Two Policies That Will Kill Our Livelihoods!

A man packs a small bag of survival gear before heading off on a grueling journey. He survives extreme heat… dodges insurgents from the Mexican cartel… and evades border patrol agents.
When he illegally crosses over the U.S. border in Brooks County, Texas, he tramples across a ranch owner’s flowerbed to snag clean clothes hanging on the line.
He’s made it.
And he’s just one out of an estimated one million successful breaches that happen every year in the United States.
Yet senators just made life a hell of lot easier for this man, along with 30 million more just like him.
Because of a hidden provision in their recently passed immigration bill, Congress is now one voting session away from completely eviscerating the job market for countless U.S. citizens…

A Tariff on Your Head
One of the biggest issues our nation still faces is high unemployment. Over the last 12 years, Obama and Bush added a net total of only 2.7 million jobs.
Compare that to the 22.8 million jobs added in Clinton’s eight-year tenure and you’ll understand how abysmal things really are.
And unemployment is about to get worse. Much worse. Consider yourself warned.
You see, Congress is one voting session away from passing a hidden provision that would put a tariff on the head of every American employee.
When coupled with certain Obamacare mandates, the Reform Bill will create a loophole so toxic that it’ll literally legislate millions of Americans out of work.
Companies all across the nation, especially small businesses, will have no choice but to employ illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens.
It’s Economics 101…
Under the newly drafted legislature, illegal immigrants residing in the United States are granted amnesty. More specifically, they’ll be classified as “registered provisional immigrants.”
And paired with Obamacare, that designation becomes extremely significant.
You see, come open enrollment season, employers with over 50 American employees will be strong-armed into providing qualified health coverage on the company tab. Otherwise the company will have to pony up $3,000 per employee as a penalty.
But here’s the thing…
According to the Senate proposed legislation, “registered provisional immigrants” won’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until they become full U.S. citizens. And the senate timeframe for that is set for 2026, at a minimum.
So employers are left with two choices: Hire a U.S. citizen and be forced to sponsor their health coverage (or pay an egregious fine). Or hire a “registered provisional immigrant” and avoid the Obamacare mess entirely for a minimum of 13 years.
Put simply, immigration reform paired with Obamacare punishes employers for hiring American citizens. And with businesses across the country struggling to stay afloat, the choice is unfortunately a no-brainer.
Congressional Kickbacks
The Reform Bill was just delivered to the front door of Congress last week. The GOP affirmed that they want immigration reform, too, but they’ll need some time to pick through the 1,200 pages of overhaul. As Floyd pointed out last week, this bill is already riddled with pork.
If the bill should pass, the future will be bleak for the 23% of Americans who lost their jobs over the last five years and the millions of others who’ve struggled to stay employed.
Of course, the opposite would be true for the 30 million illegal immigrants that reside in America today.
So why is this bill even being considered in the halls of Congress right now? Well, look no further than big money tech firms. They’re the ones leading the charge on the reform movement.
They shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to protect their ability to employ low-wage and low-cost employees. It’s why you’ve been seeing a lot more of Mark Zuckerberg whenever you turn on your television. He, along with several other major tech executives, is throwing his entire weight behind the reform effort.
They have several coalition groups quietly lining the pockets of key senators and congressmen to ensure that their agenda goes through. And it’s all at the expense of you – the American citizen. As Always The Plain Truth!

The Plain Truth: Environmental & Health Impact of GM Crops!

The Plain Truth: Environmental & Health Impact of GM Crops!:                                                                                  The apparent benefits of GM crops include higher yields, ...

Environmental & Health Impact of GM Crops!

                                                                                
The apparent benefits of GM crops include higher yields, lower labor cost, soil preservation, reduction of herbicide input, decline in CO2 emissions, and affordable prices to buyers, which resulted in a rapid takeover of the corn, soybeans, and cottonseed markets. However, a critical review of these perceived advantages reveals troublesome trends such as modest or negligible gains in realized crop yields, genetic pollution of traditional varieties, rapid development of glyphosate resistance in weeds and Bt-toxin in root worms, environmental damage due to alterations to the ecological balance of non-target species, alarming toxicological effects in rats and pigs, and detectable levels of Bt-toxins in human blood samples. Current GM-based agricultural models must be revised to prevent irreversible health and environmental damage.
