Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Disclaimer:
The views and/or opinions posted on all the blog posts and in the comment sections are of their respective authors, not necessarily those of Dandelion Salad.
All content has been used with permission from the copyright owners, who reserve all rights, and that for uses outside of fair use (an excerpt), permission must be obtained from the respective copyright owner.
"But remember, this power of the people on top depends on the obedience of the people below. When people stop obeying, they have no power." -- Howard Zinn
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? —Romans 8:35God does not keep His child immune from trouble; He promises, “I will be with him in trouble . . .” (Psalm 91:15). It doesn’t …
[According the the New York Times, the world is now in an unprecedented food crisis. A lot of very hungry people are likely to be in the streets in the not too distant future. Between the prices of food and Peak Oil's impact on food transport, we can anticipate food riots in America just as so many other nations have experienced them throughout history.--CB]
Martial law is perhaps the ultimate stomping of freedom. And yet, on September 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision in a 591-page bill that will make it easy for President Bush to impose martial law in response to a terrorist “incident.” It also empowers him to effectively declare martial law in response to what he or other federal officials label a shortfall of “public order” – whatever that means.
It took only a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened those restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the United States without the express permission of Congress. (This act was passed after the depredations of the U.S. military throughout the Southern states during Reconstruction.)
But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Congressional Critics Want More Assurances of Legality
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 12, 2008; Page A03
The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation’s most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea’s legal authority.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will activate his department’s new domestic satellite surveillance office in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific and homeland security activities — such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.
The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.
Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.
“Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.
As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.
Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”
When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”
It’s illegal to work as a journalist in Tibet, so we knew that it was going to be a struggle even to get there, let alone to survive and report.
If you want to film in Tibet then you have to apply for permission, and if you’re given permission then you’ll be allocated a state-appointed minder – so the only way to make a film of the truth successfully is to go undercover.
As China shows its friendly face to the rest of the world in the year of the Olympics, our mission was to show people what was really happening. Were the Chinese authorities being honest about the way they govern Tibet? Or should we believe the reports from the human rights activists, campaigning to free Tibet from Chinese rule and oppression?
My Tibet: Secret report from the roof of the world
Eleven years ago, Tash, above, risked his life to flee Tibet. Now he has risked it again, by returning with a hidden camera to film the stories of torture, murder and forced sterilisation that China does not want the world to hear.
By Clare Dwyer Hogg
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Tash does not look like a man who has just put his life in danger. But as he sits in a cosy editing suite in London, the images on the screens around him – a Tibetan political prisoner showing his scars, a still of Tash interviewing a Buddhist monk – prove the contrary. He has risked his life at least twice: the first time, 11 years ago, to escape his native Tibet; and then, as the screens document, when he went back with a hidden camera to expose what he felt were injustices perpetrated by the Chinese government. “I can now never go back to Tibet,” he says. “But it is worth it.”
What makes his actions particularly dangerous is the Chinese government’s blanket ban on journalists entering Tibet. His report for Channel 4′s Dispatches reveals detail not seen before: reports last month of the recent uprisings could only be given by major news sources from vantage points outside the country – usually Nepal – conveying what snatches of second-hand experiences they could garner from the other side of the Himalayas. Tibet has an estimated one Chinese soldier for every 20 Tibetans – as opposed to one soldier per 1,400 Chinese citizens. This country, about the size of western Europe, has been firmly in the grip of the Chinese government since the Dalai Lama fled in 1959.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
As Tibetan protesters take to the streets in the biggest and most bloody challenge to Chinese rule in nearly 20 years, Dispatches reports on the hidden reality of life under Chinese occupation after spending three months undercover, deep inside the region. Dozens are feared dead after the recent clashes and crackdown by Chinese troops, but with reporting so rigidly controlled from the region little is known of living conditions inside Tibet.
