The X-47B Drone Ushers In A Brave, Scary New World [PHOTOS]
It’s impossible to overestimate the impact this aircraft will have on drone use, its ethics, and the future of manned fighters.
X-47B is a computer-controlled drone that takes off, flies a pre-programmed mission, then returns to base. All in response to mouse clicks from its mission operator.
The mission operator monitors the X-47B air vehicle’s operation …
… but does not actively “fly” it via remote control as is the case for other unmanned systems currently in operation.
The X-47B has a maximum un-refueled range of over 2,100 nautical miles (3,900 km), and an endurance of more than six hours.
But will be used to demonstrate carrier launches and recoveries, as well as autonomous in-flight refueling using the probe-and-drogue system.
In November 2011, the Navy announced that aerial refueling equipment and software would be added to one of the prototype aircraft in 2014 for testing.
In May 2012, AV-1 began high-intensity electromagnetic interference testing at Patuxent River, to test its compatibility with planned electronic warfare systems.
The drone’s first land-based catapult launch was conducted successfully on 29 November, 2012.
On 26 November, 2012, the X-47B began its carrier-based evaluation aboard the USS Harry S Truman (CVN-75) at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia.
On 18 December, 2012, the X-47B completed its first at-sea test phase.
Robert Johnson/Business Insider
The system was remarked to have performed “outstandingly,” having proved that it was compatible with the flight deck, hangar bays, and communication systems of an aircraft carrier.
On May 4, 2013, the demonstrator successfully performed an arrested landing on a simulated carrier deck at NAS Patuxent River.
The Navy launched the X-47B from the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) on the morning of 14 May, 2013 in the Atlantic Ocean — the first time that an unmanned drone has been catapulted off an aircraft carrier.
On 17 May, 2013, another first was achieved when the X-47B performed touch-and-go landings and take-offs on the flight deck of the USS George H.W. Bush while underway in the Atlantic Ocean.
The project was initially funded under a US $635.8-million contract awarded by the Navy in 2007.
However, by January 2012, the X-47B’s total program cost had grown to an estimated $813 million.
The X-47A Original proof-of-concept prototype with a 19-foot (5.9 m) wingspan, first flown in 2003.
This is the X-47B Current demonstrator aircraft with a 62-foot (19 m) wingspan, first flown in 2011.
X-47C Proposed a larger version with a payload of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and a wingspan of 172 ft (52.4 m).
Crew: None—Length: 38.2 ft—Wingspan: 62.1 ft—Height: 10.4 ft—Empty weight: 14,000 lb — Max. takeoff weight: 44,567 lb —Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-220U turbofan.
Subsonic Cruise speed: Mach 0.9+ (high subsonic)—Range: 2,100+ Miles—Service ceiling: 40,000 ft.
Armament: Two weapon bays for up to 4,500 lbs of ordnance.
With internal weapons bays.
And to act without controller input.
These features make the X-47 class of drones something unlike the world has ever seen.
But that’s about to change, and we’ll see many, many more of them in the few short years ahead.
That’s what the X-47 is all about …
This Video Of The Navy’s X-47B Drone On An Aircraft Carrier Is A Glimpse Into The Future
Amid the expense and controversy surrounding America’s effort at fifth-generation piloted aircraft, like the F-35 and the F-22, there is the silent but hard fact that unmanned drones are poised to make piloted jets a thing of the past.
The idea is regularly tossed around, but to highlight the fact, here is a flight deck crewman aboard the USS Truman guiding the X-47B unmanned drone across the deck of an American carrier. It’s a scene that has always had a pilot looking back from the cockpit, until now.
The X-47B is aboard the Truman to perfect one of the more challenging feats in aviation today by taking off and landing aboard the carrier deck. It’s a process fraught with hazards that requires crew at the landing site to wave a pilot off should something become amiss. A “foul deck” sends someone waving their arms telling the pilot to pull up and try again.
For an X-47B landing, all that move would require is the flip of a switch.
We’ve reached out to the USS Truman’s command requesting a visit to see the X-47B in person, but no word yet on whether they’re accepting press visits. In the meantime we’ll have to make due with videos like this from Northrop Grumman and the Navy.
