Toxic pesticides which are implanted into genetically modified food crops have lodged in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn babies, research shows.

 

Toxic pesticides which are implanted into genetically modified food crops have lodged in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn babies Photo: PA

 

By Andy Bloxham7:35AM BST 20 May 2011 

Scientists at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, took dozens of samples from women.

Traces of the toxin were found 93 per cent of the pregnant mothers and in 80 per cent of the umbilical cords.

The research suggested the chemicals were entering the body through eating meat, milk and eggs from farm livestock which have been fed GM corn.

The findings appear to contradict the GM industry’s long-standing claim that any potentially harmful chemicals added to crops would pass safely through the body.

To date, most of the global research which has been used to demonstrate the safety of GM crops has been funded by the industry itself.

It is not known what, if any, harm the chemicals might cause but there has been speculation it could lead to allergies, miscarriage, abnormalities or even cancer.

One of the researchers told the scientific journal Reproductive Toxicology: “This is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, foetal and nonpregnant women’s blood.”

Pete Riley, the director of GM Freeze, a group opposed to GM farming, described the research as “very significant”.

The Agriculture Biotechnology Council, which speaks for the GM industry, has questioned the reliability and value of the research.

Dr Julian Little, its chairman, said: “Biotech crops are rigorously tested for safety prior to their use and over two trillion meals made with GM ingredients have been safely consumed around the world over the past 15 years without a single substantiated health issue.”

 

Washington D.C. — Two officers, identified as Washington D.C. cops, were caught on camera slamming a wheelchair bound man to the ground.

The video entitled “DC police abuse homeless man in wheelchair”, was uploaded to Youtube on May 19, 2011, by someone using the screen name ChrisWhite313.

At the beginning of the footage, two cops can be seen wrestling with a man riding what appears to be a motorized wheelchair, and instructing him to “get on the ground”. Which is a little difficult to do if you can’t walk.

Then the officers throw the seemingly disabled man onto the concrete, causing his head to bleed. A person at the scene said the alleged suspect’s head was “bust wide open”.

When a bystander asked one of the arresting officers why the man was being taken into custody, the cop said the injured man “assaulted a police officer”. Angry eyewitnesses openly disagreed with the officer’s version of what happened and told him that his reasons for arresting the man “weren’t true”.

A woman in the background can be heard saying the bleeding suspect lives on the block where the incident occurred.

It had to happen soon or later, the American public is starting to get damn tired of what the idiots in Washington have done to the American dollar. No longer will Utah be accepting the fiat dollar as the only currency. The unconstitutional way in which the United States Federal Reserve has been used as Washington’s personal piggy bank, has caused the people of Utah to re-think gold and silver as a currency option. The new law will also make the sale coins exempt from any state capital gains taxes.

Additionally, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Montana, Virginia, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Washington, Missouri, Colorado and Idaho also are headed towards using the constitutional gold and silver currency. Ron Paul explains the dying dollar below:

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/utah-becomes-first-state-in-the-union-to-accept-gold-and-silver-as-currency/4304

Webster Tarpley
Infowars.com
May 23, 2011

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.”5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.” “Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.6

Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”7

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

The Shooting Has Already Started

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, “considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”11

The Nation: A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.” The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: “During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”12 Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

According to the same account, Russian intelligence “disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….” Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation.”15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

—

This post first appeared on Webster Tarpley’s website.

References

1 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/china-asks-us-to-respect-paks-sovereignty-independence/articleshow/8454577.cms

2 “China-Pakistan alliance strengthened post bin Laden,” AFP, May 15, 2011, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/7546-china-pakistan-alliance-strengthened-post-bin-laden

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=3

4 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/08/Gilani-China-best-most-trusted-friend/UPI-96101304911435/

5 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/pakistani_pm_regrets_unilateral_GAOWNTpBXGJaJtwzWaZu0K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

6 Rowan Scarborough,”U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban, Fox News, May 14, 2009.

7 “US ‘To Protect Pakistan,” London Sunday Express, May 15, 2011, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246717/US-to-protect-Pakistan-

8 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/17/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE74G0PS20110517

9 “US refuses to assure it will not act unilaterally,” http://thenews.jang.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15758