To make this film, Tibetan exile Tash Despa returns to the homeland he risked his life to escape 11 years ago, to carry out secret filming with award-winning, Bafta-nominated director Jezza Neumann (Dispatches Special: China’s Stolen Children). Risking imprisonment and deportation, he uncovers evidence of the “cultural genocide” described by the Dalai Lama.
He finds the nomadic way of life being forcefully wiped out as native Tibetans are stripped of their land and livestock and are being resettled in concrete camps. Tibet reveals the regime of terror which dominates daily life and makes freedom of expression impossible. Tash meets victims of arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and “disappearances” and uncovers evidence of enforced sterilisations on ethnic Tibetan women.
He sees for himself the impact of the enormous military and police presence in the region, and the hunger and hardship being endured by many Tibetans, and hears warnings of the uprising taking place across the provinces now.
Illustration and Text By Steve Brodner
Mother Jones
The New Yorker
April 9, 2008
Yesterday and today we’ve seen the now routine spectacle of Petraeus and Crocker coming to Washington to tell Congress and the rest of us to butt out of their war-thing. Surprisingly, Congress, even the Republicans, yesterday shouted back, ‘Hell no!” This from Dowd today: “They arrived on the heels of the Maliki debacle in Basra, which made it stunningly clear — after a ceasefire was brokered in Iran — that we’re spending $3 trillion as our own economy goes off a cliff so that Iran can have a dysfunctional little friend. Not good news, given Ahmadinejad’s announcement that his scientists are putting 6,000 new uranium-enriching centrifuges in place.”
And there sat McCain, strapped to this war. Here’s our film about that.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Much of the world has condemned the violence and called on the Sudanese government to end the slaughter. You and your administration have, properly, called the mass killing “genocide,” and urged a peace process.
But the horror in Darfur continues. Tens of thousands more have been displaced in the last month. Violence has intensified in Western Darfur. Meanwhile, millions of displaced people are giving up hope of returning to their homes.
The noble words of your administration and the outside world have not been enough to change the course of the Sudanese government.
The United States knows how to deploy its political power and influence. It is now time to put more political muscle behind the effort to end the genocide, and achieve a peaceful solution to this conflict.
One leverage point is normalization of relations with the Sudanese government. You and your administration should announce that the United States will not normalize its relationship with Sudan until the Sudanese government removes all obstacles to the full deployment of the multilateral United Nations-African Union peacekeeping operation (UNAMID), fully implements the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and engages in good faith in a comprehensive, open and inclusive peace process in Darfur.
It is vital that the Sudanese government not be permitted to delay and derail UNAMID. A report in the International Herald Tribune succinctly captures the urgency of the situation:
“As Darfur smolders in the aftermath of a new government offensive, a long-sought peacekeeping force, expected to be the world’s largest, is in danger of failing even before it begins its mission because of bureaucratic delays, stonewalling by the Sudanese government and reluctance from troop-contributing countries to send peacekeeping forces into an active conflict.”
Rather than blaming the UN for delays, the United States should exercise leverage to accelerate the deployment of the personnel and resources that would make UNAMID into an effective force, and to overcome the Chinese government’s objections to deployment.
The United States has a complicated and interconnected relationship with China, but much more could be done to dissuade China from its ongoing support of the Sudanese government. The United States is willing to file claims against China at the World Trade Organization to protest failures to enforce patents, copyright and trademarks. Is it too much to ask for an equally robust effort to stop the slaughter of innocent human beings?
The U.S.’s Special Envoy for Sudan is the direct means for the United States to press Sudan to get peace negotiations jump-started and to remove obstacles to the full deployment of UNAMID. The Special Envoy’s office should be fully and adequately staffed, commensurate with the seriousness of his mission.
We look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Robert Weissman
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
More on Michael Mukasey’s false 9/11 and FISA claims
By Glenn Greenwald
SALON
April 11, 2008
(updated below)
The San Francisco Chronicle became one of the few media outlets to report on the multiple false claims about 9/11 and FISA in Michael Mukasey’s speech two weeks ago, as they adeptly summarized the key events in this article today. As the article, using the Lee Hamilton and other quotes reported here, put it: “It seemed like a sensational disclosure — a phone call that, if traced and monitored, could have allowed authorities to thwart the attacks — but it has proved difficult to verify.”