The counterfeit in the Whitehouse had stated that “we’re not a Christian nation”. Horrid as that statement is, the B*****d is correct. Like a bad case of termites, our country, supposedly “80% Christian” has become apostate, and turned her back on God. If we were even “80% Christian” we would not be seeing bylines like these:
IF YOU ARE A PARENT YOU NEED TO READ THIS!
This post from a Patriot Action Network member:
So Now The United States Postal Services Honors A Pedophile And Child Molester?
Roe vs Wade made abortion Constitutional where man overrides God’s laws.
(need I say more?) Every day, I see headlines like those, which is an indictment on all of us. America now calls evil good, and good, evil.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
The small percentage of malcontents, Atheists, Homosexuals and other perverse persons are now the government’s darlings; the “tail is now wagging the Dog”. Contrary to Atheists insistence that our founding fathers were Deists, this list, from Wallbuilders proves how wrong they are.
The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible
[would not post without much editing; use URL below; this is a must read.]
David Barton – 05/2008
A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible
(This list is by no means exhaustive; many other Founders could be included, and even with those who appear below, additional quotes could have been used.)
This article from Black Sphere was a most welcome addition on the subject:
As a Christian and a Conservative living in this day of history in America, my fears are numerous.
Some of those fears revolve around the economy and the tremendous debt being thrust upon our children and on their children, and so on. I’m concerned about the path of our government as it relates to society.
We are quickly becoming a nanny state in most every arena. The government is devouring the private sector at an alarming pace. Whether you’re talking about welfare, the systematic takeover of the banking industry or the automotive industry, Education or Healthcare, the overriding feeling is that the government exists to save us from ourselves in every aspect of our lives.
But in the midst of being consumed by these social concerns, a certain truth brings me to my senses; God cares little for governments or powers. God’s business is the human soul.
Some have been lulled into believing social good outweighs the significance of the spirit of man. How many trees must you save, how many soup kitchens do you have to serve in, how many carbon offsets does it take? Or, if you’re of the conservative mindset, exactly how fiscally conservative do you need to be to rescue your soul from Hell?
Neither the struggle over strict constructionist judges nor reliance on rugged individualism was meant to take the place of being in right standing with the Creator.
As Americans, the answer should be simple for us. But a failure to come up with the correct answer only leads us further down the path of Humanism and increasingly further away from God and the America imagined by the Founders.
You could be Ronald Reagan incarnate… you may be the most thoughtful, humble Conservative on the planet and still be a world away from God.
Conservatism without Christianity is hollow from its inception and disastrous at its conclusion.
To this point in history, the complacency of Christians has been largely responsible for the incremental loss of both our Nation’s freedom and its original, stated purpose. In the void, appeasers and so-called “Conservative atheists” have begun to assume the leadership of the movement.
Deniers and scoffers labor in vain as this Nation’s glories fade into the ether. Unless the remaining Christian element takes the helm, these unbelievers will continue to spread their Fiscal-Conservative message. And if they are allowed to continue in this course, we will all be peering into the rear view mirror questioning what became of the Country we once knew.
America absent the God of the Bible is not the “America” the Founders’ envisioned and never will be.
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2013/09/death-christianity-america-work-progress/#Bx4AL2d3WFPZec6m.99
We the People – Redress Denied by judge:
• Texas Anti-Abortion Law Thrown Out By George W. Bush Appointed US District Judge – Patriot Action Network.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…
Thomas Jefferson (The Declaration of Independence)
“X” – For me, this is a very unlikely source. Mother Jones is hardly a conservative publication; yet in the arena of GMO’s they are helping to sound the alarm. Enlarged font/italics my emphasis. This scary item is well worth the read, and please repost:
Argentina Is Using More Pesticide Than Ever Before. And Now It Has Cancer Clusters.
Argentina’s agricultural transformation over the past 20 years—from prime producer of grass-finished beef to one of the globe’s genetically modified crop-producing powerhouses—is often hailed as a triumph of high-tech ag. Starting in the 1970s and accelerating recently, high crop prices and various government policies inspired ranchers in the fertile Pampas and Chaco regions to plow up pasture—releasing large amounts to carbon in the process—to plant soybeans, mainly for export markets. In the mid-1990s, when Monsanto rolled out its soybean seeds engineered to resist herbicide, Argentina’s new crop farmers were early adapters (see chart to the right).