Introduction
Did you know that 170 million hectares were planted with biotech seeds in 2012 around the globe? Genetically modified (GM) corn was first introduced in the US in 1996 as “Roundup Ready Corn” and this technology was adopted at unprecedented speed (Clive 2012). Genes store all the functional and reproductive information in all living beings. When the cell’s genetic material is manipulated using novel Genetic Engineering techniques, new and desirable traits from unrelated organisms are added to target species. In the present case, new corn, soybeans, and cottonseeds varieties where designed to have the ability to tolerate the application of glyphosate-based herbicides using bacterial gene fragments (Dill 2005, 219).
GM biotechnology is the result of advances in Plant Genetics and Molecular Biology, and scientists in the field are proud to have acquired the capability of introducing genes from microorganisms into plants, thus giving them traits that cannot be easily achieved by common propagation methods such as seed selection, hybridization, and the use of cultivar techniques (Dill 2005, 219). Multiple varieties with other desirable properties have been produced over the years, but glyphosate-resistant plants were the first commercially available GM crops, and remain the most popular to this day.
Another group of GM crops was created to actively fight against pests. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacteria that has been used as natural pest control for decades because it produces a toxin that has insecticidal and nematicidal properties. It belongs to the same family as Bacillus anthracis, which is the bacteria that produces anthrax spores. More specifically, Bt produces spores that contain crystalline proteins, also called Cry proteins, that become activated in the digestive tract of insects. Once the Bt toxin has been activated, it pokes holes in the intestinal walls of its victim and paralyzes the digestion process, thus forcing the organism to stop eating. While the poisoned target starves to death, it may occur that opportunistic live Bt bacteria colonize the agonizing bug and feed on it (Petzold-Maxwell et al. 2013, 622). This knowledge was employed by genetic engineers to isolate the Cry genes that produce Cry proteins and insert them in corn plants. As a result, we now have toxin-producing maize that is designed to poison corn rootworms, as well as other insects and nematodes, with the goal of protecting corn plants against pest damage, thus increasing crop yields (Lundgren and Duan 2013, 657).
The advantages of using GM crops for farmers are immediate and include higher initial yields, easy weed control, and no-till planting, which saves time, money, and reduces soil erosion (Fernandez-Conejo et al. 2012). But, do we have sufficient knowledge of plant genetics to analyze all the variables involved? Have we compiled sufficient data to predict how the extensive use of GM crops will impact the environment and our health? Few governments have implemented measures to systematically monitor the adverse effects that GM crops could have on the environment, a worrisome fact when confronted with the possibility of permanent and substantial alterations to the environment and staple food crops. Currently, the working assumption on GM crops is that their production is sustainable, nutritionally equivalent to traditional harvest, and safe to eat for humans and animals; however, new research studies suggest that these views should be revised based on the alarming results of recent toxicological studies and numerous signs of environmental distress.
What “They Say” about GM Crop Production
It has been estimated that around 11% of all arable land on earth is planted with GM crops, and 89% of it derives from production in the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and India (Clive 2012). Globally, the annual value of biotech seeds sold amounts to at least US$15 billion (Clive 2012), so nobody should be surprised to find that multinational corporations fiercely defend their markets and aggressively try to increase their sales. Similarly, scientists who work in the field, and receive research grants from interest groups, must prove the value of their discoveries and stand strong against criticism.
Opponents of the use of GM modified crops argue that there are many essential facts about gene regulation and expression that we still do not understand and that the foreign genes could have unintended effects, such as the production of secondary toxins, allergens, altered levels of proteins, and other nutrients, all of which could disrupt the food chain at various levels (IRT 2013). Natural News is a popular natural health advocacy organization with a large web portal, and they have partnered with multiple like-minded groups to spread the idea that there has been a increase in the incidence of allergies, food intolerances, autoimmune disorders, and cancer in humans since the introduction of GM crops (Landsman 2013).
In essence, the issue of environmental and health safety of GM crops is a global challenge with major economic repercussions, and it is puzzling to see that it does not receive the level of attention it deserves. This apparent indifference, linked to weak regulatory oversight, creates a climate where business-driven interests prevail and consequences wait to be uncovered, although we currently receive warnings from diverse fronts.
