AAE tv | Trace Amounts | The Truth About Mercury And Vaccines | Eric Gladen | 9.12.1

Thanks to Robert De Niro for starting all this!

Published on Sep 14, 2015 In this episode of Awake And Empowered TV (The Truth About Mercury And Vaccines) , Ethann Fox is joined by documentary filmmaker and researcher, Eric Gladen. Ethann and Eric discuss his new film “Trace Amounts”, and the international tour and campaign for vaccine reform. In this conversation, they talk about the scientific research conducted into the effects of mercury and Thiomersal on the human body and brain, as well as the evidence that it is the leading cause of Autism. Ethann and Eric go on to talk about the mandatory vaccination law that is scheduled to go into effect in California in 2016, and how parents and schools are responding to this requirement. Other topics include various treatments for Autism that have shown promise, and how to detoxify mercury and other heavy metals from the body and brain. 

Eric Gladen of Trace Amounts 

About Eric Gladen - Trace Amounts is the first film by director Eric Gladen. After years of battling illness, Eric Gladen decided to leave the life he knew behind and focus his efforts on researching autism. After more than a decade of analysis, interviews, and traveling, Eric is releasing a film that has not only affected his own life, but the lives of many others in our world today. Eric lives in California and currently manages the World Mercury Project, a non-profit organization which he founded. After recovering from a mysterious and devastating illness, director Eric Gladen started researching the science behind autoimmune diseases. His research led him straight into one of the biggest medical controversies of all time: whether or not childhood vaccines cause autism. However—his film is not an anti-vaccine film. He doesn’t concentrate on the vaccines themselves but on something that belongs nowhere near them; on mercury, part of the ingredients used as a preservative in vaccines. Eventually, Eric decided to quit his career, moving into an RV and traveling the country for years in order to interview experts and piece together thousands of studies and leaked documents. When the puzzle was finally complete, the answer was very clear to him. He believes that mercury is the trigger for psychological and neurological autoimmune conditions and autism. His film presents interviews with specialists in the field, as well as specific scientific research and experiments that show how dangerous mercury is. At the very least, his documentary creates a platform for open dialogue for all aspects of this issue, for or against, in hopes of enlightening the public.

A Caravan To VAXXED

Obama, This Be Thy Legacy

We The People need to make America great again, because right now, it isn't.

Soon to be former President Barack Hussein Obama signed into law S.764, also known as DARK Act 2.0, which nullifies not only the recent labeling law established in Vermont, but also around a hundred state laws. Shoppers (I won't use the term "consumers", as if we're all nothing more than cattle, chewing whatever bloody cud that's thrown at us) will now require the use of a smartphone and a bar code scanner app to determine whether or not the item we are deciding to purchase contains GMOs.

If Blackberry were smart, they would repurpose their card readers to scan and display this information. Those who use phones as only phones could benefit from a scanner not much bigger than a business card.

And to think...I once had the opportunity to work with them...but I digress.

It should go without saying that I am profoundly disappointed with the current administration, and I am hoping that Republican candidate Donald John Trump win in such a landslide that any and all efforts to run a VoteScam upon the American people comes to naught.

I'm not giving away anything by saying this: there is going to be a huge groundswell against HRC. Not only has she demonstrated that the rule of law is broken; she has also indicated that she feels that she is above you and I.

That's a huge load of bollocks.

Understand, however; this isn't about hurt feelings - this is about allowing criminals to escape punishment, and therefore aiding and abetting them in their ill-gotten gains. I have my ideas of what happened to her childhood "friend" Vincent Foster, but this isn't the proper venue to discuss such ideas...and many other sites have done a far better job than I might - but I can clearly state that when Clinton had sent individuals into his office before the announcement of his death was made public, and she suffered no repercussions whatsoever, that was a huge mistake that we are now just beginning to realize.

"Just because you ignore politics, that doesn't mean that politics will ignore YOU."

With that said, let's talk about the infamous 28 pages released yesterday.

What justified the wait?