Sergio H. Lence, “The Agricultural Sector in Argentina: Major Trends and Recent Developments,” 2010
Today, Argentina is the globe’s third-largest soy producer—and nearly 100 percent of its soy crop is genetically altered. The trend has certainly benefited the GMO seed and agrichemical industry—as the below charts show, herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer use has soared over the past 15 years.
But what about the people who live in the country’s agricultural regions? A recent article by Associated Press reporters Michael Warren and Natacha Pisarenko paints a grim picture of life in the farm belt in the age of industrial corn and soy:
In Santa Fe, cancer rates are two times to four times higher than the national average. In Chaco, birth defects quadrupled in the decade after biotechnology dramatically expanded farming in Argentina.
The story quotes a pediatrician and neonatologist names Medardo Avila Vazquez, who has been moved to found a group called Doctors of Fumigated Towns. “We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects, and illnesses seldom seen before,” he tells Warren and Pisarenko.
GMO seed giant Monsanto—whose soybean and corn seeds engineered to withstand its own herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate), blanket the nation’s farmland—denies responsibility for the possible link between agrichemicals and rising rates of health disorders, the AP writers report. The company “does not condone the misuse of pesticides or the violation of any pesticide law, regulation, or court ruling,” A Monsanto spokesperson told Warren and Pisarenko.
Even so, Warren and Pisarenko found pesticide use to be at best lightly regulated. “With soybeans selling for about $500 a ton, growers plant wherever they can, often disregarding Monsanto’s guidelines and provincial law by spraying with no advance warning, and even in windy conditions,” they write.
Meanwhile, provincial restrictions against spraying too close to residential areas are often honored in the breach. The AP story features multiple accounts of people coming into direct contact with agrichemical sprays—just because they lived near farm fields. In one town, teachers reported students getting doused by chemical sprayers during class. In another, a government study found pesticide traces in the blood of 80 percent of children.
The authors make clear that one major driver of Argentina’s surging herbicide use is that weeds there have developed resistance to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide, Roundup. Just as they’ve done in the US, farmers there have responded by jacking up their doses of Roundup and adding “much more toxic poisons, such as 2,4,D, which the US military used in ‘Agent Orange’ to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War.”
Even Roundup’s reputation as a relatively benign agrichemical has come under fire from Argentine researchers alarmed at the effect this chemical deluge might be having on people. In a 2010 paper, a research team led by the University of Buenos Aires professor Andrés E. Carrasco found that “injecting a very low dose of glyphosate [Roundup’s active ingredient] into embryos can change levels of retinoic acid, causing the same sort of spinal defects in frogs and chickens that doctors increasingly are registering in communities where farm chemicals are ubiquitous,” Warren and Pisarenko report. Monsanto disputes the study’s findings, claiming they were undermined by flawed methodology and “unrealistic exposure scenarios.”
Meanwhile, the epidemiological evidence—health assessments of people living near chemical-intensive farms—is unsettling. In the Chaco region, a study of 2,051 people in six towns found “significantly more diseases and defects in villages surrounded by industrial agriculture than in those surrounded by cattle ranches,” the AP reports. “In Avia Terai, 31 percent said a family member had cancer in the past 10 years, compared with 3 percent in the ranching village of Charadai.”
It’s worth noting that that Argentina’s Pampas region—another place where both chemical use and rates of cancer and birth defects have risen—is widely known for its highly productive form of traditional agriculture, which produces top-quality grass-finished meat and a surplus of grain as well. Michael Pollan described it in his famous 2009 essay “Farmer-in-Chief”:
There, in a geography roughly comparable to that of the American farm belt, farmers have traditionally employed an ingenious eight-year rotation of perennial pasture and annual crops: after five years grazing cattle on pasture (and producing the world’s best beef), farmers can then grow three years of grain without applying any fossil-fuel fertilizer. Or, for that matter, many pesticides: the weeds that afflict pasture can’t survive the years of tillage, and the weeds of row crops don’t survive the years of grazing, making herbicides all but unnecessary.