10 “No US assurance on unilateral ops,” http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/20-May-2011/No-US-assurance-on-unilateral-ops

11 “Getting leaner and meaner? Army practices blitzkrieg to strike hard at enemy,” Times of India, May 10, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/india/29527731_1_three-strike-corps-army-and-iaf-transformational

12 “CIA has created own Taliban to wreak terror havoc on Pakistan, claims Pak paper,” ANI, May 12, http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-created-own-taliban-wreak-terror-havoc-pakistan-091621821.html

13 “New al-Qaeda chief in North Waziristan,” May 19, 2011

14 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43033985/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

15 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8519535/US-steps-up-face-to-face-peace-talks-with-Taliban.html

Last week it was announced that TSA goons would conduct a grope-down of students during prom night at a Santa Fe high school. The TSA promised to move from airports into the New Mexico high school after two girls said security personnel groped them and a federal judge ruled the TSA should conduct pat-downs at dances or graduations.

The judge’s ruling indicates the federal government and the TSA believe they should be conducting searches. The TSA has moved from airports to train and bus stations. TSA boss Napolitano has said she envisions the agency ultimately groping citizens at malls and hotels.

NATO is now deeply entrenched in Libya in what looks like a civil war and there is no visible end to the illegal intervention, insists British anti-nuclear activist Kate Hudson from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

•  Last Friday, I received notice from the TV program 60 Minutes that today, Sunday, May 15^th, A.D. 2011, (about 35 minutes from now)  they’d air a segment that includes me.  I haven’t seen the segment, so I don’t know how I’ll be portrayed—but I have reason to believe that I may be cast in a false light and/or defamed by tomorrow’s program.

The cause for my concern is the 60 Minutes description of the segment on their “Up Next” webpage:

“Sovereign Citizens - Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer.”

http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf

In March, I’d spent my 2-hour interview with 60 Minutes trying to rationally explain that the concept of individual sovereignty was the fundamental principle that animated the American Revolution, was the cornerstone for American liberty, and could be traced to our God-given, unalienable Rights.  In the end, sovereignty is a spiritual (rather than political) concept.  Judging from the 60 Minutes description (above), the segment may be more akin to a sensationalized witch-hunt than an objective investigation into the subject of individual “sovereignty”.

Apparently, I am being being linked to Jerry Kane who (with his son, Joe) died in a recent shoot-out with police.  So far as I can recall, I’d never heard of Jerry Kane until after he died.

These kinds of express or implied associations (between me and anyone who’s died in a gunfight with the police) are dangerous to me in that they place me at risk any time I interact with police.  Insofar as police are led to believe that I’m cut from the same cloth as Jerry Kane, they may believe that I’m “armed and dangerous” (I’m not) and therefore increase the probability that I might be shot without cause.

I don’t know what the net effect of the 60 Minutes segment will be.  I probably won’t know the full effect of the program for weeks or months after the program airs.

But judging from the description and video preview (above), 60 Minutes may be promoting (or at least implying) the idea that I’m a “domestic terror threat”.  If so, that’s untrue and I have a well-publicized track record for at least 20 years to show that the only “violence” I’ve advocated is reading the law, educating yourself, and using your knowledge of the law and paperwork to defend against governmental oppression and to hold governmental officials and employees accountable for their misdeeds.

As big government becomes increasingly tyrannical, I can understand that its agencies might want to define any dissident who accuses the almighty gov-co of criminal or treasonous acts to be a “domestic terrorist” (especially if the accusations against gov-co are true).  But, hopefully, reasonable men and women will insist that a “domestic terrorist” is one who commits actual acts of unjustified violence for political purposes.  If so, that label does not apply to me.

Yes, I have long-recognized that violence against an established government may ultimately be necessary to stop tyranny and despotism (witness the American Revolution, WWII and the recent “Arab Spring”).  The very concept of using violence to “throw off” despotic governments is enshrined in the “Declaration of Independence” that we celebrate every 4^th of July.  Our Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that the people would always have the means (firearms) to “throw off” a despotic government.  Both the Declaration and the 2^nd Amendment anticipate the probability that even the American government would one day again grow despotic and that the people would need both the principles and means to “throw off” that despotism.

