleum products to prepare overused soil for additional food seed planting."


Story below related:( From Jim, news contributor)

New Food Crisis Looms

November 23, 2010
Author: Toni Johnson (CFR)

The world experienced a major food crisis in 2008 that led to civil and political unrest from Bangladesh to Haiti and added millions more to those suffering from malnutrition. Though prices have dropped somewhat, some analysts say the crisis never totally ended. With prices rising dramatically in 2010, the world could be on the brink of a new crisis.

Full report here


Hearing that a friend or a family member has cancer is no fun.

From Paul

What's even less fun is trying to share with them some of the knowledge that you have and then seeing them not listen to a word of it.

I know, because it's happened to us before.

The cancer industry is so deeply rooted in fear, that many times patients are sucked into making a decision quickly, while they could have at least taken a few days to learn about the other options they have.

This fear also creates inflexibility, making it much harder for you to share your thoughts.

So what do you do?

The first inclination is for you to buy a bunch of stuff and send it over - hoping they'll take all your advice and goodies you sent.

90% of the time, your money will be wasted. They'll never touch the stuff. Mainly because they're so afraid that these foods or herbs will interfere with the chemotherapy - which of course is 1000X more toxic than many herbs or foods.

They'll also never take it, because a good number of people would rather die than change their diet and remove the foods that ultimately are killing them.

Anyway, you need to plant a seed here, not transform them.

You can't force anything.

You need to present information, not foods.

The friends or family who take the information in earnest and actually read or watch it - they're the ones that may want your help. They're the ones that you might be able to share with openly.

So, to help them get a new education, here are some of our suggestions.

1. Suggest a second alternative opinion.

Chances are your friend or family member has gone to one or two oncologists.

That's great, but they're all taught the same thing - how to treat cancer with chemotherapy, surgery and radiation.

(Now, don't get me wrong here, there are certainly times when surgery may be needed.)

You need to convince them that there are other options and that getting a "second" opinion from two oncologists is like getting one opinion.

Find an alternative option and at least share their contact info.

This may open up their mind to new possibilities.

What if you can't find a practitioner?

2. Get them Knockout by Suzanne Somers.

This book is a great collection of interviews / chapters that share different alternative cancer options.

It's a great resource for those who are exploring their options.

I've been thinking about writing a book like this, but Suzanne already did it.

Pass the book along and follow up to see if they've read it.

3. Send them to the Gerson website.

Here's the link: www.Gerson.org

Pass it on!

4. Get Mike Anderson's "Healing Cancer from the Inside Out"

This documentary is a good primer to explain the connection between diet and cancer.

The quality of it isn't Hollywood, but the information is better than Tinsel-town has ever produced. LOL!

You can find this on Amazon.com.

5. Watch Burzynski with them.

This movie was released a few months ago and I've been talking about it ever since.

I'm pretty stingy about my recommendations of documentaries, but this one passes the test.

It's also a great film to give others a taste of what the cancer industry is all about.

Annmarie and I just gave it to her parents and they both watched it and wanted to talk about it after with us.

Here's where you can get a copy:


6. Try a month, then decide.

If there is any indication that they may be interested in what you're talking about, you may want to talk to them about trying something different for 30 days and see what happens.

Now, this of course, needs to be discussed with a health practitioner, but you may want to suggest they research some of the other options and give them a shot for 30-60 days. (as long as this is appropriate)

After this trial, they can work with their practitioner to see if there is any progress or if things have gotten worse.

A much better decision can be made using this feedback than based out of fear.

Ultimately the decision is up to them, but giving them more options will help them make a more informed decision.

As for you, be sure to do your best, and at the same time don't be disappointed if they don't listen.

Some will and some won't.

You can only control your reaction to the situation.


Also see below:

Natural things to try and kill Cancer


The Label All Milk Drinkers Should Look Out For

(Unless You Like Cancer)

November 25 2010

With a federal court overturning Ohio's ban on 'rBGH-free' labels on dairy products, raw dairy producers and consumers can again bask in new hope. This ruling means that companies that want to clearly state that their products are "rBGH free," "rBST free," or "artificial hormone free" are now allowed to do so.

The fight for labeling of rBGH-laced milk has been ongoing since its introduction to the US market in 1994. Part of the concern is the fact that rBGH is an artificial hormone. The additional concern is that it's a genetically modified artificial hormone. Disallowing the labeling of rBGH-treated dairy essentially set the precedent for not labeling other genetically modified foods.

