Click here to submit Tips... contact me... information or news articles you wrote that pertain to this site!
Welcome to The Truth News.Info
Sibel Edmonds finally gets to tell her story
Whistleblower deposed in Schmidt versus Krikorian election complaint
Ohio Second District Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, R-Cincinnati, filed nine election complaints against independent candidate David Krikorian concerning the 2008 election in May this year.
Krikorian opposed Schmidt in the Second District Congressional race as an independent in 2008 and is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2010 race in April. The complaints focus on Krikorian's statements during the election stating that Rep. Schmidt was taking money from organizations related to the Turkish government in exchange for denying the occurrence of what Krikorian called the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Turks during World War I.
The complaints also relate to Election Commission records on campaign contributions Schmidt received from the Turkish American Heritage PAC and the Turkish Coalition USA PAC.
Since filing the complaints, Schmidt's counsel has withdrawn four complaints, and an Ohio Elections Commission three-person panel decided there was probable cause to hear the remaining complaints on Thursday, Aug. 13. The five remaining complaints will be reviewed by the entire Commission on Sept. 3.
In preparation for the Sept. 3 hearing, Krikorian's lawyer requested a subpoena for well known whistleblower and former interpreter for the FBI, Sibel Edmonds. The OEC declined to enforce the subpoena, however Edmonds agreed to speak to Krikorian and Schmidt's lawyers on a voluntary basis.
The video deposition was brought forward by Krikorian's counsel to provide background on the alleged involvement of the Turkish government in Congressional affairs through blackmail, bribery, and campaign contributions filtered through various organizations. Edmonds also describes Turkish infiltration of the Pentagon and Air Force.
Edmonds' deposition is significant because she has twice been "gagged" by a State Secrets exemption from testifying for a 9/11 investigation and a Congressional hearing.
By various Internet bloggers she has been called the most gagged woman in the U.S.
"We were very surprised she was allowed to testify," said Krikorian about the deposition. "She was gagged twice under the Bush Administration and we have received several threatening letters from the FBI and the Department of Justice. To Obama's and to Eric Holder the Attorney General's credit she was allowed to testify."
As the Sept. 3 OEC hearing approaches, the depositions continue. Licoln McGurdy, Treasurer of the Turkish Coalition USA PAC was the recent subject of a deposition and Schmidt was to be deposed Monday, Aug. 24.
Edmonds (who is Turkish-American) called as a witness for Krikorian (who is Armenian-American) testified to infiltration, bribery, corruption, and blackmail within the U.S. Government, by current and former members of the U.S. House and other high ranking officials, on behalf of Turkish interests.
Schmidt filed the complaint with the OEC alleging "false statements" by Krikorian when he alleged she had taken "blood money" from those opposed to a Congressional declaration of Armenian Genocide by the Turks during WWI.
Below is the video deposition by Edmonds. Some serious charges are made in this deposition, this newspaper/website provides this as public information that readers/viewers may develop their own opinions and understandings of the subject. Note most of Edmonds' deposition is relevant to a time period previous to Rep. Schmidt taking office.
From Tim Wildmon
American Family Association
August 29, 2009
You're invited to the "How To Take Back America Conference" that will teach you how you can make a real difference in policies that affect you, your family, and your community. We need your talents and energies in our noble cause. Now is the time to get the training you need — before it's too late.
Here is the sensational list of useful Workshops you can attend on Sept. 25 & 26 in St. Louis, Missouri:
How conservatives can win in 2010
How to deal with vote fraud, the Census, and ACORN
How to defend America vs. missile attack
How to lobby federal legislation & policy
How to bring youth into the conservative movement
How to defend traditional marriage and DOMA
How to understand Islam
How the media can help us take back America
How to defeat Con Con, National Popular Vote, and ERA
How to stop feminist and gay attacks on the military
How to counter the homosexual movement
How to recognize living under Nazis & Communists
How to stop the entry of illegal aliens and drugs
How to deal with global warming, cap and trade
How to stop the killings: pro-life solutions
How to use New Media technology
How to stop government attacks on parents' rights
How to deal with supremacist judges
How conservatives can use media to advance our cause
How to stop socialism in health care
How to defeat UN attacks on sovereignty
How to activate your church
How to lobby legislators
How to use the Internet effectively: Internet 101
U.S. Representatives Michele Bachmann, Tom Price, Steve King, and Tom McClintock along with Mike Huckabee will address how we can stop the Obama plans to take America into Socialism while plunging the next generations into incredible debt. War hero General William Boykin will explain the threat from Islam.
Go to http://www.howtotakebackamerica.org for more details.