Pollan even held up the Pampas system as a model for reforming our own chemically ravenous agriculture: “There is no reason—save current policy and custom—that American farmers couldn’t grow both high-quality grain and grass-fed beef under such a regime through much of the Midwest.”
But he added, presciently, that “today’s sky-high grain prices are causing many Argentine farmers to abandon their rotation to grow grain and soybeans exclusively, an environmental disaster in the making.”
And it’s only just begun, a new peer-reviewed paper finds.
Working in cahoots with its erstwhile rival Monsanto, Dow is on the verge of unleashing a chemical gusher onto US farmland—with the USDA’s blessing.
A blistering new Oxfam report debunks the theory that export crops are the best use of land in the developing world.
Mexico Bans GMO Corn Effective Immediately
Kaye Spector |October 16, 2013 1:23 pm
A Mexico judge has placed an indefinite ban on genetically engineered corn.
Effective immediately, companies like Monsanto and DuPont/Pioneer will no longer be allowed to plant or sell their corn within the country’s borders.
According to Environmental Food and Justice, Judge Jaime Eduardo Verdugo J. of the Twelfth Federal District Court for Civil Matters of Mexico City wrote that the genetically engineered corn posed ”the risk of imminent harm to the environment.”
A man picks corn in Mexico. Photo courtesy Christian Science Monitor
He also ordered Mexico’s Secretary of Agriculture and SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales), the equivalent to the U.S. EPA, to immediately “suspend all activities involving the planting of transgenic corn in the country and end the granting of permission for experimental and pilot commercial plantings.”
The ruling means Monsanto and other biotech companies will be required to halt all activities in the country, giving collective action lawsuits initiated by citizens, farmers, scientists and other concerned parties a chance to work their way through the judicial system.
According to a local press release, Acción Colectiva [Collective Action] aims to achieve absolute federal declaration of the suspension of the introduction of transgenic maize in all its various forms, including experimental and pilot commercial plantings, in Mexico, “which is the birthplace of corn in the world.”
The ruling provides at least temporary protection for the 20,000 varieties of corn grown in Mexico and Central America.
In a similar move, the Big Island County Council in Hawaii is considering a ban on GMOs.
This item courtesy of another Conservative blogger on WordPress – “X”
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It’s a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000 People – By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan …
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it… is up to you. This might be funny if it weren’t so true. Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, At which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass.
Tax all he has Then let him know That you won’t be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he’s laid…
Put these words Upon his tomb, ‘Taxes drove me to my doom…’
When he’s gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply:
The inheritance tax. Accounts Receivable Tax. Building Permit Tax. CDL license Tax. Cigarette Tax. Corporate Income Tax. Dog License Tax. Excise Taxes. Federal Income Tax. Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA). Fishing License Tax. Food License Tax. Fuel Permit Tax. Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon). Gross Receipts Tax. Hunting License Tax. Inheritance Tax. Inventory Tax. IRS Interest Charges. IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax). Liquor Tax. Luxury Taxes. Marriage License Tax. Medicare Tax. Personal Property Tax. Property Tax. Real Estate Tax. Service Charge Tax. Social Security Tax. Road Usage Tax. Recreational Vehicle Tax. Sales Tax. School Tax. State Income Tax. State Unemployment Tax (SUTA). Telephone Federal Excise Tax. Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax. Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes. Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax. Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax. Telephone State and Local Tax. Telephone Usage Charge Tax. Utility Taxes. Vehicle License Registration Tax. Vehicle Sales Tax. Watercraft Registration Tax. Well Permit Tax. Workers Compensation Tax.