The debate about labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods has now flared up again, this time because the FDA is reviewing a GM salmon. If approved, the next step will be to determine whether or not the genetically altered salmon must be labeled.

Read more click here


Lisbon Summit: NATO Proclaims Itself Global Military Force

Stop NATO November 22, 2010

by Rick Rozoff

The recently concluded North Atlantic Treaty Organization Treaty summit in Portugal gave Washington everything it demanded from its 27 NATO allies, at least 20 NATO partners providing troops for the war in Afghanistan, the European Union and Russia.

The U.S.-controlled North Atlantic Alliance endorsed without reservations and even without deliberations American plans to include all of Europe in the Pentagon’s and its Missile Defense Agency’s worldwide interceptor missile system. The summit’s declaration states: “NATO will maintain an appropriate mix of conventional, nuclear, and missile defence forces. Missile defence will become an integral part of our overall defence posture.” [1]

In adopting its new Strategic Concept it also authorized an analogous continent-wide cyber warfare operation to work in conjunction with – and for all practical purposes under the direction of – the Pentagon’s new U.S. Cyber Command.

It reaffirmed the bloc’s Article 5 commitment to render collective military assistance to any member state under supposed attack and stretched the concept of attack to include non-military categories like computer, energy and terrorist threats. The Strategic Concept “reconfirms the bond between our nations to defend one another against attack, including against new threats to the safety of our citizens.” [2]

“NATO members will always assist each other against attack, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. That commitment remains firm and binding. NATO will deter and defend against any threat of aggression, and against emerging security challenges where they threaten the fundamental security of individual Allies or the Alliance as a whole.”

While there are no conventional military threats – and no nuclear ones as well – which is to say no military dangers at all confronting NATO’s North American and European members, other – contrived – concerns will serve as the basis for the activation of Article 5. They include attacks on or threats to computer networks:

“Cyber attacks…can reach a threshold that threatens national and Euro-Atlantic prosperity, security and stability,” NATO claims, so its members are obligated to “develop further [the] ability to prevent, detect, defend against and recover from cyber-attacks, including by using the NATO planning process to enhance and coordinate national cyber-defence capabilities, bringing all NATO bodies under centralized cyber protection….”

European “dependence” on Russian oil and natural gas and control of strategic sea routes and shipping lanes:

“Some NATO countries will become more dependent on foreign energy suppliers and in some cases, on foreign energy supply and distribution networks for their energy needs. As a larger share of world consumption is transported across the globe, energy supplies are increasingly exposed to disruption.”

And several other issues not even remotely related to military matters [3]:

“Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs will further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to significantly affect NATO planning and operations.”

NATO also reiterated its commitment to maintaining American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, with the Strategic Concept stating, “as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance.”

And the Alliance went along with the White House and Pentagon shift from an earlier pledge to “draw down” U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan next year to what Washington has of late referred to as “provisional” and “aspirational” plans for a “transitional” strategy that could see Western military forces still in theater in the Asian nation 15 or more years after they first arrived. The Lisbon Summit Declaration states: “Transition will be conditions-based, not calendar-driven, and will not equate to withdrawal of ISAF-troops.”

There is no nation or group of nations offering NATO any serious challenge, none posing a threat to the world’s only military bloc, and hardly any even standing in the way of its global expansion. “However, no one should doubt NATO’s resolve if the security of any of its members were to be threatened….Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy….As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.”

“The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies.”

Formalizing the international deployments of the past eleven years – in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Arabian Sea – NATO’s new Strategic Concept compels all member states and scores of partners to “develop and maintain robust, mobile and deployable conventional forces to carry out both our Article 5 responsibilities and the Alliance’s expeditionary operations, including with the NATO Response Force,” and “ensure the broadest possible participation of Allies in collective defence planning on nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces.”

Invoking the little-noted catch phrase that since 1989 has been employed in anticipation and later fulfilment of plans to subordinate all of Europe under NATO’s military command [4], Alliance heads of state in Lisbon last week also endorsed the completion of expansion plans affecting the Balkans and the former Soviet Union:

“Our goal of a Europe whole and free, and sharing common values, would be best served by the eventual integration of all European countries that so desire into Euro-Atlantic structures.

“The door to NATO membership remains fully open to all European democracies which share the values of our Alliance, which are willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, and whose inclusion can contribute to common security and stability.”