On his third question, Leahy asked Mukasey to clarify a recent comment he made in San Francisco where he implied that the failure to listen in on a phone call from Afghanistan to the United States prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks had cost 3,000 lives.“Nobody else seems to know about this. Can you tell me what the circumstances were and why?” Leahy said.
“The phone call I referenced relates to an incoming call that is referred to in a letter in February of this year to House Intelligence Committee Chairman [Silvestre] Reyes [(D-Texas)] from Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and I,” Mukasey said.
“One thing I got wrong. It didn’t come from Afghanistan. I got the country wrong,” Mukasey continued without specifying the country where the call originated.
Most people know that sodas are bad for health, but sodas aren’t THAT bad, right? If they were incredibly bad for us, then companies wouldn’t be able to sell the product. Besides, what does a company have to gain when the bulk of its clientèle croak? According to Dr. Betty Martini and a number of other doctors throughout the world, we as consumers should stop being so trusting of our token higher ups (corporations, FDA, CDC), especially when the dangerous neurotoxin Aspartame is included within hundreds of thousands of products that we guzzle down our gullets every day.
Dr. Betty Martini, a quintessential southern woman heading up the worldwide organization Mission Possible says that soda, and more especially the additive aspartame is not only bad for people — it’s downright suicidal.
So effective has Dr. Betty Martini’s war on Aspartame become, that companies churning out products such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi have had to clamor over the years just to combat her endless onslaught of truth. The entire industry has had to invest in boots so they can commence shaking in them because of this tough little Georgia chick kickin’ up a fuss about such an arbitrary issue as health. Go figure.
What is Aspartame And The Dangers Associated With It?
Aspartame is comprised of 40 percent aspartic acid, 50 percent phenylalanine and 10 percent methanol. In addition, metabolites of aspartame are as follows: formaldehyde, formic acid and diketopiperazine. Now, those are some awfully big words. So, let’s break down these big words into non-chemist lingo.
Aspartic Acid
Aspartic acid occurs naturally within the body. It acts as a neurotransmitter, which basically means that it’s the rails upon which information in our brains travel from point A to point B with.
The problem is that excess aspartic acid – an amino acid – creates too many rails (neurotransmitters) in certain areas of the brain. This effectively lends to a helluva pile-up, if not a devastating crash, the casualties of which are the neurons themselves. This aspartic acid, or “excitotoxin”, gets our brain traffic so hopped up that they crash and die. Sounds like a disaster movie…in the brain.
Over time, these excessive amounts of aspartic acid can begin destroying neurons all together. There are significant numbers within the global population that consume aspartame and eventually develop a variety of symptomologies that are commonly diagnosed as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and Lou Gehrig’s disease. Those that continue on without being diagnosed typically experience memory loss, sexual dysfunction, blindness, heart irregularities, headaches, and loss of hearing, seizures, blood sugar anomalies, irritability and varying degrees of dementia.
The demographics most susceptible to these excitotoxic-induced neuron anomalies are infants and developing children, pregnant women, the elderly and the chronically ill – basically a large group of people already guzzling down diet drinks with aspartame added.
Phenylalanine
This is another big word, but once the effects are understood, the word becomes synonymous with “Don’t”.
Phenylalanine is yet another amino acid produced naturally by the body. However, just like aspartic acid, it can cause an unhealthy unbalance in the brain when artificially increased. Not only that, but phenylalanine can cross the blood brain barrier (BBB) and cause serotonin to heavily decrease. Decreased serotonin is why people are put on anti-depressants such as Prozac and Cymbalta.
Aspartame, being made up in part of phenylalanine, can cause emotional disorders. In fact, elevated levels of this particular amino acid have been seen in the blood of the brains of human subjects that chronically use aspartame. Dr. Louis Elsas once demonstrated to Congress that such levels are dangerous to fetuses and infants.