Plant and Insect Resistance
Millions of farmers have switched to biotech crops because they “deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits” (Clive 2012). The contributions of GM crops to mankind in the period from 1996 to 2011 can be summarized as follows (Clive 2012):
1.Cumulative gains due to increments in crop yields amounts to US$98.2 billion.
2.Pesticide savings are estimated at 473 million kg of pesticides (8.9%).
3.Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 were 23.1 billion kg.
4.Conservation of biodiversity and reduction of deforestation by saving 108.7 million hectares of land from being used for farming.
5.Reduction of soil degradation from erosion and preservation of surface moisture.
6.Improved economic prospect to 15.0 million small farmers who got out of poverty.
7.Reduction of food prices due to increments in productivity and reduction of labor requirements.
To the contrary, other sources consider the less remarkable aspect of GM production, such as the accelerated appearance of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Some reports indicate that twenty four different species of weeds have been found to survive standard applications of Roundup in the US. The practice of rotating different herbicides was discontinued when GM seeds were introduced, and Roundup became the only herbicide used in GM fields (Gilbert 2013). It is unlikely that farmers will be able to control weeds with Roundup without tilling or ploughing in the near future, so the perceived soil and moisture preservation advantages of GM crops may be short-lived.
We must consider this development in the face of a study sponsored by the USDA and Monsanto. Results were collected from 1998 to 2003 on small plots, and the final conclusion states that using glyphosate at the standard rate of 0.8 kg/ha twice a year is effective controlling a variety of weeds, and applicable to corn production even in the absence of crop rotation. While variations in glyphosate sensitivity of the various types of weeds was observed, the development of glyphosate resistance was not noticed (Wilson et al. 2007, 900). Critics of Monsanto’s study debated that the plot size used in the study was so small that the probability of observing any resistance was marginal (Gilbert 2013).
As it turns out, concerns about the experimental design of Monsanto’s weed resistance study were well founded, because glyphosate resistance in weeds has been reported in 18 countries. The current standard application rate is now 1.5 kg glyphosate/ha, but it has been projected that it would increase to of 3.5 kg/ha by the year 2025 (Gilbert 2013). Therefore, the claims that growing GM crops helps the environment, lowers the amount of herbicides needed for effective weed control, and reduces pollution are marked for extinction.
Figure 1, “Glyphosate-resistant weed populations in the US and Canada, 2002-2012”
The sequence of maps illustrated in Figure 1 represent the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the US and Canada. The spread of weeds tolerant to Roundup over a period of 10 years is evident over major regions of the North American geography. At the same time, the number of species of weeds that can survive after the application of glyphosate-based herbicides also increases. While this conservative report only includes eight confirmed cases of glyphosate-resistant weeds in North America, it is clear that weeds are evolving to survive chemical herbicides at a fast pace and current farming methods may not be applicable in the near future.
Toxicological Studies
In the US, the FDA has established that GM corn and soybean crops and their derivatives are not significantly different from traditional crops, and that they are safe for human and animal consumption. These conclusions are based on voluntary safety studies performed by the developers of GM seeds (FDA 2013). Biotech companies are not required to make public the results and methodology of their safety tests, and they often consider this information confidential.
A French study maintains, in spite of heavy criticism, that hormonal imbalances, liver failure, renal failure, cancer, and a shorter life expectancy was observed in rats fed Roundup-ready corn over a two-year period (Séralini et al. 2012, 4221). Critics point out that the methodology is invalid because the population group was not large enough (Butler 2012, 158), although it was the same size as Monsanto’s 90-day safety test study. But for some reason Monsanto’s results have not been questioned. In the end, the editor of Food Chemistry and Toxicology withdrew the publication of the article in question, while ignoring the author’s objections. This was probably done to avoid arbitrating a heated debate on the safety of GM crops, and because this is a sensitive issue for many, in view of the large economic impact of today’s biotech industry.
