|
News Report Issue
73
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a
revolutionary act." George Orwell Index
1. Thought for the day - Shondra
Britten
2. Request:
3. Opinion: The UN's Millennium Assembly
- Antonia Feitz
4. Opinion: The Immorality of the US
Advertising Industry - Lucie Christensen
5. Opinion: More Dodgy deals in Iraq -
Antonia Feitz
6. Opinion: Free Trade v. National
Economics - Antonia Feitz
7. Opinion: Economic Rationalism is
bunkum - Antonia Feitz
8. Article: Gun Runner (Part 1) - Terry
Shulze
9. Opinion: Corporate Money can be the "tail
that wags the dog" - John Massey
10. Opinion: Australia's vulnerability -
Antonia Feitz
11. Life Sciences: USDA betrays public trust
with 2 new terminator patents, Veronica Griffin
12. Feedback: Census and Privacy - Bill
Nixon
13. Feedback: Asianisation of Australia - Kerry
Spencer Salt
14. Feedback: Disarmament - Jewish Opposition -
Omega
15. Feedback: Representative & Accountable
Government - Peter Cunningham
16. Feedback
Contacts: 17. Editorial Policy:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Thought for the day:
"In the spider-web of facts, many a truth is
strangled." (Paul Eldridge)
Forwarded by Shon +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. Request:
For this online news report to be ultimately
effective it must grow to such a size that it and the ideas it espouses
can't be ignored. So do your bit and help circulate it far and wide. If
we are to challenge the elites (the Packers and the Murdochs)
view of history, politics, economics, the environment, the structure of
society etc., then we are going to have to do more than
wait. We are going to have to be very active and
vigilant. We have given you only one of the tools
(information & a medium for comment) you will need. Help us to help
you. Lets fan the flames of knowledge. Spread the word.
Editor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3.
Opinion: The UN's Millennium
Assembly
OK boys and girls, how many of you have been consulted about your views on the role of the UN in the new millennium (which actually starts next year despite the premature party). You haven't? Well too bad, because in September this year, a report is to be presented to the Millennium Assembly, which is just a fancy name they've given to the 55th session of the UN General Assembly. To elicit the views of civil society, there have supposedly been five informal regional hearings. These were held in Beirut for Western Asia; in Addis Ababa for Africa; in Geneva for Europe; in Santiago for Latin America and the Caribbean; and in Tokyo for Asia and the Pacific. It's going to be a real doozey. All the heads of states and / or governments of the member states of the UN have been invited to participate in the Millennium Summit, starting on 6 September 2000. At this Summit, the world's leaders will agree on a process for a review of the role of the UN. Sounds dodgy to me, and what a joke anyway. As if the people of the world haven't woken up to the fact that UN assemblies are as stage-managed as any old-fashioned USSR show-trial or Chinese parliament. That's why Seattle was such a
shocking defeat for the WTO: nobody factored in a revolt - not by the
protesters; that was expected - but by the various nations' trade
ministers and bureaucrats. Prodded enough, da woim eventually toins.
The globalist mob haven't woken up yet that people are smarting. They obviously
believe the propaganda about the "average weekly wage".
Apparently the UN organisers thought the turn of the century / millennium was "a unique and symbolically compelling moment for the membership of the United Nations to articulate and affirm an animating vision for the United Nations in the new era." (UN website). Select pleb groups - oops, civil society organisations - are organising their own gabfest: a Millennium Forum on 22-26 May 2000 at the UN headquarters in New York. Who's paying for these junkets? Wouldn't the money be better spent in concreting the lips of wells or building roads in the third world? And they thought Seattle was a tough security job. Heavens to Murgatroyd, there were only common garden trade ministers and bureaucrats at Seattle! Come September, Noo York will host actual government leaders such as Blair, Putin and Howard. Noo York will be a police state. Perhaps it's fitting: on paper it looks like the world's population have been extensively consulted about whatever pronouncement the UN makes in September. In reality nobody has a clue about what's going on. Antonia +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Feedback:
Immorality of the Advertising
Industry.
Just received this news letter, what
is happening to our beautiful world, to many of us are turning
away from good and allowing evil to enter. God help us if
these are the morals that the advertisers who pass this
rubbish have, (print the enclosed news letter from Dr Laura if
you are allowed) I think it is disgusting to demoralise
the unity of two people in the unity of one, with such utter
trash. Its like the Mardi Gras. If its so right, why do
they have to force it on us....
Lucie
Christensen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the USA
Dr. Laura's
Newsletter
"AS PREDICTED, BESTIALITY GOES
MAINSTREAM"
Sometimes I surprise even myself. Listeners
to my radio show will remember that last year I was ranting about a
study published in a reputable American Psychological
Association journal which concluded that child molestation
was not always harmful to children and, in some cases,
might even be beneficial. Well, a lot of professionals and
politicians jumped on that one, and that so-called research has
earned the ignominy it deserved.