We all knew about the "identities" of 15 of the 19 hijackers, right? What exactly were we to learn from these redacted pages?

In fact, why redact any of it? Isn't the truth of what happened on September 11th, 2001, the business of We The People?

Well, why not reference the Chilcot Report, another document we had to wait far too long to see. Former PM Tony Blair toadied around "taking responsibility" in his role of destroying thriving Middle East nations for the cause of globalism.

Don't want to believe me? Not my problem - it's all in the report.

Okay - back to the scourge at hand. Steven Druker writes about the actual process of how genes are inserted into organisms, and as to how the process is dangerous. I've discussed this, as well:

Obfuscating the unnatural nature of the GM process and ignoring its unsettling features

The bias is evident from the outset, and the authors don’t even provide an honest answer to the initial question: “What is genetic modification (GM) of crops and how is it done?”Their response is substantially misleading because they omit the most unnatural and unsettling features while downplaying the unnaturalness of those they do mention.

In one of the biggest obfuscations, they avoid mentioning that biotechnicians have been inserting foreign DNA into plant genomes in a haphazard manner – and that the insertions not only disrupt the region of DNA into which they wedge but cause disruptions throughout the DNA strand, a phenomenon some scientists call ‘genome scrambling‘. [i]

The authors are equally evasive regarding how the foreign genes are induced to actually function, and they fail to disclose a crucial fact: that inserting a new gene does not in itself endow the plant with the desired new trait. That’s because it’s essential to get the information encoded within the gene expressed into a protein, and in almost every case, that won’t happen without artificial alteration of the inserted genetic material.

Here’s why.

The default condition of most genes is to be inactive and blocked from expressing – which conserves the organism’s energy and prevents proteins from being produced when and where they’re not needed. [ii]

A gene transitions from its closed-down default mode to its active mode through the operation of a regulatory element called a ‘promoter’, a segment of DNA adjoined to the gene that serves as its on/off switch. This switch is finely attuned to specific biochemical signals so that the gene expresses in harmony with the organism’s needs.

Consequently, when a gene is taken from one species and transferred to an unrelated one, the promoter will rarely (if ever) receive signals to which it’s sensitive, and the gene will remain inactive. Hence, before making such transfers, biotechnicians must remove the native promoter and replace it with one that will reliably function in the foreign milieu.

Moreover, to deliver the desired results, the promoter must in most cases not only induce the gene to express, but to boost its expression (and consequent protein production) to an extraordinary level.

For virtually every GM crop on the market, the potent promoter that’s been used to achieve such unusual results comes from a plant virus. Not only does it impel the inserted genes to produce proteins at an abnormally elevated level, it drives the production continuously, regardless of the organism’s needs and completely outside the intricate regulatory system through which its other genes are controlled. This can create serious problems by inducing metabolic imbalances or upsetting complex biochemical feedback loops.

Therefore, given the crucial role played by viral promoters, and the degree to which their employment is unnatural, it’s reasonable to expect that any purportedly balanced account of the GM process would mention them – and to deplore the Society’s utter failure to do so.

 A paraphrasing of my ideas regarding the same (posted to Jon Rappoport's blog):

“NOBODY KNOWS…..

“EXACTLY” HOW MANY OF THESE “HIGHLY TOXIC RESTRICTED EXPERIMENTAL CHEMICALS”…. ARE BEING USED/TESTED IN-CONJUNCTION WITH EACH OTHER HERE ON MAUI & MOLOKAI..”

Monsanto knows…and they’ve known for over 35 years.

What I won’t assume Monsanato knows are the invisible changes that take place when genes are shot into an organism.

The best example I can cite is from Dr. Oz’s show from last week in regards to the Arctic Apple. The apple has been modified to turn off the gene that turns an apple brown once exposed to air.

They were wrong about the pesticides not affecting our gut flora – what else are they utterly wrong about?

 From the Arctic Apple site - How'd We Make A Non-Browning Apple?