Nevertheless, a lesser known research paper on pig’s health was recently published, and so far it has escaped the publicity and heavy scrutiny sparked by the mice study mentioned above. A group of 168 piglets were selected, and half of them were fed a GM corn and soybeans diet, while the control group was fed a non-GM diet. Their autopsies were completed after 26 weeks, and a significantly higher incidence of severe stomach inflammation was reported in the GM-diet group of pigs. Moreover, a different level of stomach inflammation was observed on male pigs (22.2% v. 5.6% control) compared to female pigs (41.7% v. 18.9% control). This is probably due to the presence of Bt toxins (Cry 3Bb1 and Cry 1Ab proteins) in the digestive tract of pigs. Bt toxins generally form cationic channels in the intestinal walls once bound to suitable receptors. This is actually the same mechanism that kills the corn rootworms in the soil after ingesting Bt toxin. It is worth pointing out that the digestive system of pigs shares multiple similarities with humans, thus the need to perform additional experiments to supplement the data collected. Moreover, it is also suspected that a GM-based diet may result in reproductive problems in female pigs because the weight of their uterus was abnormally high. More research is needed to determine if higher uterine mass is a consequence of endometriosis, inflammation, polyps, or a different health problem (Carman et al. 2013, 38).
The increased use of GM crops goes hand-in-hand with widespread use of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup. Animals are frequently exposed to this herbicide because their feed is manufactured with GM grains highly contaminated with glyphosate. A Danish study reveals that cows ingest this GM feed, digest it, and absorb around 30% of the available glyphosate. Part of the absorbed glyphosate is excreted in the urine and the rest is metabolized in the liver and kidneys (Krüger et al. 2011, 187). Laboratory analysis on standard health markers such as creatinine, urea, cholesterol, liver enzymes, and kidney enzymes indicates that the cows subjected to a GM diet likely suffer from liver, kidney, and muscle damage (Krüger et al. 2011, 188).
Similarly, worrisome health problems have also been reported in a mice study that includes the health effects of a GM diet on the heart, adrenal glands, spleen, and haematopoietic system (de Vendômois et al. 2009, 717). Currently, the same kind of corn and soybeans is said to be fit for human consumption and it is widely used in animal feed for cows, pigs, turkeys, chickens, and other farm animals. Unlike most developed nations, nutritional labels in the US are not required to specify if any of the ingredients listed contain GM ingredients.
RNA exchange with bacteria and virus
The risk of gene fragmentation and cross contamination across plant species, as well as with virus and bacteria, threatens the stability of the genetic code and could have unforeseeable consequences. Currently, it is impossible for us to predict if the insertion of foreign genes could result in corresponding changes in protein synthesis, thus leading to variable nutritional levels or the appearance of new allergens and toxins that could prove harmful to our health (IRT 2013).
While the working assumption is that we should not be afraid of this new technology because new techniques that deal with known problems are being developed daily (Cressey 2013), we must remain cautious as major biotechnology gaffs come to light. A notorious case was discovered between 2012 and 2013. As of early 2013, there were a total of 86 commercially available varieties of GM plants in the US, including corn, soybeans, cottonseeds, and other species. It was found that 54 out of these 86 varieties were contaminated with fragments of the gene VI from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). The affected varieties include biotech market leaders such as Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2), MON810 corn, and the NK603 maize used by Séralini et al. (2012, 4221) in the study mentioned in the previous section (Latham and Wilson 2013).
Gene VI is known to have the ability to become active on its own. The genes of plant and animal viruses are sufficiently similar to allow a plant that has been altered with animal genes to become susceptible to an animal virus infection (Latham and Wilson 2013). The main function of Gene VI is to silence the expression of other genes. This is necessary for a virus because plants and animals have defense mechanisms against viral infections, so to effectively infect an organism, the defense mechanisms of the host must be weaken or nullified. Previous studies indicate that “in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses” (Latham and Wilson 2013). So the potential to have gene VI expressing in GM crops exists, and it would make GM plants more vulnerable to viral disease. But the truth is that we are probably set to find out the consequences of this gaff the hard way.
Biotech industry insiders have argued to ease the safety concerns of some that Bt toxins, as well as other proteins found in GM foods, are irreversibly denaturalized during common cooking procedures, thus leading to permanent loss of protein function (Hammond et al. 2013, 32). However, a ground-breaking Canadian study stands in stark contrast to the assumption that Bt toxins would no survive the human digestive tract. Aris and Leblanc (2011, 530) reported that measurable amounts of Bt toxins were identified in the blood serum of 93% of pregnant women, and in 80% of umbilical serum of the fetuses participating in the study. This finding is not consistent with the claim that the Bt toxin is denaturalized during cooking and digestion, because at least a portion of it remains intact, is absorbed into the bloodstream, and it can even be passed on to the fetus.