In particular, NATO will “continue and develop the partnerships with Ukraine and Georgia within the NATO-Ukraine and NATO-Georgia Commissions, based on the NATO decision at the Bucharest summit [in] 2008″ and “facilitate the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans.” Specific mention was made of Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.

The NATO-Georgia Commission was established in September of 2008, the month after the five-day war between Georgia and Russia, which itself was launched by the Mikheil Saakashvili government in Tbilisi a week after 1,000 U.S. troops completed the Immediate Response 2008 NATO Partnership for Peace war games and while American troops and equipment were still in Georgia.

The Bucharest summit decision on Georgia and Ukraine’s eventual full membership in NATO and the creation of the NATO-Georgia Commission gave rise to an Annual National Program to expedite Georgia’s NATO integration. The traditional route to accession, a Membership Action Plan (MAP), was not presented to Georgia in 2008 because of two NATO provisions: That member states cannot be involved in ingering territorial disputes (which is why, for example, Cyprus would not be given a MAP if it were to join the Partnership for Peace) and there cannot be foreign – which is to say non-NATO – military forces on a prospective member’s soil.

The Georgian government claims the now independent nations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as its own and two years ago there were small contingents of Russian peacekeepers in both countries. The NATO-Georgia Commission and NATO’s Annual National Program – a unique vehicle to integrate Georgia (and Ukraine) into NATO through bypassing the above-mentioned constraints of a Membership Action Plan – is complemented by the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership which was announced shortly after the 2008 war and signed on January 9, 2009. (The comparable United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership was signed between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko on December 19, 2008.)

It is the contention of several observers, including the present one, that the Georgian attack on South Ossetia on August 7, 2008 was, if successful, to be immediately followed by one on Abkhazia, thereby eliminating both the aforementioned obstacles to NATO’s full expansion into the South Caucasus.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly autumn session in Poland on November 12-16 passed a resolution calling Abkhazia and South Ossetia “occupied territories,” which led the Abkhazian Foreign Ministry to respond:

“NATO is an organization that has been contributing to the intensive militarization of Georgia for many years, stirring up the revanchist mindset of the Georgian leadership, which led to the August 2008 bloodshed in South Ossetia.” [5]

President Barack Obama held a one-on-one meeting with Georgia’s Saakashvili on the sidelines on the Lisbon summit on November 19.

NATO’s plans for a further drive east and south of what most people understand to be Europe are not limited to the Caucasus.

The Lisbon summit, in approving the bloc’s new doctrine, also for the first time bluntly stated that NATO’s reach is as broad as the world itself:

“The promotion of Euro-Atlantic security is best assured through a wide network of partner relationships with countries and organisations around the globe.”

President Obama and the other 27 NATO heads of state endorsed the new Strategic Concept which also states:

“We are firmly committed to the development of friendly and cooperative relations with all countries of the Mediterranean, and we intend to further develop the Mediterranean Dialogue in the coming years. We attach great importance to peace and stability in the Gulf region, and we intend to strengthen our cooperation in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.”

The Mediterranean Dialogue consists of NATO and seven nations in Africa and the Middle East: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.

The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative of 2004 [6] aims at upgrading Mediterranean Dialogue partnerships to the level of those of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, which has prepared 12 nations in Eastern Europe for full membership since 1999: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

It also cultivates the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – as NATO military partners. Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are official Troop Contributing Nations (TCNs) for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, as are Partnership for Peace members Georgia and Ukraine in former Soviet space and Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro in the Balkans.

This past weekend NATO vowed to “deepen the cooperation with current members of the Mediterranean Dialogue and be open to the inclusion in the Mediterranean Dialogue of other countries of the region” and “develop a deeper security partnership with our Gulf partners and remain ready to welcome new partners in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.” That is, to incorporate all of the Middle East and northern Africa into its broader military nexus with an eye on nations like Iraq [7], Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad and even Kenya.

The summit declaration confirmed the continuation of Operation Active Endeavour, “our Article 5 maritime operation in the Mediterranean,” Operation Ocean Shield off the Horn of Africa, the airlifting of Ugandan troops to Somalia for the fighting there and support for the African Standby Force and NATO Training Mission-Iraq.