When my friends find out about my work with Arctic® apples, invariably one of the first questions they ask is: How’d we do that? That is, how’d we “make” a nonbrowning apple? Here’s what I tell them:

First, a quick biochemistry lesson.  When the cell of a typical apple is ruptured – for example, by biting, slicing or bruising – polyphenol oxidase (PPO) found in one part of the cell mixes with polyphenolics found in another part of the cell. (PPO is a plant enzyme. Polyphenolics are one of the many types of chemical substrates that serve various purposes, including supplying its aroma and flavor.) When PPO and polyphenolics mix, brown-toned melanin is left behind.

Arctic® apples produce practically no PPO so that enzymatic browning reaction never occurs.  This means Arctic® apples’ polyphenols aren’t burned up when the apple is bitten, sliced, or otherwise bruised. No chemical reaction, no yucky brown apple left behind.

So how’d we “make” a nonbrowning apple? The small number of genes  (four, to be exact) that control PPO production were identified several years back, when the apple’s genome was mapped. To create a nonbrowning Arctic® version of an existing apple variety, our science team uses gene silencing to turn down the expression of PPO, which virtually eliminates PPO production, so the fruit doesn’t brown. This genetic transformation is aided by modern science tools. (We’ll explain what we mean by “modern science tools” in a later post.)

This transformation takes place in a laboratory in a petri dish, with a small sample of apple tissue. We confirm the genetic transformation was successfully completed before growing the tissue out into a tiny plantlet and eventually moving it to an orchard. (We’ll explain how we confirm the transformation in a later post, too.)

Personally, I was amazed to find out how “simple” this transformation process is. (I put the word in quotes out of deference to the head of our science team, Dr. John Armstrong, who knows best how much hard work and brain power went into making this process look simple to me.)

The end result of all this science is just an apple tree, now with very low PPO production to prevent enzymatic browning in its fruit. Our Arctic® apple trees grow and behave in the orchard, blossom and bear fruit just like their conventional counterparts. We’ve got almost 10 years of test orchard experience to document that. Arctic® apples are also compositionally and nutritionally similar to conventional apples, further indicating that lower levels of PPO aren’t consequential to the tree or the fruit. It’s only when one of our apples is bitten, sliced or cut that the Arctic® apple difference becomes clear.

What role does PPO play in the plant, you might ask? In some plants, PPO plays a defensive role – for example, tomatoes produce high levels of PPO when attacked by pests or pathogens. In contrast, apples produce very low levels of PPO, and only in very young fruit.  Its presence is probably left over from apples of ages ago, playing no role in today’s apples.

I always close my talk with friends with this intriguing sidebar to the story: When eaten by humans, polyphenolics may have health-promoting benefits. For example, phenolics are believed to act as antioxidants, fighting the well-documented damaging effects that oxidation can have on the heart, other organs and throughout the body. Not enough is known yet about phenolics for the health community to suggest a recommended intake amount, as for other vitamins and nutrients such as Vitamin C (the best-known antioxidant), fiber and so on – but they are certainly worth watching!

Sounds great, right? Well, let's just think about this for a second.

What processes within your body are utterly isolated from all others?

For example - if you take a single step forward, does it affect the rest of your body at all?

Of course it does.

All biologic functions are intertwined.

Turning off the browning feature of the apple will cause an unforeseen reaction in the balance of the fruit, regardless of their fluffy press releases.

Let me end today with this - I believe that people aren't suffering from gluten intolerance; we are suffering from glyphosate intolerance.

Petition To Stop The DARK Act

Special thanks goes to Stephanie Seneff for this:

Michelle Obama, STOP The Dark Act S.764, is Discriminatory!