A neurosurgeon named Russell Blaylock also brought to light earlier studies indicating that concentrations of phenylalanine accumulate in the hypothalamus, medulla oblongata and corpus stranium areas of the brain. Yet, even earlier, science has determined indefinitely that this particular amino acid, in excess, can cause schizophrenia or increase susceptibility to seizures.
One could even theorize that phenylalanine in aspartame could be contributing to increased sales of Prozac and other psychotropic drugs, not to mention a number of very rich psychiatrists.
Methanol
Methanol is perhaps one of the worst aspects of the concoction that is aspartame. It is a well-known neurotoxin, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes as a “cumulative” poison and that it “is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic.”
When I was a child, around seven years old, I remember hearing from a friend of mine that it was unwise to keep diet coke out in the heat. He said it would make the drink itself cancerous. This would make sense considering the fact that when aspartame is heated above 86 degrees F, it metabolizes the methanol much faster. Yet, even so, in 1993, the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) approved the use of aspartame in a wide variety of food items (dry food items) that would always be heated above 86 degrees F.
Common symptoms of methanol poisoning are as follows: headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, digestive disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, vision problems, retinal damage and blindness, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral problems and neuritis.
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and can cause retinal damage, interfere with DNA replication and causes birth defects. And, as has already been solidified, formaldehyde is what aspartame transforms into once ingested by the body.
Diketopiperazine (DKP)
Another byproduct of aspartame metabolism, besides formaldehyde, is DKP, which has been associated with the formation of brain tumors. DKP has been found to form in aspartame included in beverages during prolonged storage, particularly above 86 degrees F. In fact, it has been heavily associated with Gulf Illness – a cluster of chronic/fatal symptoms that have affected nearly 250,000 Gulf War I veterans – due to the fact that so many of the troops drank copious amounts of aspartame-sweetened sodas that had been stored for extended periods in the hot Arabian sun.
Aspartame — A Worthy Warning
The three main ingredients found in aspartame are themselves problematic. They break down into substances that are already known to be toxic and foreign to the human body.
Even though the FDA has approved aspartame for use in any product, it has simultaneously released a report of the following 92 aspartame-related health problems/symptoms:
Abdominal Pain
Anxiety attacks
Arthritis
Asthma
Asthmatic reactions
Bloating
Edema (fluid retention)
Blood sugar control problems (Hypoglycemia or Hyperglycemia)
Brain cancer (pre-approval studies in animals)
Breathing difficulties
Burning eyes or throat
Burning urination
Can’t think straight
Chest pains
Chronic cough
Chronic fatigue
Confusion
Death
Depression
Diarrhea
Dizziness
Excessive thirst or hunger
Fatigue
Feel unreal
Flushing of face
Hair loss (baldness) or thinning of hair
Headaches/migraines
Hearing loss
Heart palpitations
Hives (Urticaria)
Hypertension (high blood pressure)
Impotency and sexual problems
Inability to concentrate
Infection susceptibility
Insomnia
Irritability
Itching
Joint pains
Laryngitis
“Like thinking in a fog”
Marked personality changes
Memory loss
Menstrual problems or changes
Migraines and Severe Headaches (trigger or cause from chronic intake)
Muscle spasms
Nausea or vomiting
Numbness or tingling of extremities
Other allergic-like reactions
Panic attacks
Phobias
Poor memory
Rapid heart beat
Rashes
Seizures and convulsions
Slurring of speech
Swallowing pain
Tachycardia
Tremors
Tinnitus
Vertigo
Vision loss
Weight gain
The FDA also released a list of diseases that aspartame complications may mimic or worsen. They are as follows:
Fibromyalgia
Arthritis
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Parkinson’s Disease
Lupus
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)
Diabetes and Diabetic complications
Epilepsy
Alzheimer’s disease
Birth defects
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Lymphoma
Lyme Disease
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Panic Disorder
Depression and other psychological disorders
Where is Aspartame?