In addition to detailing expansion plans in Europe, Asia and Africa ad seriatim, NATO has announced that it is now an international military-political formation. The summit declaration expressed “profound gratitude for the professionalism, dedication and bravery of the more than 143,000 men and women from Allied and partner nations who are deployed on NATO’s operations and missions.”

Its new doctrine also states: “Unique in history, NATO is a security Alliance that fields military forces able to operate together in any environment; that can control operations anywhere through its integrated military command structure….”

The bloc’s NATO Response Force (NRF) “provides a mechanism to generate a high readiness and technologically advanced force package made up of land, air, sea and special force components that can be deployed quickly on operations wherever needed.” [8]

The NRF was proposed by then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in September of 2002 and formalized at NATO’s Prague summit in November of the same year. It conducted its first live-fire exercise, the large-scale Steadfast Jaguar 2006, in the West African island nation of Cape Verde. At the end of the year it was declared to be at full operational capability with up to 25,000 troops “made up of land, air, sea and special forces components…capable of performing missions worldwide across the whole spectrum of operations.” [9]

Alluding in part to the NRF, the new Strategic Concept states:

“Where conflict prevention proves unsuccessful, NATO will be prepared and capable to manage ongoing hostilities. NATO has unique conflict management capacities, including the unparalleled capability to deploy and sustain robust military forces in the field.”

It also commits its member nations to “further develop doctrine and military capabilities for expeditionary operations, including counterinsurgency, stabilization and reconstruction operations.”

In Lisbon, Obama and his fellow heads of state agreed that:

“We, the political leaders of NATO, are determined to continue renewal of our Alliance so that it is fit for purpose in addressing the 21st Century security challenges. We are firmly committed to preserve its effectiveness as the globe’s most successful political-military Alliance.”

The world’s only military bloc does not protect Europe from chimerical missile and nuclear threats or from concerns better addressed by its respective members’ judiciary, internal security forces and environmental, immigration, energy, public health and weather ministries and departments.

It rather employs the European continent as a base of operations for military deployments and campaigns most everywhere else.

That role has been solidified with the military integration of the U.S., NATO and the European Union [10]. On November 19 the president of the EU’s European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, addressed NATO leaders in Lisbon and said, “the ability of our two organisations to shape our future security environment would be enormous if they worked together. It is time to break down the remaining walls between them.” [11]

NATO’s new 21st century doctrine affirms:

“[T]he EU is a unique and essential partner for NATO. The two organisations share a majority of members, and all members of both organisations share common values. NATO recognizes the importance of a stronger and more capable European defence. We welcome the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which provides a framework for strengthening the EU’s capacities to address common security challenges.

“Non-EU Allies make a significant contribution to these efforts. For the strategic partnership between NATO and the EU, their fullest involvement in these efforts is essential. NATO and the EU can and should play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles.”

NATO has also acquired a new partner in Eurasia, one with the world’s largest land mass, stretching from the Baltic and the Black Seas to the Pacific Ocean: Russia. The subject of another article.

1) North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Lisbon Summit Declaration


2) Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation


3) Thousand Deadly Threats: Third Millennium NATO, Western Businesses
Collude On New Global Doctrine
Stop NATO, October 2, 2009


4) Berlin Wall: From Europe Whole And Free To New World Order
Stop NATO, November 9, 2009


5) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 18, 2010
6) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul
Stop NATO, February 6, 2009


7) Iraq: NATO Assists In Building New Middle East Proxy Army
Stop NATO, August 13, 2010


8) North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Operations


9) North Atlantic Treaty Organization
The NATO Response Force


10) EU, NATO, US: 21st Century Alliance For Global Domination
Stop NATO, February 19, 2009


11) EUobserver, November 21, 2010


Ensure Readiness ?

by Benjamin Pooler

Something very odd here, especially the media drawing two assumptions that likely have no worth to this story.

If you listen to the Americans, what you see is evil Iran and evil North Korea planning nuclear war upon us so we had all best go beat them up now before its too late, what we fail to see because of the lies told us is these small and insignificant nations following the absurd rules laid down for them by the almighty Americans and watching as their compliance is turned into a media circus against them.

Let's look at what lead up to this point, causing N Korea to attach S Korea. First is the false flag attempt in May of this year. You have all seen the headline that a North Korean sub has sunk the South Korean Cheonan in March or so we are to believe. For starters let’s learn what a false flag operation is. A false flag operation is an attack or event caused to galvanize the people against or for something that they otherwise would not support. In this case it would be a war with North Korea.