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the heck happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’
Continuing to walk a treadmill while the national debt grows exponentially, we will end up where our revenue ceases to be able to reduce the debt, only perpetuate it – barely- by paying the interest on the debt. Households that foolishly became thus enmired in credit card debt, only able to pay the “minimum due” would end up filing bankruptcy. Thanks to Woodrow Wilson, our country became beholden to a private banking system fallaciously called the Federal Reserve. This is a prelude to more posts on this subject. “X”
How Banks Create 90% of the World’s Money
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson
… The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. –Thomas Jefferson
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. –James Madison
If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. –Andrew Jackson
The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. –Abraham Lincoln
Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. – Theodore Roosevelt
Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson
Years later, reflecting on the major banks’ control in Washington, President Franklin Roosevelt paid this indirect praise to his distant predecessor President Andrew Jackson, who had “killed” the 2nd Bank of the US (an earlier type of the Federal Reserve System). After Jackson’s administration the bankers’ influence was gradually restored and increased, culminating in the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Roosevelt knew this history.
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson… –Franklin D. Roosevelt (in a letter to Colonel House, dated November 21, 1933)
When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815
“The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt civilization.” Otto von Bismark (1815-1898), German Chancellor, after the Lincoln assassination
“Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history.” Karl Marx writing in the Communist Manifesto (1848).
“That this House considers that the continued issue of all the means of exchange – be they coin, bank-notes or credit, largely passed on by cheques – by private firms as an interest-bearing debt against the public should cease forthwith; that the Sovereign power and duty of issuing money in all forms should be returned to the Crown, then to be put into circulation free of all debt and interest obligations…” Captain Henry Kerby MP, in an Early Day Motion tabled in 1964.
“Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing. ” Ralph M Hawtry, former Secretary to the Treasury. “… our whole monetary system is dishonest, as it is debt-based… We did not vote for it. It grew upon us gradually but markedly since 1971 when the commodity-based system was abandoned.” The Earl of Caithness, in a speech to the House of Lords, 1997.
“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694, then a privately owned bank.
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.
“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.” Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.
“The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn’t realize it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create it.” H W White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955.
“Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave.” Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer.
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.
“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency.” Major L L B Angus.
“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.” John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).
As Nicolas Trist – secretary to President Andrew Jackson – said about the incredibly powerful privately owned Second Bank of the United States, “Independently of its misdeeds, the mere power, — the bare existence of such a power, — is a thing irreconcilable with the nature and spirit of our institutions.” (Schlesinger, The Age of Jackson, p.102)
——–Agribusness affects ALL of us ———
The average American eats more than 150 pounds of genetically engineered food every year. This despite the fact that scientists – the independent ones – agree that GE foods are ruining our health and our environment.
Fortunately, after 20 years of fighting for labels on foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we’ve reached a turning point. We, as consumers and farmers, are demanding a say in what we eat and what we plant.
In an interview with Mercola.com, OCA’s Ronnie Cummins explains why we must marshal every last resource to win the GMO labeling battle in Washington State on Nov. 5. And once we win, how we’ll have to continue the fight against Monsanto. With every ballot we cast. With every food purchase we make.
Because Monsanto will not go quietly into the night. At least not yet.
Ronnie Cummins on Turning the Tide Against Monsanto!
Published on Oct 11, 2013
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art… Ronnie Cummins, the National Director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), talks about Initiative 522 (I-522) as well as the reasons why you should support this GMO labeling campaign.
The images and music used within this video have been licensed through ThinkStock and Music Bakery. WARNING: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE MUSIC OR IMAGES CONTAINED IN THIS PRODUCTION IS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
Raiding Grandma’s Medicine Cabinet [Please view Preceding Frontline video first – “X”]
By MAGGIE KOERTH-BAKER
Published: April 16, 2013
Last month, the chief medical officer of Britain called antibiotic resistance a “ticking time bomb” and a threat as dangerous as global warming. In Europe alone, 25,000 people die every year from antibiotic-resistant bacteria — and that’s only counting the infections that were picked up in supposedly sterile hospitals.
Illustration by Oliver Munday
For more than 80 years, antibiotics have been nothing short of miraculous. Capable of killing bacteria without killing people, they’ve turned grave illnesses into mere annoyances, providing doctors with license to shoot first and ask questions later, and do so safely — or so we thought. Broad-spectrum antibiotics are powerful fighters with one flaw: unable to smite every bacterium, those immune to their wrath thrive. With every ear infection we treat, and every healthy cow prophylactically dosed with antibiotics (which also helps fatten the animals), we make these drugs less useful for future generations.