"Take Back America Conference" will provide an incredible networking experience because my co-hosts for this event are a fantastic list of leaders: Janet Folger Porter of Faith2Action, Rick Scarborough, Dick Bott, Vic Eliason, Joseph Farah, Michael Farris, Don Feder, Mat Staver, Rick Green and Phillip Jauregui.
Now is the time to act.
Visit http://www.howtotakebackamerica.org to learn how you can attend and promote a conference for such a time as this. Contact the Hilton St. Louis Frontenac at 1-314-993-1100 to reserve your room — ask for "Eagle Forum" block of rooms. Cut-off Date: September 8, 2009. Space is limited!
To get the best conference rate, register before Sept. 1. Group rates available for 5 or more; please call 618-462-5415 for more information.
Allowing today’s leaders to get away with war crimes will send a dangerous signal to future leaders that they can do the same.
“The battle to impose criminal responsibility upon them (Bush, Cheney, etc.) is not for today alone but to safeguard a vast future,” points out Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
“Otherwise the future will be threatened by Executive lawlessness undertaken because of knowledge that leaders need fear to no personal consequences,” he writes in his recently published “America 2008”(Doukathsan Press).
“Today, there is no accountability for our leaders, nor do their own families face death on the front lines as occurred during the Civil War when several Cabinet officials’ sons or brothers faced battle and World WII when one of FDR’s sons participated in extraordinarily dangerous missions in the Pacific.”
Instead, there are numerous factors today that make it easy for a President to wage war, Velvel continues, such as ”half trillion dollar appropriations, huge standing military forces which the President orders into combat all around the world at the proverbial drop of a hat, a compliant Congress that refuses to do its duty, and an incompetent, if not venal, mainstream media.”
“Not unless leaders fear prison or the gallows for actions that violate law will there be anything to check the next headlong rush to war for allegedly good reasons that later prove false, as with Mexico, Spain, Viet Nam or Iraq,” Velvel warns.
He says the U.S. has repeatedly fought in wrong wars for a number of reasons, foremost of which is the fact that “the nation larges does not know, and ignores, history.”
Other factors include a national penchant for violence, hubris, “lies, distortions and delusions,” “a desire to maintain American power at a preeminent level,” Congressional abdication of responsibility coupled with Executive seizure of power, public gullibility, nearly uncontrolled nationalism, the South’s military culture, and Hollywood’s incessant war-glorifying movies, i.e., “The John Wayne syndrome.”
After repeating the Viet Nam war in Iraq--- which historian Arthur Schlesinger termed “national stupidity”--- Velvel writes that although no one thought “it could happen again,” it did even though “Congress took steps to assure it couldn’t, such as enacting the War Powers Act, reining in the CIA, and banning electronic eavesdropping of Americans by the NSA.”
Iraq’s bloodshed is worse, Velvel writes “because today we not only have a years-long unwinnable war, but also torture, kidnappings and renderings to foreign countries for torture, many years of detention without trial of people who are innocent, the use of massive private armies to help carry out Executive policies…suppression of the media far beyond anything experienced during Viet Nam…the use of Executive Branch lawyers to write professionally incompetent secret memoranda giving clearance to awful policies, and the use of retired generals who are making a fortune from the Pentagon to spread its gospel on the mainstream media.”
Today’s wars of aggression are being waged, Velvel notes, because previous Washington officials were not held to account for their crimes: “Lyndon Johnson retired to his ranch…Nixon received a pardon and went back to San Clemente, McNamara became the long time President of the World Bank, Kissinger became richer and richer (and secretly advised Bush and Cheney on Iraq)…Wolfowitz was given a sinecure at the World Bank, lawyers who facilitated the misdeeds---such as Jay Bybee and John Yoo---are federal judges or professors at leading law schools.”
Velvel says that courts in Italy, Germany, and France will prosecute U.S. officials for war crimes if they are apprehended in those countries and that they might even try them in absentia if necessary. Just as Lincoln said the Civil War was being waged for a vast future, Velvel reasons this is also true of war crime prosecutions.
The Massachusetts School of Law is an independent, non-profit law school purposefully dedicated to the education of minority students and those from low-income and immigrant backgrounds who would otherwise not be able to afford a legal education. The school also serves as an information resource on issues of national importance.
Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- International Paper Co., the world’s
largest pulp and paper maker, plans to remake commercial forests
in the same way Monsanto Co. revolutionized farms with
genetically modified crops.
International Paper’s ArborGen joint venture with
MeadWestvaco Corp. and New Zealand’s Rubicon Ltd. is seeking
permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell the
first genetically engineered forest trees outside China. The
Australian eucalyptus trees are designed to survive freezes in
the U.S. South.