However, in the course of my on-air
musings about the state we are in as a country, where
morality is the butt of jokes and credible professional
journals publish studies that advance the cause of paedophiles,
I laughingly said, "What's next? Bestiality as
innocent fun?"
Brace yourselves. Showing up in two
leading fashion magazines this winter is a multi-page
advertising spread for a couturier that pairs the obligatorily
skinny woman in provocative poses with an enormous dog
in a studded leather collar. Lest the not-so-subliminal
message in this advertising campaign be lost, there are pages
of "playful" encounters between them.
The first shows the model, clad in a dress
slit up to her posterior, bending over the dog and putting a leather
mask over his head -- the mask and the spiked collar
being well-recognised accoutrements of sadomasochism. Turning
the page, we find this girl and her dog in a rather compromising position
-- she, on her haunches; the dog on its hind legs, draped over her back. She is
clutching the dog's fore legs, which are wrapped around her shoulders -- one
paw tucked inside her open jacket, under which she is nude.
The model's eyes are closed, and she has a blissful look on
face.
It's harder to read the dog's
face, even though he has changed his leather hood for a spiked
muzzle.
The last photo shows the woman seated, bent
double over her knees and holding onto her ankles. Since very little dress is
showing, I guess this ad is selling her shoes, which
are definitely suitable for kinky sex, complete with spike
heels, ankle straps and rhinestones. The dog obviously likes
them, too, as he is licking her feet. The model's expression
is ecstatic, if not downright orgiastic.
So, here we are. The leading women's
fashion magazines have accepted these ads that sell clothes by not-so-subtly
depicting bestiality and sadomasochism. Do they really believe their
readers would find this appealing? How many women do you know that long to have
sex with their dogs?
As a nation, we have become so
desensitised to the immoral and the reprehensible that ads like
these can run in not one, but at least two (that I know of) national
women's magazines (in the USA). And run without any public commentary
by other media. No published criticism of these ads or the magazines
that ran them has reached my eyes and ears.
But I did get a letter from a woman in
Minnesota, along with a copy of a letter she sent to one of the magazines,
calling the editors to task.
She wrote: "I do not expect your company to
be responsible for all that is wrong in the world, but it is not
beyond your power to exclude immoral advertisements in order to take a stand
against this horrible kind of behaviour. Your magazine reaches
millions of people, and to print this ad was to
condone the behaviour. You should be
ashamed."
And isn't that just the point? What
has happened to shame? It seems to have gone away along with other
honourable concepts such as right and wrong, moral and immoral,
acceptable and unacceptable. And our society has
literally lost itself without these guiding
principles.
But if society is going to be
"found," it's going to be by people like Jennifer, who wrote to the
magazine and cancelled her subscription. I hope
she rallied others to do so, as well. Remember that free
speech cuts both ways. The First Amendment protects us all, so
you can exercise your right of free speech by speaking
up, by fighting for righteousness.
Forwarded by
Lucie
Christensen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all News Report
Readers
If any reader find articles /
advertisements like this in an Australian publications (or a foreign publication
on sale here), please bring it to the attention of the News
Report and we will organise, to the extent we can, a boycott of
the offending retailer, importer, distributor, advertiser, magazine or newspaper
proprietor etc.
And for those of the elite
who get to read this message, you should be aware that in the
sordid days of Emperor Nero (a type of society we are rapidly approaching once
again), the once proud elite senators and knights
were reduced to sterile impotence while their wives and
daughters were taken and used and abused in whore houses
set up along side the Tiber. What goes around, comes
around.
If you condone the debasement of all
morals in public (as you have done so far), there will come a time, not
many years hence, when anything once again will go, and you to will be impotent
to stop it or the effect on your loved ones. The time for action
is NOW! before we go much further down this
globalisation / debasement of morality route.
And make no bones about it,
globalisation requires the debasement of morality among many
other features to be able to subjugate the world's people to a new
morality, a new economic reality, a new religion, a new class structure
etc. They are all interlinked. Those who are after the
economic benefits of globalisation and think they can enjoy
such benefits unfettered are blinkered and miss the point .
Even if from a selfish point of view
you think you will get ahead economically, you will lose, and so will we all, in
all the other areas that once made life and society tolerable, if not
enjoyable, that necessarily will have to be sacrificed to
achieve the globalists goal. Only perverts need apply for
membership, for they shall find their nirvana on
earth.