More DARK Act Shenanigans (Re-Post from OCA)

TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK Highway Robbery Late Thursday (July 7) night, 63 U.S. Senators voted to rob you of the right to know what’s in your food. If you watched any of the Senate “debate” (limited to 30 hours) on the Roberts-Stabenow DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, you heard one after another of these 63 Senators misrepresent this industry-written bill as a “uniform federal mandatory labeling solution.” If you’ve been working on this issue with us for weeks, or months or years, you know that’s a lie. The bill passed last night is intended to hide information (behind electronic codes) from consumers, not provide it—in plain English, on a label. The bill passed last night is intended to exempt the vast majority of GMOs from even having to be hidden behind codes, much less labeled in plain sight. The bill passed last night is voluntary—it contains no enforcement mechanism, no penalties for non-compliance. The bill passed last night is an attack on democracy, an attack on states’ rights. It not only overturns Vermont’s carefully considered and fairly debated mandatory GMO labeling law, but as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted in his speech on the Senate floor, this bill overturns nearly 100 other state laws. (Sanders pushed hard to stop this bill). The bill passed last night is a fraud, an affront to the nine out of 10 Americans who want what citizens in 64 countries already have—the basic right to know what’s in our food. The 63 Senators who sided with (and took hundreds of millions of dollars from) Monsanto and Big Food, stole your right to know, and whatever shred of belief you might still have had in the democratic process. But they did not steal your power to boycott any brand or company that refuses to label GMOs. They did not steal your determination to take back an unhealthy, toxic, corrupt corporate food and farming system. On Wednesday (July 6), during the cloture vote (which assured that the Roberts-Stabenow bill would not be open for discussion or amendments), OCA led a protest on the Senate floor. That protest led to the arrest and detainment, for over 24 hours, of our political director, Alexis Baden-Mayer. We didn’t change the vote. But we took a stand. The Roberts-Stabenow bill will now go back to the U.S. House, which in July 2015 passed its own version of the DARK Act. If the House and Senate reach an agreement, Congress will vote on a bill to keep you in the dark. That bill will then land on President Obama’s desk. We will continue to fight it all the way. We hope you will, too. Watch the OCA ‘money bomb’ protest
ESSAY OF THE WEEK Organic Traitors There’s nothing worse than being betrayed by one of your own—unless you’re betrayed by more than one of your own. While pretending to work on behalf of consumers who want mandatory GMO labeling laws, some of the “big names” in the organic industry actually helped cut a backroom deal on the Roberts-Stabenow bill, a bill that isn’t mandatory, doesn’t require actual labels, and exempts the most common GMO ingredients. The growing list of Organic Traitors includes the head of Whole Foods Market, Walter Robb; Gary Hirschberg, the CEO of Stonyfield Farm and the pseudo-pro GMO labeling group Just Label It; the Environmental Working Group, represented by Scott Faber, former head lobbyist for the pro-biotech Grocery Manufacturers Association; UNFI, the largest wholesaler of natural and organic foods; and the OTA, led by “natural” brands such as Smuckers and White Wave, and represented by their Board Chair Melissa Hughes from Organic Valley. These self-selected “Good Food” and “Organic” leaders told Congress members behind closed doors that the organic community would accept an industry-crafted DARK Act “compromise"—the Stabenow/Roberts bill— which eliminates mandatory GMO labeling and preempts the Vermont law with a convoluted and deceptive federal regime for QR codes and 1-800 numbers, exempts the most common GMO ingredients, comes with no firm guidelines for implementation, and no provisions whatsoever for enforcement. In fact, by some calculations, the Organic Trade Association alone persuaded 7 – 10 Senators to betray you, and vote for the DARK Act. That’s right, while you were working your hearts out to get labels on GMO foods, the Organic Traitors were working just as hard—to make sure you don’t. Read Ronnie’s essay
ACTION ALERT Let's Say 'Thanks!' When the U.S. Senate voted Thursday night to pass a federal law preempting Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law, 30 Senators did the right thing. These 30 Senators voted against this anti-consumer, anti-states’ rights bill that was rammed through the Senate without due democratic process. Some of these Senators were no doubt under a lot of pressure from industry groups, and from their fellow Senators, including the authors of the bill, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), to go over to the DARK side. But they stood up to their deep-pocketed opponents. They voted with the people. Please take a minute to see if your Senators on the list of those who stood up for your right to know yesterday, then "tweet" them a thank you. It's also good to retweet the Senators' own tweets about yesterday's vote.  Remember—this bill still has to make its way through the House, survive a full vote in Congress and be signed into law by President Obama. Let's keep the Senators who voted with us by showing our thanks! TAKE ACTION: Tweet your Senators!