Plantations of engineered trees would give International
Paper a competitive advantage by providing a reliable supply of
lower cost wood at a time when timberlands are dwindling because
of development, said David Liebetreu, the Memphis, Tennessee-
based company’s vice president of global sourcing. Opponents are
concerned that alien genes may contaminate natural forests,
echoing objections to modified crops that Monsanto still faces.
“There is a potential to explode once they get these trees
approved,” said David Knott, who manages $1.3 billion as chief
executive officer of Dorset Management in Syosett, New York. He
said he increased his stake in Rubicon to 70.5 million shares
this year to bet on ArborGen because it has a customer base of
large landowners and little competition. “This could take off
faster than Monsanto.”
Monsanto’s genetics, which were first sold in herbicide-
tolerant soybeans in 1996 and insect-resistant corn the
following year, were used in 88 percent of the world’s 309
million acres of biotech plantings last year. Monsanto’s sales
of seeds and genetics quadrupled since 2002 to $6.4 billion last
ArborGen may boost yearly sales to $500 million in 2017
from $25 million by following Monsanto’s blueprint for
commercializing engineered plants, said Stephen Walker, head of
asset management at New Zealand-based Goldman Sachs JBWere Ltd.,
which owns Rubicon shares and holds no stock in International
Paper or MeadWestvaco. The partners eventually might sell shares
of ArborGen to the public, International Paper’s Liebetreu said.
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may
approve sales of freeze-tolerant eucalyptus trees by late 2010,
ArborGen Chief Executive Officer Barbara Wells said. The company
also is developing trees that are easier to pulp and that grow
twice as fast, said Wells, a former Monsanto executive who has a
doctorate in agronomy.
ArborGen’s eucalyptus would become the first engineered
forest tree sold in the U.S., where disease-resistant plum and
papaya trees already are permitted, according to a USDA
database. China has planted about 1.4 million biotech black
poplars since commercialization in 2002.
Engineered eucalyptus trees could be an ecological
disaster, bringing increased fire risk and extraordinary water
consumption to a new environment, said Neil J. Carman, an
Austin, Texas-based member of the Sierra Club’s genetic
engineering committee. Easier-to-pulp trees will be weak, and
hurricanes will spread their pollen and contaminate native
forests, he said.
“These are Frankenforests,” Carman said. “You are
tampering with Mother Nature in a big way by putting genetically
engineered trees out there.”
The group won a court order in 2007 requiring Monsanto to
pull modified alfalfa plants from the market while the USDA
reviewed their environmental impact more thoroughly, and Carman
said a similar strategy may be used against modified trees.
ArborGen says that genes won’t spread because its trees
grow on plantations, not in forests, and are engineered to be
infertile with impaired pollen production.
About 4 percent of the world’s 8.5 billion forest acres are
plantations, and 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres) of new
plantations are added annually, according to the United Nations.
“It’s through plantation forests and increased
productivity that you protect native forests,” ArborGen’s Wells
said. “We pursue products that we know are environmentally
ArborGen, based in Summerville, South Carolina, was created
in 2000 when the three partners pooled their tree-research
assets and intellectual property. The venture sells about 300
million conventional tree seedlings a year to 2,000 customers in
the U.S., Australia and New Zealand.
Rubicon derives most of its value from ArborGen, one of two
ventures it owns. International Paper and MeadWestvaco, a
cardboard maker, are so large that their 33 percent stakes in
ArborGen aren’t material to earnings, the companies said.
Sustainable Hardwood Source
The papermaker’s main interest in ArborGen is the potential
of modified trees such as cold-tolerant eucalyptus to provide a
sustainable source of hardwood for pulp, Liebetreu said. That
becomes more important as the U.S. starts to make biofuels from
timber, which may double harvest pressure in the U.S. South,
International Paper said in a June 9 letter to USDA.
“If you could go back and buy Monsanto when it was just
starting to develop genetically modified seeds, would you do
it?” said Walker of Goldman Sachs JBWere. “I think so.”
Parallels with Monsanto aren’t a coincidence. Wells, 54,
spent 18 years at that company, including four years introducing
modified soybeans in Brazil. ArborGen Chief Science Officer Maud
Hinchee and James Mann, vice president of business development,
also worked at St. Louis-based Monsanto.
ArborGen may charge 20 times more for its engineered trees
than its cheapest seedlings and two to three times more than its
best conventional products as it claims a share of the revenue
landowners gain from growing high-quality wood faster, according
to Rubicon’s July update. Monsanto’s modified corn and soybean
seeds are priced to grab as much as half the increased income
farmers realize from higher yields and lower pest-control costs.