"No man is an
island, entire of himself ..... any mans death diminishes
me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for
thee" (John Donne, Devotions)
Neil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5. Opinion:
More dodgy deals Iraq recently held parliamentary elections that resulted in Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Udai, winning a seat with 99.99 per cent of the vote. This is decidedly dodgy. Even Ted Mack never got 99.99 per cent of the vote. Antonia ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6. Opinion:
Free trade versus national economies I must commend Lex Stewart on his informative contribution on the Aldi threat. Well done. It needs wider distribution. Perhaps people might cut and paste a shorter version of it into a word document and post it up on supermarket noticeboards. According to a survey published in the Australian 27/6/99, only 27% of Australians living in capital cities approve of free trade if it means job losses. Apparently this figure puts us at the bottom end of the international free trade approval scale. This proves that even if our politicians are totally brainwashed by the free trade ideology, most people aren't. They still maintain a sense of community and nationhood. They do care about the welfare of their fellow Australians. They don't want a five cent reduction in their phone calls if it means the loss of their neighbours' jobs. They don't want imported third world groceries for the same reason. They expect - futilely as long as the major parties run the country - their politicians to govern for the good of ALL Australians, not just the winners. Instead of being reviled as luddites, Australian opponents of unfettered free trade should be congratulated for having such a highly developed moral conscience. Politicians seem to be blissfully unaware that once our trade minister and his team leave the negotiating room, international free trade delegates must fall about helpless with mirth that Aussies actually believe in free trade. Nobody is kind
enough to whisper in their ear that Japan will NEVER stop
growing rice and that France will NEVER stop subsidising family
farms. Why? Because in those two countries, agriculture
is tied to culture. Genuine culture doesn't have a
price, which says a lot for the moral calibre of our politicians.
People are willing to die for their country. Nobody
is willing to die for free trade.
Antonia ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally nobody would be prepared to
die for such a worthless bunch of has-been politicians running Canberra. Though
many hundreds of thousands might one day, not too long hence, be
prepared.....
Neil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7. Opinion:
Economic rationalism is bunkum This is where the theory of economic rationalism fails: it reduces man to 'homo economicus', a creature who selfishly looks after his own interests. It's not only absurd, it's immoral: we would never have emerged from the caves if this theory were true. The contemporary French and Japanese responses to free trade prove it: there is more to life than economics. For most people the bottom line is NOT efficiency, competition, nor even the dollar. The bottom line is human decency as expressed in a culture. Even the hypocritical US proves over and over the stupidity of our politicians' belief in free trade. While lecturing the rest of the world on the benefits of free trade, the US fiercely protects its own domestic industries in everything from steel to agriculture, and to hell with economic theory. Despite all the globalist propaganda, nationalism is the way to go, if the welfare of people is paramount. Only in burgeoning national economies will all the people have a chance to enjoy prosperity. There is a choice, but politicians are too brainwashed and cowardly to stand up to the economic rationalist bullies. Antonia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Article:
GUN RUNNER ( Part 1) By Terry
Shulze
"The United Nations has played no role in Australia’s new gun laws" – Lisa Gates, Policy Advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister, April 1997. "The specific answer to your question (of whether the UN influenced Australia’s gun laws) is no" – John Olsen, Premier of SA, April 1997. "This is not an external matter, it is a matter for Australians only, I must assure you of that." – Alan Cadman, Federal Member for Mitchell, Chief Government Whip, March 1997. The statement of Alan Cadman’s is comical in the extreme, he is either badly informed or a willing participant in a misinformation campaign – he should at the very least read his own mail. I have in my possession a letter that was forwarded to one of his constituents on 17 May 1996. Note that date, that is just one week after the infamous 10th of May 1996 Australian Police Ministers Council (APMC) meeting that gave rise to the "tough new gun laws". The aforementioned letter was in response to an inquiry dated 15 January 1996, requesting certain information about the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and the United Nations (UN). The letter from the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department (A-G) was dated just four days after the APMC resolutions. Now remember this is a letter from the Commonwealth Attorney General’s office, that is, Daryl Williams’s office – the person in charge of implementing the new gun laws. As wont by all slick lawyers, the constituent’s questions were redefined by the A-G’s office (why answer a question you don’t like) and the answers cleverly composed with omissions. After reading the correspondence, I now know why he got the job as top-lawyer. For example, the first question asked about the relationship between the AIC and the UN. In the answer to the inquiry the A-G’s office referred to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on 7 July 1988 between the AIC and the UN. The A-G’s letter states "Under this MoU, the institute provides advice on division programs". That statement in itself seems innocent enough, but wait there’s more! Go to the actual MoU between the AIC and the UN and look what the A-G omitted.