I have advocated that people be prepared for the possibility that violence may one day become necessary.  But I have not advocated that people commit violence—except as a last resort.  And I have never advocated that people start shooting now.

My reason for advocating firearm ownership is not to incite violence but to prevent it.  An unarmed people are easily oppressed and subjected to genocide by their own government.  Witness Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia.  When a government confiscates the people’s firearms, genocide is usually imminent.

Lots of people advocate the ownership of firearms.  I go a step further and advocate that the people be “armed” with both firearms and the reason for owing firearms.  That reason is not to go duck hunting in the Fall.  The reason for owning firearms—as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the 2^nd Amendment—is to overthrow a despotic or treasonous government.

It was my advocacy of the reason for owning firearms that brought me to 60 Minutes’ attention.  I suspect that my advocacy of understanding the reason may be twisted by 60 Minutes to falsely suggest that I advocate violence.  We shall see.

However, yesterday, I sent an email to Clem Taylor and Jessica Haddad at 60 Minutes advising them that I do not consent to be cast in a false light and/or defamed by 60 Minutes.   That notice may have legal consequence, but I doubt that it will have any effect on tonight’s broadcast.

Here’s a copy of the text of the email:

Re: This Sunday on 60 Minutes NOTICE OF NO CONSENT

Hi Jessica & Clem,

I received Jessica’s email (below) about 3:45 PM CST.  It announced that you intend to broadcast a 60 Minutes segment this coming Sunday, that will include me.

I was initially excited.

Then I visited the 60 Minutes website and read the following description on the “Up Next” webpage:

“Sovereign Citizens - Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer”

Judging from that description, it appears that the people at 60 Minutes may intend to use my interview to produce a segment that expressly says or implies that I am a violent extremist and/or domestic terror threat–and/or that I knowingly associate with violent extremists and/or domestic terrorists.  Both descriptions would be false.

If 60 Minutes does “cherry pick” a couple of my offhand remarks out an interview that lasted nearly two hours to describe me as violent or any kind of terrorist, that description would be false and defamatory.  Given your journalistic obligation to fully research your segments and given my extensive public background (including my A.D. 1992 candidacy for the Texas Supreme Court), such defamation would be knowing.  I have a documented public history that extends at least back to A.D. 1990.  This history has been expressed my radio shows, my magazine, my blog and a number of mainstream media reports.   That history demonstrates that my position has always been to seek a civil solution to our problems with government.  While I have always recognized that violence against government might be justified by government’s own institutionalized tyranny (as it was for our Founders in A.D. 1776), I have never advocated violence as an objective, but only as a last resort in defense of liberty.

Nevertheless, during the interview Mr. Pitts asked me repeatedly about a particular radio broadcast I’d done at some time in the past.  In that one radio  program, I explained that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of The United States of America against governmental tyranny by shooting, if necessary, politicians and governmental employees who engage in tyranny.  I attempted to explain to Mr. Pitts that my position on the 2nd Amendment was justified by the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights.  If 60 Minutes chooses to take my words out of context and without reference to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I might be defamed and falsely portrayed as an advocate of violence.

Here’s an article I wrote on the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights and first published on or about April 14th, A.D. 2011:

http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/preamble-to-the-bill-of-rights/

As you may know, my landlord (a middle class businessman) at Utopia (where the interview was conducted) warned that 60 Minutes might edit my interview so as to not only defame me, but attract so much adverse government attention as to cause in a “Ruby Ridge-” or “Waco-” style raid on my landlord’s property.  In fact, even though my rent was paid until the end of April, my landlord was so fearful of a possible government “raid” that he ordered me to vacate his property on Sunday, March 13th, and I did in fact leave on March 16th, right after the 60 Minutes interview.

After the actual interview, I mentioned my “eviction” to Mr. Pitts and Mr. Taylor.  They both seemed shocked that anyone would distrust 60 Minutes journalistic integrity.  Both men assured me that 60 Minutes had a reputation for fair and objective journalism and that I need not fear being falsely depicted on the final segment.  Until now, I have trusted in Mr. Pitts’ and Mr. Taylor’s assurance and in the 60 Minutes reputation for fairness and objectivity.

However, because the “Up Next” description of the segment on “sovereign citizens” seems so sensationalized and  biased against “sovereign citizens,” I am concerned that my trust in Mr. Pitts, Mr. Taylor and 60 Minutes may have been betrayed.