ArborGen became the world’s largest seedling producer when
it bought assets from its parent companies in 2007, making it
the only tree developer with its own market channel for genetic
technology, Wells said. Others developing gene-modified trees,
including FuturaGene Plc in the U.K. and SweTree Technologies in
Sweden, lack seedling businesses and aren’t yet pursuing
permission for commercial sales.
Monsanto’s research into genetically modified trees is
limited to a Brazilian collaboration on eucalyptus and citrus
trees at Alellyx SA, which Monsanto acquired in November after
the project began, spokeswoman Kelli Powers said.
ArborGen next plans to seek U.S. approval to sell loblolly
pine, used for lumber and paper, engineered to mature in 18
years rather than 26. In Brazil, ArborGen plans to seek approval
for eucalyptus that matures in four years, rather than seven,
and eucalyptus with reduced lignin.
Extracting lignin, a brown polymer that hardens trees, is
one of the most expensive and polluting parts of making pulp,
said Graeme P. Berlyn, professor at Yale University’s School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies.
“They definitely will find a market if they can do what
they claim,” Berlyn said.
There is a small chance some modified trees will produce
pollen and fertilize conventional relatives, Berlyn said.
Populations contaminated with low-lignin traits could be
weakened and vulnerable to breakage for thousands of years
before evolution eliminates the inferior genetics, he said.
“All of this is a bit troubling,” said Berlyn, who edits
the Journal of Sustainable Forestry.
While ArborGen awaits approval to sell cold-tolerant
eucalyptus, it also is seeking USDA permission to expand a 57-
acre test of the trees to 330 acres, mainly in Texas, Florida
ArborGen is working with different eucalyptus species than
those that have become pests in California, and the biotech
trees are “unlikely” to prove invasive in the U.S. South,
according to the USDA. The draft environmental assessment on
expanded field testing drew thousands of comments opposing the
USDA’s conclusion that the research poses an insignificant risk.
The proposed field tests involve 260,000 experimental trees
and are tantamount to commercial approval, the Sierra Club’s
Carman said. If the field tests are approved, the Sierra Club
may sue the USDA to compel a more thorough study, known as an
environmental impact statement, he said.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ordered
the USDA to conduct such an assessment of Monsanto’s Roundup
Ready alfalfa and blocked further sales after the Sierra Club
and organic farmer groups challenged the plant’s approval. The
USDA hasn’t yet released an assessment of ArborGen’s application
to commercialize modified eucalyptus.
Approval would set ArborGen on a path to sell 275 million
engineered seedlings a year by 2018, assuming its first five
modified trees are permitted, contributing to after-tax cash
flows of as much as $700 million, according to an April report
commissioned by Rubicon.
Last week I had dinner with two friends, one of whom is what the mainstream
would call a conspiracy nut. Over the course of a couple of hours and a bunch
of margaritas he walked us through everything from the government's role in
9/11 to the FEMA internment camps to the surge in gun regulations, all of which
are scary, but also mostly beyond my experience. I'm a finance guy who gets
the monetary side of what's coming, but I don't own guns (yet) and have no
first-hand knowledge of 9/11 or FEMA camps. So -- while some or all of these
things might be true -- it was still a bit academic.
Then we got to something I could relate to: Apparently the U.S. is getting
ready to require every citizen who owns even a single backyard chicken to register
their livestock and implant them with a microchip that will allow both identification
and tracking. The chicken (or goat or pig) owner will be required to notify
the government when the animal is moved, say to the county fair 4-H barn. And
when the animal dies the owner will have to fill out a form and submit it to
the authorities within 24 hours. AND the owner will be required to register
visitors to their property, whether they come into contact with the livestock
This sounded too ridiculous to be real. The other conspiracies at least have
plausible, if dark, rationales, like setting us up for a war, containing troublesome
mobs of unemployed private sector workers, or putting gun owners under the
thumb of the ATF. But why would a would-be dictator care about the neighbor's
So I googled NAIS, for National Animal Identification System, and discovered
that it is indeed real, has been around for a while, and calls for pretty much
everything mentioned above, though initially on a voluntary basis. See this
2005 article by Justin & Franklin Sanders of the The
Money Changer newsletter. And watch these videos:
NAIS' stated purpose -- to be able to track animals back to their source in
case of a disease outbreak -- is something the USDA would obviously like to
have, in the same way that the FBI would love to be able to monitor all telephone
calls and emails without a warrant. But the downside of handing this kind of
power to the government is so huge and so obvious that anybody with a sense
of history has to suspect that the public rationale for NAIS is a smokescreen
for some darker motive, of which several possibilities come to mind.