Substantive things are things of substance, "expressing existence", you know - real things. Implementation means to implement, that is, "carry (contract, promise, etc.) Into effect". In a nutshell, this subsection means that the AIC is to provide advice on carrying into effect the real programs of the UN. And yes, firearm regulation is one of those real programs. The best obfuscation in the A-G’s letter was left for the last question. In that question it was asked "What is in it for Australia, that is, what benefit is supposed to flow to the people, or the government for the compliance with those terms?" Again the A-G rewrote the question, but the rewriting gave the game away. The A-G rewrote the question as- "To what extent will they benefit Australia or world peace?" World peace? Where did that come from? What does an Australian farmer’s .22 rifle have to do with World Peace? Further, the actual answer to that question did not list any benefit to Australia or the Australian people, but what it did say should have woke Mr. Cadman up from his afternoon nap with a bolt. It stated, "There has been increasing interest in the UN system in recent years in the disarmament of the people…Increasing UN interest in Microdisarmament (controlling and eliminating small arms etc.) is reflected by the number of resolutions passed by the General Assembly in this area." The AIC/NCV relationship As already stated, the AIC signed a MoU with the UN division (UNICRI) that is foremost involved with implementing gun control regulations world wide. The person who signed that MoU was Duncan Chappell, the Director of the AIC. The signing of that MoU took place just three months before the convening of the National Committee on Violence (NCV) in October 1988. The NCV is the origin of the "tough new gun laws" in Australia. Duncan Chappell was not only the Director of the AIC; he was also the Chairman of the NCV. Later, after leaving the AIC, he went overseas and worked with his friends at UNICRI. (There are lots of dots to connect, getting them in the right order to see the hidden shape is the objective!) The NCV did not support any of the gun control measures with any research; it simply stated them as objectives. The same objectives that, just by coincidence of course, the international gun control community was advocating. As will be shown, the NCV couldn’t justify any of the gun control measures. Public Health issues A Freedom of Information request for the internal documents from the NCV was informative, it stated that gun control was "to be marketed as a public health issue, rather than a crime issue". That connection still exits, just click on The Australian Coalition of Gun Control homepage on the Internet, it states "Gun Control: A public health issue". The homepage is maintained by the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine and is associated with Simon Chapman at Sydney University. The public health system approach to gun control coincides with the public health system approach in America. The "globalisation" mirror image of this relationship is found with the John Hopkins University School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. John Hopkins School of Public Health has a "Center for Gun Policy and Research". Three-quarters of the faculty of the Center is legally trained, the Director has nine years experience as a trial lawyer. This is the organisation that is in the forefront of promoting gun control through litigation. If your’ wondering how law degrees are related to public health, then consider the disarmament agenda within the American context. The problem in America for the global elites is that since both Federal and State Constitutions have Bills of Rights protecting the individual right to arms, a way had to be found to bypass both the Legislatures and the Constitutions. It now appears that civil litigation (along with judicious propaganda) was the chosen method. I mentioned "global elites", well, you may have heard of the recent Brooklyn, New York case of Hamilton –v- Accu-Tek wherein various gun manufacturers were absurdly held legally responsible for the illegal activities of someone who had illegally obtained firearms. This in a case where there was no firearm recovered to show a nexus to any of the manufacturers. As you might expect the litigation was very expensive, the Plaintiff’s representative stated that the matter would not have proceeded without the funding of the Soros Foundation. Soros? – That is right, George Soros, the international financier. (The MAI isn’t the only pie he has a finger in!) The use of tax-free foundations by the financial elite to manipulate a society has been going on for years, but the disarmament of the people has not been a serious objective, until now. There was also someone who is familiar to Australians that attended the Brooklyn court case every day. You may remember her; short hair, got lots of media coverage, showed up in Australia about the time gun control became an issue – then left when the new laws were in place? If you guessed Rebecca Peters, your’ right! Peters was awarded a Senior Fellowship in March 1997 by the Soros Foundation (stipend and all) and completed her postdoctoral fellowship with the Center for Gun Policy and Research at John Hopkins School of Public Health. Peters is still being bankrolled by the Soros foundation as she continues to work out of New York on international firearm issues. (perhaps it is because the pomo-left are offended by concepts of logic and linear thinking, that they will never be able to connect-the-dots). Although there are many, one of the reasons in Australian that there has never been an in depth analysis of the gun control issue has been the squandering of health funds on gun control. (You didn’t think the levy on Medicare for the gun buyback was a coincidence did you?) I remember the Coalition for Gun Control had a rally in the Domain in Sydney, it must have cost a lot of money with the billboards around Sydney, the advertisements on the TV and radio, the bands, balloons, sound stage, miles of port-a-loos - too bad about the lousy turn out. Health system resources were used for that rally, even proudly proclaimed on some of the flyers that were handed out. In a bizarre twist, the Friday before, the medical profession had a rally in Macquarie Street (just the other side of the Domain) protesting the closing of two wings at Westmead Hospital. I wonder if these educated fools understand the concept of robbing from Peter to pay Paul - here’s a reality check for the medical profession – if you take money out of the health system for gun control, there will be less money for the health system. Think about it Doc. Statistics