SUPPORT THE OCA & OCF Grateful We were busy this week. Meeting with Senators and their staffers in multiple cities. Protesting outside Senate home district offices. And in one case, getting arrested for pointing out the obvious on the Senate floor—that Monsanto is buying votes to keep us in the dark about GMOs. Staff in Chicago worked hard to bring Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) over to our side—and at the last minute, succeeded. Staff in Minneapolis protested often and loudly outside Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minn.) office after attempts to win her over failed. In Portland, Maine, we and our allies at Food & Water Watch managed a last-minute video conference with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on the morning of the cloture vote, and a conference call with Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) just hours before that vote. They voted our way. From our office in Finland, Minn., staff relentlessly responded to calls, made calls, kept up with last-minute developments. As we touched base with each other in between meetings and protests and making phone calls and sending letters, we all expressed this same sentiment: We are honored to be doing this work. And we are grateful to you for making it possible. Thank you for pulling through for us again during our latest fundraising campaign. Whether we ultimately win or lose this labeling battle, thanks to you, we are building a food and farming movement that is stronger than ever. While Monsanto continues to bribe our lawmakers, we will continue to expose the industrial agriculture system for what it is: toxic, corrupt, monopolistic and degenerative. And we will win. Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education) Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our GMO labeling legislative efforts)
VIDEO OF THE WEEK Four. Hundred. Million. Why would the U.S. Senate vote to keep the words “produced with genetic engineering” off of food products—when 90 percent of Americans want this basic information? And 64 other countries require it? In comments he made July 1 in Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders sums it up this way: “The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which sued and lost in trying to stop Vermont’s law, has 34 lobbyists working on this issue alone. They spent $8.5 million lobbying between 2015-2016, and they’re still lobbying . . . . The food and biotech industries and their trade associations have spent nearly $200 million to oppose state labeling initiatives, like [Vermont’s] Act 120. When combined with Washington lobbying expenditures that mention GMO labeling, the total amount spent by corporate interests is close to $400 million.” It doesn’t matter which political party you belong to. It doesn’t even matter if you support mandatory labeling of GMO foods. What matters is this: As long as we allow corporations to buy votes, we can’t claim to have a democracy. Watch the video
NEW REPORT Fatter Subsidies, Fattier Foods We can think of a lot of reasons we as taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize millions upon millions of acres of genetically engineered corn, soy and other crops—monoculture crops that destroy biodiversity, deplete soils, and contribute to global warming. Now, a new study in JAMA Internal Medicine confirms that the crops our government subsidizes also produce food that’s bad for us. From PoliticoPro: The researchers used 24-hour dietary recall data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. They calculated what portion of caloric intake was from subsidized foods for each individual and then looked at health outcomes, including body mass index, abdominal fat and blood pressure, between 2001 and 2006. The researchers found that about 56 percent of all calories consumed were from subsidized commodities. Adults in the top quarter of subsidized crop calorie consumption had a greater risk of a higher body mass index, higher cholesterol and other health concerns. They found no statistically significant association with subsidized food consumption and blood pressure, however. The paper says shifting subsidies to fruits and vegetables might be worth exploring, pointing to a time when Finland helped dairy farmers transition to berry production, which increased local berry consumption. From 1995-2014, your tax dollars subsidized $94.3 billion worth of GMO corn alone. Isn’t it time we started subsidizing regenerative agriculture, instead of degenerative GMO commodity crops? Read Time magazine coverage Read the abstract
ECO TOURS Deadline: July 9! If you’re looking to combine international travel, adventure and organic food and agriculture education, you’re in luck. OCA, along with our Regeneration International and Vía Orgánica projects, have scheduled a full slate of eight-day eco tours in the central highlands of Mexico. Deadline for the next tour, which starts on August 9, is July 9. If you can’t make the August tour, you can also register ahead of time for another of the upcoming tours (dates and deadlines here). Our eco tours include accommodations at Vía Orgánica’s eco ranch and farm school, which serves as an educational farm and training center for farmers, students and activists in the organic food movement. The ranch includes a natural retreat center with adobe buildings, walking trails, solar power, rainwater catchment, and greywater and composting systems. Tours also include side trips to San Miguel de Allende and other World Heritage sites, trail rides and nature walks, horseback riding, and organic farming and cooking workshops—and of course, the opportunity to join in lively discussions with OCA and Vía Orgánica staff and other tour participants. Cost for accommodations and all-organic meals is $1250 per person. Learn more For more information or to register contact: tour@organicconsumers.org
LITTLE BYTES Essential Reading for the Week Factory Farming and Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)—Worldwide Distributors of Disease How the World’s Most Fertile Soil Can Help Reverse Climate Change Genetically Engineered Crops: the Grand and Failed Promise Side Effects of Long-Term Pesticide Exposure Systemic Corruption at FDA Reported From Mommy Bloggers to Clandestine Spies, Here's How Monsanto's PR Company Controls the GMO Debate