What “I Say” about the Real Harvest of GM Crops
GM crops were introduced as an advanced and novel way to keep at bay one of mankind’s oldest fears: famine. Available land resources are limited, and most countries recognize the need to manage arable soil in a sustainable way to ensure that current and future generations will enjoy the pleasure of going to bed with a full stomach. The overwhelming success of GM crops in the past two decades can be summarized as the result of ease of use, higher profits in the short term, and the promise to address the ancient challenge of feeding a hungry and growing population. Did we finally find a lasting solution to guarantee food security? Or, did we buy into the illusion created by too-good-to-be-true corporate marketing schemes?
Jacobsen et al. (2013, 651) rightly point out that our generation was asked to choose between betting on GM crops or protecting the legacy of genetic diversity that we inherited to face growing food demands on the land. So far, it appears that we have largely chosen to place our hopes in GM crops based on the way research funds have been distributed in developed nations. The main problem is that using natural agricultural biodiversity does not limit the potential to use biotechnology to address future issues, but the opposite is not true. For instance, it has been reported that GM corn pollutes natural varieties by means of cross-pollination, and a multitude of cases have been analyzed. A notorious case is the discovery of transgenic DNA fragments in wild corn grown in rural communities in Oaxaca, Mexico (Gilbert 2013). The finding managed to upset a large segment of the Mexican population because corn is one of the main legacies of the Mesoamerican culture and probably influenced the court ruling that suspended all GM corn field trials in Mexico (Yucatan Times 2013). Pollution of native varieties is a serious problem because it could lead to irreversible damage if GM genes are allowed to spread without control.
So, in the face of irreversible loss of genetic diversity, can GM crops feed the world? A study on GM corn and soybean yield trends across the US from 1964 to 2010 shows that GM corn production probably caused an increase in actual yields and is projected to maintain an upward trend from 2011 to 2030, somewhere between 26 to 32%. This is a very modest projection of sustained yield increments because biotech industry insiders estimated yields 100% higher by 2030. The same study found that the trend for GM soybeans would be to remain flat or decline slightly. These findings are based on realized yields in many counties across the US and not on yield estimates based on trial field performance (Xu et al. 2013, 742). To the contrary, application of Agroecology’s principles, such as using beneficial trees, plants, insects, and animals to enhance the soil and protect crops against pests, has shown to increase yields from 80% to 116% in projects across 57 developing countries (de Schutter 2011).
While it seems unlikely that GM-based farming would be able to live up to the promise of eliminating world hunger, some still defend its use based on the idea that facilitates farming and its products are also undistinguishable from traditional agricultural commodities. It has even been suggested that safety testing should be simplified or eliminated to cheapen research cost, accelerate production rates of GM varieties, and open up the access to emerging markets in developing countries (Herman and Price 2013). However, a number of adverse environmental problems have been observed, and Hilbeck et al. (2011) include some examples in their literature review:
1.Grass hoppers feeding on Bt corn can become toxic to chrysopid predators. A higher mortality of chrysopid predators who naturally keep in balance the population of grass hoppers may lead to an infestation of grass hoppers.
2.Butterfly caterpillars feed on non-target weeds growing primarily in GM oilseed rape fields. Widespread application of herbicides kills the non-target weeds and the population of butterflies drops due to lack of food.
3.GM potatoes have an altered starch composition; there is no amylose present, just amylopectin. The higher availability of amylopectin has an effect on the virus-transmitting aphids feeding on it. Then, the growth in the aphid population will result in a higher presence of viruses and neighboring crops will likely become infest.
A review of animal feeding studies indicates that about 150 safety studies were performed on target animals. However, the same publication acknowledges that these studies do not have sufficient endpoint parameters, such as the weight of inner organs, status of the gastrointestinal tract, and histopathology (Flachowsky, Schafft, and Meyer 2012). A pig study was later conducted observing all these endpoint parameters, and it reveals considerable gastrointestinal and reproductive problems in pigs (Carman 2013). However, there is a disconcerting trend of attacking, discrediting, and withholding research funds for research studies critical of GM biotechnology, so in depth analyses of health problems in animals and humans are rare in the scientific literature.