Back in 1988, when the NCV started to rev up to their figures to support the push for gun control, they quickly ran into a brick wall – bam! You see, their terms of reference stated that "It was agreed that it would be necessary to exclude some types of behaviour from the ambit of its enquiry’s. These include self-inflicted violence, motor vehicle deaths and negligence generally." After all, they were supposed to be a committee concerned with violence in the community, not self-inflicted violence like tattooing, body piercing, or suicide. Well, firearm homicide amounted to only approximately 80 people a year. Nobody in the NCV was going to be able to justify spending millions of dollars for a policy that affected so few persons, but more importantly, even if firearms were totally eliminated, the homicides would have probably been committed by other means. As it was, the highest form of homicide was assault – beating, kicking, stomping someone to death, and the next highest was homicide with a knife. Take away the gun and you were still faced with the same intent to kill. The NCV got around the problem by padding the figures with suicides with a firearm (also accidents, see negligence in terms of reference). If you, the reader, have noted that the inclusion of suicides was completely contrary to the NCV terms of reference, congratulations, you have just connected-another-dot. Whereas, there were only about 80 homicides with a firearm every year, around 450 people chose to end their life with a firearm every year. Easy enough mathematics for the NCV, just adds the two and says that 500 people die every year from firearms. Actually, the NCV didn’t say 500 – they said 700, but what the hell, as long as your’ padding statistics why not add a few more. To be fraudulently consistent, the NCV omitted the fact that suicides and homicides involving a firearm had been on the decline for years; however, suicides in total had and still are increasing. Whether the person next door hangs, shoots, gases, or poisons himself is a tragedy, but it doesn’t affect a person’s fear in the community. Violence does, and that is what the NCV lost sight of – if it ever had it in its sights at all. Of course, suicides are still included by the anti-gun crowd, even the Australian Democrats (keep the bastards honest?) still refer to them. To be continued
Terry Shulze
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9. Opinion:
"Corporate money can be the tail
that wags the dog."
A startling revelation on the
prostitution of science:
We are dismayed that "our University" and it's joint venture partner, the venerable CSIRO, have been reduced to what appears, from the following article, to be rampant in the US. Where have we gone wrong, that our fair suburb could fall under the wrecker's hammer with the development of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience, (and its "spin-off companies"), in residential St Lucia? Are our sons and daughters to be reduced to harlotry by this depraved example? John Massey Biohazard Action Alliance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [from 'Mother Jones' - US investigative journalism] A Growing Concern' http://motherjones.com/mother_jones/JF97/biotech_jump2.html This investigation into the GE cotton crop failures back in 1997 focuses (in part 3) on the relationship between US university scientists and the biotech industry Here are some excerpts: [Texas entomologist John] Benedict blames the system. "The universities are cheering us on, telling us to get closer to industry, encouraging us to consult with big business. The bottom line is to improve the corporate bottom line. It's the way we move up, get strokes.... We can't help but be influenced from time to time by our desire to see certain results happen in the lab." Private industry contributes 10 percent of Texas A&M's whopping $41 million annual agricultural research budget, and Benedict says he knew Monsanto was contributing money to his research. "All of these companies have a piece of me," Benedict says. "I'm getting checks waved at me from Monsanto and American Cyanamid and Dow, and it's hard to balance the public interest with the private interest. It's a very difficult juggling act, and sometimes I don't know how to juggle it all." Science for Sale? Congress has helped pave the way for corporate biotech programs, passing a series of laws in the 1980s that pushed federally funded research at universities into the eager hands of agrochemical companies. Congressional speciality grants, which are designed to let Congress respond to pressing agricultural concerns, are generally awarded to researchers who already have industry sponsors in place... Under a banner of global competitiveness, this new relationship between academia, business, and government encourages universities to waste no time converting their science into patent rights. Previously, such research had been considered public property. Any patents that emerged typically were held by government. Indeed, so ingrained was this public ethos that when Jonas Salk was asked who owned the patent to his polio vaccine, he responded incredulously, "The people, I would say. Could you patent the sun?" Today, however, universities are quick to license patent rights to companies for profit-making. These same companies, meanwhile, award grants to university entomologists and geneticists to conduct research on future products. Often, critics say, it doesn't take a great deal of money to entice a university department or scientist over to the corporate side, particularly in this time of state and federal funding cuts. "Universities are more than ever hunting for corporate money, and while that money may be a small percentage of the overall budget, it's often enough to influence the direction of public science,'' explains Kathleen Merrigan of the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, a non-profit research and education Organization based in Washington, D.C. "Corporate money can be the tail that wags the dog." For example: In 1985, Cornell University agreed to do research on bovine growth hormone (BGH) for Monsanto. Tess Hooks, a sociologist at the University of Western Ontario whose graduate work at Cornell dealt with scientific ethics, reviewed the agreement between Cornell and Monsanto. According to Hooks, the university would test BGH on dairy cows and report the findings to Monsanto, which would present its case to the FDA. The government agency would then decide if the hormone -- which increases a cow's milk production -- created any health risks to cows or milk consumers. But before Cornell received the $557,000 grant from Monsanto, Hooks says, it essentially had to