63 Scumbags

Real quick one today.

Adding:

BUSTED: GMO MOSQUITO RELEASED IN BRAZIL WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO HAVE IT'S GENETIC CONTROL MECHANISM FAIL.
What good is a control mechanism for a mosquito, when the bacteria that produce the substance that de-activates it are common bacteria that live in the ground, you know, where all the puddles are that the mosquitoes grow in?The GMO mosquitoes Brazil released right in the middle of the microcephaly zone (so there is an obvious link there) were all male mosquitoes that were "supposed to" produce a single generation of GMO offspring that had a biological kill switch that rendered them sterile, so they could not reproduce. However, as it turns out, the kill switch was specifically designed to be turned off if the mosquitoes, while in the larval stage were exposed to tetracycline, an antibiotic which is derived from the biological by products of very common soil bacteria that are so prevalent in soil that they are what makes dirt smell like dirt. The kill switch was designed to fail, you can't tell me biological experts were so stupid they did not know this would happen.Antibiotics work by interfering with the DNA of bacteria when they divide to make new bacteria. Antibiotics will also affect people to some degree, by interfering with cellular mitosis but the impact is not too much for people. So it makes perfect sense that a substance that interacts with DNA could turn a "kill switch" off.
The GMO mosquitoes survived in the wild. Some journalists are saying it is because tetracycline breaks down slowly in the wild, and it is so widely used in Brazil that it is everywhere in the environment now and an accident happened as a result all the while the probable real culprit was soil based bacteria that produce it all the time that any biologist would have known about. It would obviously be in all the puddles the mosquitoes lay their eggs in, puddles that sit right on the ground the bacteria that produce the genetic kill switch substance live in. The survival of the mosquito was intentional, NO IFS OR BUTS.It is flatly impossible (as far as I see it) for the survival of the GMO mosquitoes to not have been planned. All that happened was someone said "Our mosquitoes have a biological kill switch, so they are safe to release", then proved it in lab conditions specifically set up to prove a point, a bureaucrat rubber stamped it, and then an intentional release of a permanently surviving and probably seriously damaging mosquito was done. What's worse? It is now proven that Zika is not causing microcephaly in Brazil, but it is happening where these mosquitoes were released. IF it is not the Tdap shot and it is instead these GMO mosquitoes carrying something other than Zika, I hate to say it - eventually the whole world will be screwed.There is no way any biologist could have possibly overlooked the fact that the kill switch would not stand any chance of working in the wild, where the substance that deactivated it was prevalent everywhere naturally. Why did they allow a deactivation mechanism in the first place? The excuse in the lab was that it was used to make it possible for the mosquitoes to reproduce before they were released. But the choice of substances was, as far as I see it, an intentional act that would easily fool a common core educated bureaucrat, who would not realize (even if papered as a biologist with a stack 3 feet high) that the type of antibiotic used to make it possible for the mosquitoes to reproduce in the lab was everywhere naturally in the wild.