So now the President had directed the U.S. military to coordinate with South Korea to "ensure readiness"(1)Read article below, Readiness for what? Well get ready because we are on the doorsteps of world war III by God. The world financial situation is critical, and I mean collapse of all monitory monies though out the world are in jeopardy period. Which in my book of the past means WAR.

So now South Korea has been conducting military exercises this week but it was not clear whether there had been any drills near the island that could have triggered the incident,but I believe that we and the S Koreans have been provoking this since May of this year. Military excises right next to your enemy is not a good idea. Look, it's like you and your next door neighbor hate each other, and you decide to target practice for months right next to his house while his kids are playing outside. And once in a while you over shoot his house or come damn close of hitting it without hitting it. That just might piss him off enough to show you he has had enough of it, and sets your house on fire.

Also here is the other warning sign that war is coming. The Americans have said in the past, "Iran and N Korea, if you read between the lines and listen to the small voices, you will see that North Korea did not say "Hey come look at our new weapons facility" but allegedly and this is from the US scientist himself, they said "Come look at our new facility for supplying civilian purposes"

Whenever you deal with the Americans you have to doggy paddle through the bull-crap, we saw this happen with Iran's evil new secret base, the one that Iran had self declared a week before the Americans came up with their idiotic story, the one that they hadn't even started equipping as it was far from finished in its construction and the one that Iran had followed the NNPT guidelines in announcing that this was a future site to be added to the IAEA inspectors books when it was ready.

The original stories from the AP showed that the scientist was being shown round a facility for low level enrichment with the North Koreans trying to demonstrate their ability to use nuclear power for civilian purposes, it is absurd to think that the North Koreans are going to show people round a military weapons facility, especially someone they regard as belligerent and an enemy of their country.

People like I said, get ready today, it's going to get really bad. I'm not a dooms day-er, but today I'm convinced world war III is on it's way, and N Korea and S Korea will fight over this one. Even Russia is saying it "colossal danger" that's just another term for War.

YTN said at least 200 North Korean shells hit Yeonpyeong, which lies off the west coast of the divided peninsula near a disputed maritime border. Most landed on a military base there and the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the latest rise in tension represented a "colossal danger".

(1)WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has directed the U.S. military to coordinate with South Korea to "ensure readiness" and deter future aggression from North Korea, the White House said on Monday. www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N0ZT20100524


False Flag Alert: 'US-S.Korea Joint Military Exercises Possible'

By Zen Gardner (Editor) Thursday, November 25, 2010

This engineered "incident" very likely is another orchestrated distraction from something bigger. The tried and proven magician's trick is to get you concentrating on something sensational, while he pulls his deception set-up on another line of sight.

Read full report here


World War III With Fiat!

November 22, 2010 by Bob Livingston

Let’s talk about a new definition of war.

If you sat in the brain trust of the inner sanctum of the World Order, how would you plan and create war? You would first move in the exoteric (the visible). You would create a shooting war with all the trappings of the propaganda of “terrorism” and conventional war hardware such as men, guns, tanks, airplanes and so on, ad infinitum. Sort of like what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your soldiers, guns and equipment are expendable because they only cost fiat, which costs you nothing. But you would program all the accountants and the talking heads about how outrageous the cost of war is, and they would transfer this thought to the people. You absolutely don’t want the people to know that you create war with fiat. They just might liquidate their paper money in favor of gold.

We just must have a “national debt” to mask the printing press and the truth that Ponzi finance is fraud from its inception, and there is never any intention to pay anybody.

Read full story here


Tent Cities, Homelessness And Soul-Crushing Despair:

The Legacy Of Decades Of Government Debt And Mismanagement Of The Economy

For decades, our politicians have been deeply addicted to government debt, they have stood idly by as millions of our jobs have been shipped overseas and they have passed countless business-crushing regulations and they never thought that it would catch up with us. Well, it has.

America has been living in the biggest debt bubble in the history of the world, and now that bubble is starting to pop. There has never been such an extended period of unemployment in the United States since the Great Depression, and millions of Americans are losing their homes.

Homelessness is skyrocketing, tent cities are popping up everywhere and countless numbers of American families are experiencing the soul-crushing despair that comes from desperately trying to hang on for month after month after month.

Click here for full report


The Day the Dollar Died

The first 12 hours of a U.S. dollar collapse!

Click Here To Comment