Aspartame can be found on the ingredients list in the following products:
Soft drinks
Over-the-counter drugs and prescription drugs (very common and listed under “inactive ingredients)
Vitamin and herb supplements
Yogurt
Instant breakfasts
Candy
Breath Mints
Cereals
Sugar-free chewing gum
Cocoa mixes
Coffee beverages
Gelatin desserts
Frozen desserts
Juice beverages
Laxatives
Milk drinks
Shake mixes
Tabletop sweeteners
Tea beverages
Instant teas and coffees
Topping mixes
Wine Coolers
Sweeteners to Use:
Stevia
Barley Malt
Evaporated Cane Juice
Fruit Juice
Rice Syrup
Maple Syrup
Honey
Licorice Root (small amounts)
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS)
Amasake
Vegetable Glycerin
Xylitol
History of Aspartame
After reading and taking in the above information, I found myself wondering in horror as to why such a substance would be approved as an additive in anything, nonetheless legal to be made in any back-country Meth lab. Dr. Betty Martini shared my discomfort and began explaining to me the history of Aspartame both verbally and via a myriad of documents. Just as aspartame’s dangers are shocking, its history is even more so.
It all begins with Aspartame being disapproved by the FDA and congress. It goes like this:
By 1976, the G.D. Searle company’s campaign to achieve the approval of aspartame was entangled in controversy – not good for them. Having to trudge through the thick mud of countless objections to aspartame approval formally filed by consumer advocate attorney Jim Turner and neuroscientist John Olney, MD, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to launch a hefty investigation into Searle’s laboratory practices, and rightly so. Aspartame, after all, is less of an additive and more of an illegal street narcotic – of course, that’s my humble opinion.
The FDA eventually determined that the aspartame developer’s testing procedures (Searle) were more than below par for the course. The conclusion on behalf of the FDA was that the testing produced inaccurate results due to manipulated data. In the 1976 report, investigators stated they “…had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”
Due to the FDA’s scathing report, a grand jury investigation was prompted; U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner headed it.
In a dirty, treasonous double-cross, most likely fueled by bribery, six months later, Skinner left the U.S. attorney’s office to take a position at Searle’s law firm Sidley & Austin.
By March 1977, Searle had hired former Illinois congressman and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as its CEO – yeah, THAT Donald Rumsfeld.
By December 1977, the statute of limitations had run out on the grand jury investigation and charges against Searle were literally dropped dead by the U.S. attorney’s office.
Even though there was so much opposition to aspartame approval being dished up by independent scientific studies, Rumsfeld’s political leverage popped the top on what would soon be a worldwide poison epidemic.
On July 15, 1981, in one of the very first official acts as FDA commissioner under the Reagan administration, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr., approved aspartame for use in dry food products with savvy Searle CEO help from Rumsfeld. Basically, this was an overruling of the board of inquiry.
No wonder Dr. Betty Martini mockingly refers to the FDA as “Fatal Drugs Allowed”.
The Good Doctor — About Dr. Betty Martini
Dr. Betty Martini, who has been awarded an honorary Doctor of Humanities for her work around the world, is the founder and director of Mission Possible World Health International. This worldwide non-profit volunteer organization was founded in 1993 and now boasts members in every state in the United States as well as 37 countries around the world. She has been a reoccurring guest on many nationally syndicated radio talk shows, including Alex Jones. She has also been interviewed at length in a number of documentary films covering the dangers of aspartame such Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World (shown below). Publications around the globe have written articles about her and her work as well as her impact in the medical industry.
***
Note: replaced video Jan. 27, 2011
Sweet Misery – A Poisoned World
Sound and Fury Productions Inc.
1 hr 29 min 41 sec – May 26, 2007
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the Iraq war. They talked about security, troop cuts among other things but one item was missing from their agenda. What did the General and the US Ambassador to Iraq forget to talk about?
Answer to this question and more on link TV’s Mosaic Intelligence Report.