Jeffrey Smith is a journalist and director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. Smith (2004) wrote an article that details how some respected scientists like Arpad Pusztai (formerly at the prestigious Rowett Institute for Nutritional Research), virologist Terje Traavik, epidemiologist Judy Carman, and biophysicist and geneticist Mae-Wan Ho were personally attacked after presenting research data that cautions society against the unrestricted use of GM crops. This list cites only a few well-known examples of scientists who lost their job or had their credibility questioned after manifesting concern over the risks associated with GM food consumption.
More recently, Gilles-Eric Séralini suffered the same fate after publishing a review on liver and kidney toxicity of MON 863, MON 810, NK603 corn varieties (Séralini et al. 2011, 1). However, Séralini’s response to the attacks was different; he sued his main detractor Marc Fellous, chairman of the French Association of Plant Biotechnologies. Séralini’s lawyer was able to prove in court that Fellous registered biotech patents in Israel that were later sold to third parties, such as Aventis. Fellous was unable to portray himself as an unbiased scientist after his personal connections to the agribusiness industry were exposed. As a result, Séralini won his case in court and vindicated his position (Baudouin 2011). At the same time, Professor Séralini was able to secure research funding to conduct his now famous two-year long study on rats without interference. The data collected reveals that rats eating a diet based on MON810 corn developed large tumors and other serious health problems (Séralini et al. 2012, 4221). These new findings erupted into a more furious battle that has not been settled.
Figure 2 depicts the results the toxicity study in rats performed at the Molecular Biology research laboratory of Professor Séralini, at the University of Caen, France. Again, this is the only comprehensive long-term toxicity study of GM corn to date; it was carried over a period of two years, which is the typical lifespan for a rat. It is quite clear that the animals developed large tumors, and their bodies seem deformed as a result. While the human diet is not entirely based on GM corn, the reader may consider if long term consumption could result in negative health effects, including kidney and liver damage (Séralini et al. 2012). Readers might also wonder about the health effects of eating animal products derived from farm animals raised on a GM grain diet. Currently, the diet of most pigs, cows, turkeys, and chickens in the US is based on GM corn and soybeans.
Figure 2, “Tumors in mice caused by exclusively eating GM corn”
(Source: Photo by Poulter 2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats–cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html)
Conclusions
In sum, as the evidence of adverse environmental effects and negative toxicological interactions continues to grow, it is intriguing to compare this research data with the fact that biotech giants continue to assure the public that their agricultural model is sustainable, and that their products are safe to eat and nutritionally equivalent to traditional crops. In the mean time, the trusting public accepts the official version… why would they lie to us?
Clearly, there is evidence to support the allegation that the wildly believed claims of the biotech industry may be based on marketing talking points, not on solid scientific research. Careful scrutiny is necessary, but it is rarely performed due to lack of research funding, and it is also discouraged by external pressures from powerful economic and political groups. It is unlikely that independent scientists will be able to fully address the complex multidisciplinary environmental impact and health effects derived from the widespread use of GM crops, so a solution seems elusive unless the general population becomes aware of the seriousness of the problem and takes an active roll. The research needed to prove every point of concern beyond any doubt would be very costly and time consuming; therefore, it would require a firm commitment from research teams and governments around the globe. Not surprisingly, GM producers rely on the fact that this is unlikely to happen in the current political climate, so they can afford to sit back and see their optimistic projections continue to go on unchallenged in the public arena, since the US government established a very low threshold to accept their homemade safety claims.
A change in current trends could occur if a large segment of society becomes organized and confronts politicians and business leaders to demand answers and corrective action. Adding mandatory labeling of GM-derived ingredients to nutritional labels could be a step in the right direction. The public may also opt to vote with their checkbooks and commit to consume non-GMO and certified organic products, since increasing demand for this type of food will send a strong message to food manufacturers, who in turn will transmit the information to food producers.As Always The Plain Truth!

The Plain Truth: Secret Gov’t Agency is Following Your License Plat...