First, the per-animal cost of the chips and the paperwork (not to mention
the loss of privacy) goes up exponentially as the number of animals per square
meter goes down. So motive number one is clearly to enable big factory farmers
and chip makers to squeeze fast-growing local farmers by raising their costs.
NAIS will also make it harder for individuals to raise chickens for eggs or
cows for milk, making consumers more reliant on the ag/industrial complex.
Meanwhile, people who keep animals and buy local produce also frequently own
guns, and by and large would like to be left alone to pursue their own interests.
Many of them own gold because they don't trust the government to protect their
dollar savings. This is clearly a dangerously subversive subculture, and knowing
where they are would be very helpful in case of a, ahem, public health crisis.
There's also the monetary angle. As Catherine Austin Fitts, whose Solari
Network is doing great work in fields like financial freedom and
sustainable communities, puts it:
"Oil is not sufficient to provide the backing for a global virtual currency.
For that you need to control food; which means corporate ownership and control
of seed and food production and distribution. NAIS is designed to help facilitate
the roll up of control in the United States in the most economic manner."
This month, after apparently getting an earful from local farmers, Congress
voted to scale back funding for NAIS. They didn't kill it, which
means agribusiness (and Homeland Security?) will now start lobbying to
get funding restored. But this at least gives more people a chance to start
paying attention. According to Catherine Austin Fitts, the best source
for keeping up with NAIS is the Weston
A. Price Foundation
Why are These Bizarre Ingredients
Allowed in Beauty Products?
Dangerous ingredients sabotage your health -- and beauty.
Which of these toxins do your products contain?
Your skin is your largest organ -- and also the thinnest. Less than 1/10th of an inch separates your body from potential toxins. Worse yet, your skin is highly permeable. Just about anything you put on your skin will end up in your blood stream, and will be distributed throughout your body. Which is why I'm so fond of saying "don't put anything on your body that you wouldn't eat if you had to..."
Though it has been said many times, beauty is more than skin deep. Attempting to change your appearance from the outside while neglecting what goes on inside is a temporary fix at best.
Who's Watching Out for You?
When it comes to the beauty industry, anything goes…
And money reigns supreme. Which means that it’s caveat emptor – “buyer beware”. You need to be the captain of your own ship and know what’s in the products you use.
If you thought the FDA was watching out for you…
Well, let’s just let that idea blow off right now. They let the cosmetic industry, including skin care products, police itself (your tax dollars notwithstanding). The list of people trying to help you out is surprisingly small -- almost non-existent.
Currently, there are estimated to be more than 10,500 cosmetic and personal care products on the North American market. Of those products, the Environmental Working Group estimates that 99% of the products contain one or more ingredients that have never been evaluated for safety.
Who's responsible for this Mess?
The cosmetic industry and their love of loopholes. Some of the biggies are:
"For Professional Use Only" -- This phrase allows cosmetic companies to remove harmful chemicals from their labels.
"Hypoallergenic" -- No actual testing is necessary to claim that a product is "hypoallergenic", "allergy-free" or "safe for sensitive skin". Neither the FDA nor any other regulating body even requires the companies to prove these claims.
Harmful Chemicals -- Unless they are intentionally placed in the product, harmful chemicals are not required to be listed. It's no shocker that you never see these.
What Can You Do?
The cosmetics industry is a $50 billion a year business (in the US alone). They spend a remarkable $2 billion a year on advertising.
Even more appalling than that is the amount of chemicals you place on your skin every year. Women who use makeup daily absorb, on average, 5 pounds each year.
As with the Vioxx debacle, the FDA cannot actively act on a product until after it has already severely injured or killed many people. And because the cosmetic companies are motivated by their profits, they won't be pointing out the dangers of their products to you any time soon. Your only solution is to rely on your own skills of investigation.
Always Avoid Applying Potential Toxins To Your Skin…
Many people – even those who carefully select organic or gourmet foods to eat choose skin care products that can do serious damage to their skin.
Now, realize that I’m not suggesting you’d intentionally apply toxins to your skin. You simply may not realize the extent to which many common skin care products contain suspect ingredients with unrecognizable or unpronounceable names.
Do you ever put things onto your skin that you wouldn’t think of eating? I hope not...
You see, I believe that what you put on your skin is absorbed into your bloodstream and integrated into your body’s tissues. A number of these potential toxins have estrogen-mimicking effects that can wreak havoc on all your good health intentions.
And there are other potential problems too…
Why Do So Many Skin Care Products Use These Potentially Hazardous Ingredients?
Simple answer: because they’re cheap, readily available, and easy to dilute.
Are they in the products you currently use? It’s time to check. Go grab your containers of skin care products and check them against the following …