Scientists all over the globe are in a race with evolution, scrambling to understand the underlying mechanisms of antibiotic resistance and to discover new ways to fight bacteria. We must diversify our methods for treating bacterial infections and simultaneously reduce the amount of antibiotics we use, says Brad Spellberg, an infectious-disease specialist at U.C.L.A. This has led to a renewed interest in treatments from a world before penicillin.
Ruth Greenwood, a friend’s grandmother, knows the cruelty and desperation of this world well. In 1934, at age 9, she came up with a clever but shortsighted plan to get out of school: roll around in a patch of poison ivy. Greenwood succeeded in getting an itchy rash (and skipping class), but as the days went by, the rash became something much worse. Her legs swelled and broke out in a mass of tender, crimson sores that wept blood and pus. At night, the fluids soaked through her sheets and dried, fusing the bedding to her skin. Greenwood remembers being scooped up in the morning, sheets and all, and put in the bath to soak until the cloth could be peeled away from her flesh.
As she was scratching her rash, Greenwood made tiny cuts in her skin, allowing bacteria to get inside her body. The cells multiplied and infected her legs, most likely causing a disease that doctors now call cellulitis. Today she’d have been prescribed an oral antibiotic. Instead, her parents had to rely on the mess of medical hopes and snake oils that filled the shelves of the pre-antibiotic pharmacy.
First they had her sit in the sun for hours on end, hoping the cell-damaging rays would also destroy the bacteria — doctors would try the same with UV lamps, according to Spellberg. The infection was finally cured when her doctor prescribed a white cream spiked with ammoniated mercury to spread on the affected area. The metallic compound killed the bacteria somehow, possibly by stimulating inflammation that kicked Greenwood’s own immune system into high gear. She was lucky: back then the death rate for skin infections was about 11 percent. With antibiotics, we’ve lowered that figure 100-fold.
That some pre-antibiotic medicines are poised to make a comeback, however, need not be a mortifying prospect. Two treatments — serum therapy and bacteriophages — are having an exciting late career, as scientists find ways to make them safer and more effective than their early-20th-century incarnations.
Serum therapy works like an all-points bulletin for your immune system. Made up of antibodies, the proteins that identify and attack invasive cells, serums essentially create a bodywide dragnet for bacterial fugitives. To procure them, doctors used to infect horses and other animals with bacteria and dose humans with the antibodies culled from the animals’ blood. Invented in the 1890s, serum therapy earned one of its discoverers, Emil von Behring, a Nobel Prize. In Central Park, there is a statue commemorating Balto, the Siberian husky that helped bring lifesaving diphtheria serum to Nome, Alaska, in 1925.
Bacteriophages, viruses that attack bacteria, were especially popular in Eastern Europe. Administered just like antibiotics, internally or directly on the skin, this technique continued to be researched in the postwar Eastern bloc, which couldn’t depend on imported drugs from the United States and Western Europe.
Compared with the scorched-earth policy of broad-spectrum antibiotics, serums and phages are downright surgical. Antibodies are incredibly selective about which bacteria they’ll attack and which they’ll ignore. Bacteriophages are only slightly less choosy. Those traits can be a liability. Doctors must determine which bacteria is causing an infection before treating it, leading to potentially deadly delays.
Antibiotics made a doctor’s job easier, and this led to our current predicament, says Dr. Arturo Casadevall, an infectious-disease expert at Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in New York. He and his colleagues are hoping for a return to alternative treatments for bacterial infections in the near future. By combining old ideas with modern technology, they and other scientists have helped renew interest in phages. In recent years, for example, federal regulators have approved the use of a variety of antibacterial phages in our food supply. Meanwhile, serum therapy now employs cloned antibodies (no horse blood required), and it’s used to treat cancer and arthritis. Clinical trials are under way for modernized antibacterial serums.
The medicine cabinet of the future might contain treatments from an age when we would have tried anything to kill bacteria, but they’ll be there only in a supporting role: to preserve the efficacy of the drugs that freed us from that madness.
Maggie Koerth-Baker is the science editor at BoingBoing.net and author of “Before the Lights Go Out,” on the future of energy production and consumption.