The Plain Truth: Secret Gov’t Agency is Following Your License Plat...: It’s been 65 years since George Orwell published his renowned novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four . Since then, his story of a dystopian state cont...

Secret Gov’t Agency is Following Your License Plates and What Else?

It’s been 65 years since George Orwell published his renowned novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Since then, his story of a dystopian state controlled by Big Brother has been cited countless times, especially in reference to the United States.
Unfortunately, that’s not surprising. Surveillance is at an all-time high in America. Citizens’ rights, particularly regarding privacy, are being stripped away so fast that many don’t even realize it’s happening. And, sadly, there’s no end in sight.
In fact, the hits just keep coming. Most recently, on February 12, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its synopsis of the National License Plate Recognition Database, a program that will give the government an even greater ability to spy on its citizens at will.
The license plate tracking system is supposedly intended to “track aliens and absconders.” But, not surprisingly, other countries with similar programs already in place have had to deal with an avalanche of abuse.
Take the United Kingdom, for instance, where similar cameras were used to target anti-war protestors who had no connection to terrorism whatsoever. In Australia, the cameras have been used to keep a record of people who violate parking restrictions and to collect extraordinary amounts of data about innocent citizens.
In America, preliminary concerns over the tracking program seem justified, especially considering that the DHS has funded reports that characterize “liberty lovers” as potential terrorists.
Chipping Away At the Foundation of Liberty
The License Plate Recognition Database would be outrageous enough on its own, but it’s only the latest in a long line of privacy violations. The government’s thirst for control seemingly knows no bounds. And its obsession with tracking transportation is well documented.
In fact, in conjunction with the license plate tracking program, the DHS has launched a mass transit camera system in Massachusetts worth over $7 million. Soon, 70% of all MBTA bus routes will be on camera 100% of the time. So even if you’re just going to work or to the store, you’ll be on camera for the DHS to see. Better not make any sudden moves…
These recent DHS programs are far from the totality of the government’s plans. Just check out this article from Tech & Innovation Daily’s Chief Technology Analyst, Marty Biancuzzo, about hidden, government-mandated black boxes in cars. If you’ve bought a vehicle in the last two years, there’s a 96% chance that every move you’ve made in that vehicle has been recorded, from your distance traveled to your destinations to how fast you were going.
Marty also broke a story for Capitol Hill Daily fully seven months ago about license plate tracking! In preparation for the License Plate Recognition Database, the government has been installing “Automatic License Plate Readers” all across the country. They’re tracking millions of plates, despite an outrageously low percentage of plate reads actually leading to criminals. In Maryland, for example, the rate is 47 serious criminals for every 1 million plate reads.
Meanwhile, we’re all familiar with surveillance programs targeting our phones, computers and email, among other things. At this point, it’s almost impossible to escape the watchful eye of the government, whether you’re on the road, at work, or in your home. I bet George Orwell would be turning in his grave if he knew that his vision of Big Brother was actually coming to fruition.
In Pursuit of the Truth, The Plain Truth!

The Plain Truth: Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!

The Plain Truth: Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!: Since we all agree, as followers of Jesus, that bullying is wrong, it’s time we stand up to the gay bullies who are trying to put us in the...

Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!

Since we all agree, as followers of Jesus, that bullying is wrong, it’s time we stand up to the gay bullies who are trying to put us in the closet and take away our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion.
Consider for a moment that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty could have said in his GQ interview, “I think you’ve got to be crazy to be a polygamist,” or, “In my opinion, polyamory is just another word for adultery,” or, “A man who sleeps with lots of different women is no better than an animal,” and there would have been no reaction from A&E and no outcry from the gay censors.
Consider also that his comments about pre-entitlement black Americans were considered highly offensive by many, but these comments did not prompt A&E to take action, as I pointed out in my interview on Piers Morgan. (If you missed the interview, I encourage you to take 15 minutes to watch.)
Rather, it was comments about homosexuality that crossed the forbidden line, comments that, when read in context, although crude, simply expressed biblical perspectives. And that was more than gay censors like GLAAD and the HRC could tolerate.