agree to hand over control of its research to the biotech company. ... At North Carolina State University, a miniscandal erupted three years ago when several professors were found to be moonlighting as paid consultants to Rhone-Poulenc, Monsanto, and American Cyanamid -- at the same time the professors were evaluating the companies' biotech products for the university. One distinguished weed science professor, Harold Coble, appeared in a Rhone-Poulenc marketing brochure singing the virtues of the company's genetically engineered cotton plant and its companion herbicide, bromoxynil. "There isn't a downside to the BXN," he says in the brochure... ...in some cases it is difficult to tell where public research ends and the company's marketing begins. Take, for example, the August 25, 1996, letter from Ron H. Smith, an entomologist at Auburn University, that Monsanto faxed to Mother Jones in support of its Bt cotton. "Weeks from now," Smith wrote, "when the last bale of the 1996 cotton crop is harvested...producers finally will have time to pause and reflect on the revolution that has gripped their profession. The results, so far, have been astonishing.... The proof, as they say, is in the pudding -- or, in this case, the [farmer's] pocketbook." Although the letter bore Smith's signature, an Auburn public relations official actually wrote it for him. When asked if he received any funding from Monsanto for his research, Smith replied, "No, not directly." However, Mother Jones found university records indicating that Monsanto gave $500,000 to Auburn University between 1991 and 1996; $26,000 was earmarked for projects listing Smith's name. When asked again, Smith confirmed the information, saying he had misunderstood the original question. Forwarded by
John Massey
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10. Opinion:
Australia's vulnerability
The destruction of such essential industries as textiles, clothing and footwear, and now even more of what's left of our manufacturing industry in food and steel production, with the attendant loss of skills, has surely left Australia dangerously vulnerable. A Janes' strategic analysis thinks so. It said that with its wealth of resources and small population, Australia was a "glittering prize" in the region. Yet if there was a threat, we'd be sitting ducks. Politicians, the media, academics and bureaucrats brush such concerns away claiming the world is different now, and that regional alliances have made us 'inter-dependent'. Clearly they've forgotten that those who ignore history's lessons are condemned to repeat its mistakes. Unexpected events can rapidly change the political landscape. Who predicted the Indonesia-wide fallout from the East Timor vote? A bad harvest worldwide, or a major war in China or India would very quickly make 'inter-dependence' meaningless. Whenever times get tough, people coalesce into tribal and ethnic groups. The elites blather endlessly about the demise of the nation state. It's wishful thinking, and more dangerously, self delusion. The reality is quite the reverse: all over the world people are struggling to establish self determination. How people can seriously proclaim the demise of the nation state is one of life's mysteries. Are they unaware of the re-emergence of ancient nations we'd never heard of after the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia? It's still happening: The Chechens and the Kurds are fighting for independence, as are the Basques. Sadly for Aceh, West Irian and all the others who desire freedom, President Clinton and other world leaders have told President Wahid he has their backing that Indonesia must remain one nation. So much for article 1.2 of the charter of the UN which states its purpose is, "To develop friendly relations among nations based on the respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." Like bombing the tripe out of any nation on the grounds of protecting human rights. Or oil supplies. Antonia ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
11. Life Sciences:
USDA Betrays Public Trust with Two
New Terminator Patents
News Release, Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:15:55
-0600 (CST)
RAFI - Rural Advancement Foundation International <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.rafi.org Will USDA's Biotech Advisory Board
Demand Accountability?
The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), an international civil society organisation based in Canada, announced today that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) holds two new patents on the controversial Terminator technology, the genetic engineering of plants to render their seeds sterile. If commercialised, Terminator would make it impossible for farmers to save seeds from their harvest, forcing them to return to the commercial seed market every year. "The US government is advancing research and squandering taxpayer dollars on a technology that has been universally condemned because it is bad for farmers, food security, and biodiversity," says Pat Mooney, Executive Director of RAFI. "It's an egregious misallocation of public resources for the sole purpose of maximising seed industry profits," adds Mooney. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAFI COMMUNIQUÉ February/March 2000 Terminator 2 Years Later: Suicide Seeds on the Fast Track 'We've continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System [Terminator]. We never really slowed down. We're on target, moving ahead to commercialise it. We never really backed off.' - Harry Collins, Delta & Pine Land Seed Co., January, 2000 ISSUE
Despite mounting opposition from national governments and United Nations agencies, work on Terminator and Traitor (genetic trait control) moves full speed ahead. After Monsanto and AstraZeneca publicly vowed not to commercialise suicide seeds in 1999, governments and civil society organisations were lulled into thinking that the crisis had passed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Last year AstraZeneca conducted its first field trial on genetic trait control technology in the UK. According to industry sources, it is not the first company to conduct field tests. Can commercialisation be far behind? PLAYERS
Delta & Pine Land, the world's largest
cotton seed company, proudly asserts that it is 'moving ahead to commercialise
Terminator. Monsanto and AstraZeneca have each merged with other companies since
they pledged not to commercialise suicide seeds. The Gene Giants
collectively hold over 30 Terminator-type patents. Corporate
commitments to disavow Terminator are short-lived and virtually meaningless in
light of the eye-popping pace of corporate take-overs and
makeovers.