I am therefore sending this email to you as a Notice that:

1) I do not consent to be defamed by 60 Minutes; and,

2) I do not consent or otherwise agree to have any of my statements or images broadcast on 60 Minutes if those statements and images are used to cast me in a false light and/or are defamatory.

As I explained to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Pitts, I don’t expect the 60 Minute segment to be flattering.  I recognize that the issue of “sovereignty” is controversial.  But the issue of sovereignty is no more controversial than the Declaration of Independence from which our sovereignty flows.  I therefore expect the 60 Minutes segment to portray me objectively and in a way that’s consistent with the overall impression of the 2-hour interview and with my 20 year history of political activism.  If 60 Minutes can’t do that, and has instead chosen to defame me, I do not consent to be portrayed in the 60 Minutes segment on “sovereign citizens”.

CREED: At all times and places, I have been, am and will be as our Father YHWH ha Elohiym made me:  An actual, physical man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.  Unless otherwise expressly and voluntarily agreed by me in writing over my actual hand-written signature:  I exercise my actual rights of religious and political freedom of choice to declare that the venue of all of my conduct, speech, writings, agreements, residence and domicile is: without the singular “United States” and actually on the soil within the physical boundaries of The County of Dallas located within the border of The State of Texas–one of the several member-States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; that all of my conduct is intentional; that all of my acts and intentions take place in a Year of our Lord; that I act at arm’s length and without prejudice to my capacity as a sovereign Dei gratia; that I do not consent to act as, or as part of, any “double personality,” “double capacity,” and/or “double character”; that my duty of obedience is only to that government that exists under the authority granted by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym as per Romans 13:1-7 and is consistent with the express charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas” and “The Organic Law of The United States of America”; that I have not knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily consented to be subject by virtue of mere statute, rule, regulation, emergency, or alleged moral or obligation to the authority of any unincorporated, implied charitable trust; that my purposes are at all times religious first and/or political second and dedicated to restoring understanding and respect for the spiritual principles which provide the foundation for the republican form of government guaranteed at Article 4 Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States ratified in A.D. 1788 and by Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
Alfred Adask a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”
radio: American Independence Hour T-W-Th, 10-11 PM CST, www.wwfar.com & WWCR shortwave 3.215; simulcast on http://www.theamericanvoice.com/;

blog at http://adask.wordpress.com

Lahore, May 12(ANI): Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilise Pakistan, a Pakistani newspaper has claimed.

Much of the information-gathering network of Pakistan’s supreme security service was curtailed in the country’s tribal areas during former military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s era, consequently giving an edge to America’s CIA, The Nation reported.

The CIA was given direct access to the entire territory of North and South Waziristan, which has since developed its stronghold in the belt, it added.

According to sources, the CIA’s operations, which were suspended in Balochistan, Punjab, Islamabad and other areas of the country after the Raymond Allen Davis (RAD) incident, have also been restored.

Responding to a query, the sources said that the CIA operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own TTP force, the paper said.

This force has been recruited, trained and equipped by these CIA operatives to target the Pakistan Army personnel, armed forces’ installations, markets, hospitals, schools and public places to destabilise Pakistan, the paper added.

The paper quoted the sources, as claiming that the Soviet Intelligence Agency had already disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed, and pressed to do more in areas such as conducting operations in North Waziristan.

“After the civil government justified the CIA operation in Abbottabad all of them have again indulged in their original nefarious activities,” the sources added.

Former ISI Punjab Regional Commander, Brigadier (retired) Aslam Ghuman, was quoted as saying: “During my visit to the US, I learnt Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilise Pakistan at any cost”.

The paper also quoted former Punjab Military Intelligence (MI) chief, Brigadier (retired) Mohammad Yousuf, as saying that over 7,000 CIA operatives have been conducting warfare within Pakistan.

“Days after the mystery of 9/11, the CIA operatives landed in Pakistan in order to train Pakistani troops and authorities concerned for counter terrorism, but with the passage of time, their demands increased, and now the CIA network has a strong grip,” said another ex- ISI Punjab Regional Commander, Brigadier (retired) Ghazanfar. (ANI)