Call your representatives!

Say NO to the DARK Act!

Wake Up, America - Save Our Land!

I'm back! I hope everyone had a fantastic Independence Day!

I've had to deal with an inordinate amount of pain, but I feel the need to reach out to you today, dear readers. We've had a number of disturbing occurrences, and they require our attention.

First off - the Sierra Club has announced that last year, we lost 44% of bee colonies, due to neonicotinoids. They ask that we all contact our representatives and request...no, DEMAND, that they pass the Saving America's Pollinators Act. Click the preceding link to obtain further information.



Monsanto has created the dreaded FrankenWeed.

I've mentioned the Hagmann and Hagmann Report - here's a link to their latest episode...and yes, it involves the decision by FBI Director James Comey to not indict presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, among other things.

Speaking of that ill-advised decision - I've made this point before, but I think it bears repeating:

You like in a multiple dwelling. It doesn't have to be an apartment building, but someplace where your doors are adjacent to each other. You work in the morning, and you come home, take care of things and retire for the next day of work. 

Your neighbor parties all day and all night. You've never seen them leave to go to work; of course, it's none of your business.

One morning, you happen to wake up early, and, being so close to the time you need to arise, you just start getting ready early. You leave a bit earlier than you usually do, and when you step out of your door, you see the weirdest thing. 

There is a huge stack of bills in front of your neighbor's door.

Well, it doesn't belong to you, so you leave...but the thought nags at you all day.

You arrive at home, and you try to put the thought out of your mind. You can't - the thought eats at you all night, and once again, you wake up early.

This time, the first thing you do is to check for the aforementioned money.

Just like before, there is a stack of money in front of your neighbor's door.

This time, you grab about a third of the stack, and then you return to your apartment, and get ready for work.

Of course, now you're dreading the inevitable phone call.

It never comes.

The whole way home, you're imagining the note that you know will be left upon your door.

You arrive home...and there is no note.

You open your door...no envelope. No voicemail. Nothing.

You breathe a sigh of relief.

You eventually go to sleep...and now you wake up early with a purpose.

This time, you go to the neighbor's door, and you take half of the money.

The next day, you do it again.

The following day...and so on, and so on...

The neighbor never says a bad word to you; never shoots you accusing looks; it seems that they are totally oblivious as to your theft.

If you can steal this money, without repercussion...why would you STOP?!?

When you allow criminals to escape punishment, you embolden them to commit further crimes.

If you want to see a non-violent example of this, this weekend, watch Inside Job, Margin Call and The Big Short. It seems the only people to ever be indicted were:

• Ivan Boesky (who parked money with his ex-wife; once he finished his sentence, he sued her for the funds, citing, "he can't live as a poor man". He got those funds, IIRC);
• Michael Milken
• Bernard Madoff
• Martha Stewart (and that was a SCAM from beginning to end)

The murder of JFK and the inaction that followed set the stage for the murders of RFK (which had been captured on film by Jamie Scott Enyart, performed by Thane Eugene Caesar), MLK (the shirt Jesse Jackson had on was dabbled in chicken blood!) and Malcolm X, among others.

The FBI doesn't get to forego investigations because of "lack of intent". Director Comey admitted that numerous crimes were committed, regardless of "intent":

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

Here's the full statement on YouTube.

The DARK Act is still being disguised - the OCA requests that you call 888-897-0174 and tell your representatives to oppose Sen. Stabenow's attempt to pass the DARK Act under a pretense. Dr. Ted Broer and his son Austin (still praying for you, brother!) mentioned on their show that this bill would block the recently passed law in Vermont that now mandates labeling GMO foods; in fact, not only would this bill allow for 50% of GMOs in foods to not be labeled as such, it would also not label GMOs in meat at all!

You can also call 202-224-3121.

Please call; tell your friends; avoid half-steppers such as Whole Foods.

Your wallet has a voice - YOURS.