Articles Forwarded by Veronica Griffin
Ph.D..
Kerawa Qld.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
12. Feedback:
Census and
Privacy
Re the report published in your News Report
issue 60, regarding the USA Census and the level of intrusive personal questions
included, I would point out many of the same intrusive questions appear
in the Australian Census form. The penalties in Australia for non compliance are
more severe than the $100 fine posted in the USA.
However, there is one break for those who do
not want to submit to Big Brother and answer the census. If you claim you
filed the Census form at another location, because you were away from your
usual address during the night of the census, you can return a blank form to the
collector. Alternatively, you could take a trip to an overseas destination for
the night of the census, and legally do not have to fill in the
form.
It is clear the census is
being used for much more than gathering raw economic data to create National
Economic Statistics. The implications are that it is used for sinister
motives we could only guess at.
Bill Nixon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
13. Feedback:
Asianisation of
Australia
My recent emails have concentrated on the
Asianisation of Australia. This was prompted by the admission of the Sydney
Morning Herald that it is now part of the official discussion of Australia's
future. The Sydney Morning Herald's Spectrum (Saturday March 18 2000)
article ALL OUR TOMORROW's, by Richard Tanter, reviewed the
possible future political integration of Australian and Indonesia followed by
integration into an Asian union.
It is interesting to note the similarities of these projections to those of Paul Keating. In the Sydney Morning Herald (March 30 2000) the article of the former Prime Minister was entitled "Future's there, if we dare". Note the similarity of these words with those in Richard Tanter's article : "there is a possibility of a shared future, if we can find it and face it".The theme has been put in place by the New World Order planners and the paid puppets will dance upon the stage. Let us remember that it was Tanter's prediction that Indonesia will invade Australia; the logical solution (for a disarmed Australia) is to coalesce now and avoid the bloodshed. Naturally enough Paul Keating is arguing (from the same script??) that we should develop our relationship with Asia by reducing our own military capacity. Defence, for Paul Keating, is not to be found in a proficient military force or "the size and effectiveness of our defence forces, or the vigour of military alliance with the U.S. Much more important will be an active, imaginative effort to construct our own security with our neighbours in the form of strong bilateral relationships and effective multilateral institution". Paul Keating also wants ECONOMIC INTEGRATION to forestall the military might of Indonesia. In the Tanter article we find that we must cement our relationship with Indonesia to secure our successful entry into the Asian Economic Region. Likewise Paul Keating sees that "Indonesia will be central to this process..(and) It is central to our security". Thus after killing one third of the East Timorese population we are urged to come to terms with "relationship with Indonesia". (Do you want to come to terms with Indonesian butchery?? and have Indonesian guest workers compete with your job? ) Nevertheless Paul Keating argues that Australia's Asianisation program should include, o Australians learning the Asian language o Linking our military forces into Asia's (remember the 40 Asian general's touring all our air force bases) o Appointing an Australian Head of State by removing the Monarchy. The subheading of Keating's argument summarised his attitude. "Australians should ditch stale attitudes and get excited about Asia". Don't let it be said that Paul is a recalcitrant; Paul's excitement hides the danger to all Australians. But that is how is always has been in a "beer and circus's" republic and this is where they want to take us. Like the rest of the world we will get 'tittytainment' and Asianisation to boot! Kerry Spencer-Salt B.E., LL.B (Hons) Phone : (02) 9360 0610 E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website : www.rockroll.com.au/watchman +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 14. Feedback:
Disarmament - Jewish
Opposition
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF
FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization March 25, 2000 Beretta Sub Machine Guns -- Only $320! (We Told You So) When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will sell guns. Exactly one year ago this column headlined "The $200 Machine Gun." We predicted that when guns become illegal to own and sell, then the criminal element would rush in to fill the demand. Thieves, smugglers and black market gun makers could supply machine guns for about $200 apiece. About three years ago, the British government all but outlawed private firearms ownership in Britain. Because one vicious killer used a firearm to commit multiple murders in 1996, victim-disarming politicians rushed to ban nearly all private gun ownership and possession nation-wide. The result? According to the January 16, 2000 edition of the Sunday Times of London, "up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions." What are the prices of illegal guns? According to the Sunday Times, "a third of young criminals, [ages 15 to 25 with prior convictions], own or have access to guns ranging from Beretta sub-machineguns to Luger pistols, which can be bought from underworld dealers for as little as £200." ($320 U.S.) How do the guns get into the "gun free" island nation? The Sunday Times reported: "Criminals have maintained a steady flow of smuggled guns from eastern Europe, exhibition weapons reactivated in illegal "factories" run by underworld dealers, and guns stolen from private collections." As predicted, when ownership of all guns becomes illegal, the buyers will shift toward the higher power weapons. "There is a move from the pistol and the shotgun to automatic weapons," British Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson told the Sunday Times. British criminals have all the guns they want. The Sunday Times thus reported: "Detectives say modern weapons are fast becoming fashion accessories among young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory." Are British people safer? Crime rates are soaring in Britain. The British Home Office, according to the Sunday Times, released figures showing that "overall, armed crime rose 10% in 1998" -- the year after national handgun prohibition began. Usually, when the government passes a law that causes problems for people, the citizens can petition the government to change the law. Gun prohibition, however, does more than just endanger citizens by preventing them from protecting their lives and loved ones. Gun prohibition damages the whole society by creating a huge opportunity for organised crime to prosper. Even if the prohibition law is later repealed, the organised crime elements might be entrenched with enough money and power to get into other legal or illegal businesses. Political corruption, started during the prohibition, likewise will not just disappear when the laws are changed again. The British example shows how the ultimate "gun control" will likely work in America. Criminals will get rich selling illegal weapons to other criminals, and ordinary citizens will suffer a violent crime wave. The national "instant check" system and the "Brady Bill" won't even matter. Americans must not give up their right to personal self-defense. We must not turn over the firearms industry to thieves and thugs. And we must not let Americans be so gullible as to believe the "dial 911" false promise of police protection, when actually we are legally responsible for protecting ourselves. (Get the facts for all 50 states from "Dial 911 and Die" -- available from JPFO and Amazon.com.) The facts are here. Do your part by copying this article and sending it to newspapers, public officials, candidates for office, and as many other folks that you can. Download this article from the JPFO website and e-mail it everywhere. Contact JPFO to join or order materials at www.jpfo.org, or call (800) 869-1884. (Annual membership dues: $20 U.S.) News Flash: The Bill of Rights, with basic explanation, is now available in Spanish on the website. Copy and pass it on to all Spanish-speakers! (c) 2000 Permission to reprint for non-commercial purposes granted This Alert archived at http://www.jpfo.org/alert20000325.htm and at http://www.jpfo.org/commonsense12.htm ================================================================ Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership PO Box 270143, Hartford, Wisconsin 53027 Phone: 262-673-9745, Orders only: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!) Fax: 262-673-9746, Web: http://www.jpfo.org/ By Richard W. Stevens,
Esq.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Forwarded by Omega
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
15. Feedback:
Representative & Accountable
Government
The only way to
get accountable and representative government in this country is to continue
deserting the major parties. If we want a fair go, we have to vote
for minor parties and independents. And if we don't, we deserve to
be slaves. It's as simple as that.
YES - it is simple. You do realise that sheep never eat wolves!! "Only in Academia" - Government and bureaucracy 'pigeonholes' the vast array of social 'things' - akin to a single fibre optic fibre in a huge cable - and each fibre of 'management' myopically pursues path. To become a fibre, each requires identification and separate attention. Collectively the whole cable in theory should function, but as we all know - it does not, for people do not think and act consistently. It is why
common-sense is meaningless unless proved by academics, and why mere
mortals such as we fools are ignored, for without recognised
academic qualifications and research, our opinions are
worthless. Meanwhile, we
suffer continuous stupidity in all it's forms - 'we' deserve it!!
Re:
England - Spies in Restaurants:
Shades of the Gestapo and SS - The New Age English Version of what they resisted some 50 years ago. If a person chooses to be a racist - then that in a free society is his prerogative. Should his racism affect others - that is then socially unacceptable, but a free man in a free society should be able to choose his thinking, and imposition of thought control reflects real tyranny - not the democracy - in which at least the English have allowed be prostituted, and therefore now suffer. It does reflect that Police are indeed puppets of and active in tyranny, so is it prudent to trust or believe these spineless prostitutes? More interesting
times.
Peter Cunningham +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let us know what you think. Feedback is
important. Comments on articles read would be of value. Do you agree / disagree?
Can you add more or a different perspective. Your contributions are greatly
appreciated.
Send this email on to as many as you
can. The more that read it the merrier. In time email communication
will make government censorship impractical and the newspapers
will have to start reporting it as it really is, rather than
the smoke and mirrors tricks they currently indulge in, or
loose readership, and therefore advertising monies. While we have a long way to
go before that happens, each epic journey must start with a single
step.
Antonia Feitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Editorial
Policy
If you wish to raise an issue without
being identified as such, please make it clear that this is your wish, either by
marking the correspondence Private & Confidential, in which case nothing
will get printed, or by just stating that while the issue can be raised, your
name is not to appear with it. Failing which all items received relating to the
News Report are considered publishable (subject to a common sense
test).
Disclaimer.
Opinions posted on the News Report
are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the News Report or its management. All materials posted herein are protected
by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted
works. |