The truth is that GLAAD has been on a campaign for years to censor all opposing viewpoints, as I noted in March 2012: “This sums up the duplicity of GLAAD: It urges the media to beware of conservative Christian leaders like [the late] Chuck Colson, Maggie Gallagher, and Tony Perkins [and me too!], even calling on CNN to ban some of them from appearing on their shows, and then gives its first Outstanding Blog award to the JoeMyGod website, famous for entries like this one ... [stating that] ‘God is SUPER busy killing babies and giving people cancer.’ And this earns praise from GLAAD...
“And for those who claim that GLAAD is not trying to engage in censorship, note well that at the end of 2010, GLAAD launched a petition drive urging ‘CNN to Make a New Year's Resolution: Keep Away From the Anti-Gay Industry.’ Yes, said GLAAD, ‘It’s time for outlets to finally drop several hundred pounds of unhealthy weight, which they've been carrying around for years, in the form of anti-gay activists. ... CNN and the rest of the media are doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric when they invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming. Starting in 2011, this needs to stop.’”
GLAAD even asks its constituents to alert them if people like me (or Jim Daly of Focus on the Family or psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow or political consultant Gary Bauer or Princeton professor Robert George, among many others) appear on the mainstream media.
GLAAD is undeniably in the business of censorship, which is why I believe they should be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement rather than the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Most recently, GLAAD commended comedian Bob Newhart for canceling a scheduled appearance at a Catholic businessmen’s event sponsored by the Legatus Summit.
According to GLAAD, “It is possible that Newhart, like many people were unaware that Legatus was such a rabid anti-LGBT organization. The organization was created by former Domino’s Pizza CEO, Thomas Monaghan, for Roman Catholic businesspeople, and membership is only available to top level executives.” Yes, the Legatus Summit’s website states that it was established to “bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life—Faith, Family and Business—connecting two powerful realities, the challenge of top-tier business leadership and a religious tradition second to none.” How utterly nefarious! The website also states, “Undergirded by their parish and diocesan life and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Legatus nurtures an interior transformation as members grow in their love for Christ and fidelity to the teachings of his Church. They become genuine ambassadors who study, live and spread the Catholic faith.” And GLAAD commends Newhart for canceling his scheduled appearance. How dare he crack jokes for committed Catholics! Even more remarkably, GLAAD’s actions come at a time when the Advocate, the flagship gay publication, named Pope Francis its man of the year for his softer tone toward gays. But this was not good enough for GLAAD, which represents the new face of “tolerance” and “diversity,” the face of unabashed censorship in the name of gay rights. This censorship and bullying will only get worse unless we make a determination to stand for what is right and speak the truth in love, regardless of cost or consequence, recognizing that our strategy of appeasement (which has often been a cover-up for our spinelessness and fear of man) has failed miserably. The reality is that in the last 12 months, it is not just private individuals who have been punished for refusing to bow the knee to gay activism or for speaking out of turn, but also public figures like Dr. Ben Carson, pastor Louie Giglio, and Sen. Rick Santorum. (In case you missed what happened with Mr. Santorum, in April, a Michigan high school canceled his speaking appearance out of concern that he would address same-sex marriage, eventually agreeing to let him speak with the caveat that students could only attend with parental permission [!]. In stark contrast, Bible-bashing, gay-sex-exalting speakers like Dan Savage are hailed as heroes in our schools and campuses, given carte blanche to talk about the most vile subjects to our young people.) Now the gay censors have tried to bully the ultrapopular (and, yes, backwoods, Bible-thumping) Phil Robertson, which for many finally means that enough is enough, a conclusion which is long overdue. It really is high time that we draw a line in the sand and refuse to capitulate or bow down, following the Jesus principle that we find our lives by losing them (Matt. 10:39). This does not require name-calling or rightwing rhetoric or anger on our part. To the contrary, “Human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires” (James 1:20, NIV). Rather, our stand for righteousness requires a heart in tune with the Lord and His Word, a life of personal purity without hypocrisy, and a genuine love for LGBT individuals, whose lives we protect and defend even while stating that homosexual practice is sin, that gay marriage is not truly marriage, and that God has a better way. We really have no choice, and, as I’ve said many times before, either we stand up and do what is right today or we apologize to our kids and grandkids tomorrow.
What will it be? As Always The Plain Truth!