THOUGHT POLICE: FACEBOOK CENSORS GMO LABELING ARTICLES

Facebook Censors GMO Labeling Articles

Published on Jul 17, 2015

Alex Jones and Anthony Gucciardi go over some breaking news of how Facebook is censoring one of Anthony's latest anti-GMO articles.

Read more:
FACEBOOK CENSORS POST REVEALING SECRET BILL TO BAN GMO LABELING - http://www.infowars.com/facebook-cens...

SEE ARTICLE BELOW; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

VIDEO: 

BY by ADAN SALAZAR & ANTHONY GUCCIARDI 

Facebook is actively censoring shares of an article regarding a federal bill aiming to ban GMO food labeling.

Multiple users of the social media platform are finding themselves unable to share an article entitled, “This New Bill Could Ban GMO Labeling For Good,” which discusses H.R. 1599 – a bill known as the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.”

Instead of allowing immediate shares, Facebook prompts users with an error that reads, “This message contains content that has been blocked by our security systems,” according to a screen capture provided by author Anthony Gucciardi.

Other users are required to answer “security check” questions in order to share the article after a message prompt reads, “It looks like a link that you’re sharing might be unsafe.”

The official March Against Monsanto Facebook page is also filled with comments from people who say they were initially prevented from sharing the story.

Infowars.com mirrored the article, and was also prevented from sharing it on their Facebook page.

The apparently-controversial report, posted yesterday to NaturalSociety.com and published on Infowars.com as a featured story, breaks down how the bill, sponsored by Monsanto supporter Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), “could soon ban all mandatory GMO labeling in the US.”

“More precisely, it has been dubbed to be the‘Monsanto Protection Act’ on steroids,‘”Gucciardi states in the article, describing how the bill “was drafted up by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), and pushed on us by all the usual suspects. All the ones who are afraid of you actually knowing what’s in your food.”

According to Gucciardi, Facebook’s efforts to prevent the spread of information represents a sinister suppression of ideas, and only serves to magnify the importance of the article.

“We’ve seen thousands of reports regarding the censorship of content by Facebook and others regarding the TPP, Monsanto, and similar topics,” says Gucciardi.

“The bottom line here is that this article is being blocked across numerous platforms under the guise of a ‘security’ threat, when we know full well that these sites are perfectly safe.

“This content blocking only further acts to highlight the powerful message behind the secretive bill being put forth by congress to ban GMO labeling and dismantle the opposition against Monsanto.”

UN AIMS TO TRACE THE TRANSFER OF ALL GUNS AND AMMO

SEE: http://www.poa-iss.org/PoA/poahtml.aspx

SEE: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/salw/

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18517-un-programme-of-action-track-destroy-small-arms-and-ammo

UN AIMS TO TRACE THE TRANSFER OF ALL GUNS AND AMMO

BY Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21263-un-aims-to-trace-the-transfer-of-all-guns-and-ammo; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The United Nations is waging a multi-pronged attack on the right to keep and bear arms and the forces of disarmament are marching to America.

Recently, a board of “government experts” approved a report on the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) to implement the group’s “Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects (PoA).”

They certainly weren’t exaggerating when they gave that title to the scheme. It certainly does cover “all aspects” of gun ownership.

To get an idea of the trajectory the program will take, one needs only look at the list of the speakers called upon to discuss the disarmament deal’s progress. From the record of the meeting published on June 19:

"Statements were made by the representatives of Costa Rica, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Colombia, the United States of America, the Republic of Korea, the Sudan, New Zealand, Kenya, Mali, Iraq, Kuwait, Sierra Leone, Japan, Nigeria and Pakistan."

That reads like a roster of who’s who of dictators and socialists.

Apart from the ongoing effort to abolish the Second Amendment through a multitude of multi-lateral international agreements, there was one item on the UNODA agenda that should bolster the resolve of all those who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Agenda item Number 8 at the June meetings focused on “training for the full and effective implementation of the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument.”

What is the International Tracing Instrument (ITI)? This is the description published by the PoA:

"Undertaking effective measures in marking, record-keeping and tracing is vital for curbing the illicit trade and combating the diversion of small arms to unintended users. Although many weapons are marked when produced and some when imported, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy."

That means that the UN will not only track the buying, selling, transfer, and trading of small arms, light weapons, and ammunition, but it will continue developing technology that will help trace firearms and ammunition from the factory by way of “readable microchips” implanted at the factory. The UN will literally be able to trace every round and every weapon from factory to end user.

Such a plan was hatched during the convention on the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty held in March 2013 and attended by this reporter. During a conversation between committee meetings, the ambassador to the UN from Spain told me that there was a plan to equip ammunition with a microchip that would enable global tracking and destruction of individual rounds, if need be.

With regard to the marking and tracking of weapons, paragraph 24 states that members “reaffirmed the need to further strengthen national measures on the marking of small arms and light weapons.”

The United Nations demands that national legislatures (Congress) beef up laws pertaining to the placement of markings and microchips that will enable “appropriate law enforcement channels” to maintain lists of those who possess the small arms and ammunition that must be eradicated.

Nothing demonstrates the global gun grabbers’ haste to get firearms out of the hands of civilians like the following paragraph from the draft agreement: “States highlighted the utility of online technologies for further improving the effectiveness, efficiency and speed of tracing illicit small arms and light weapons.”

Governments, in other words, should take advantage of the Internet to speed up the process of tracing weapons and ammunition and identifying those unauthorized individuals or entities that are attempting to buy, sell, transfer, or trade them in violation of the POA.

Given the scope of the NSA’s online surveillance operations as revealed by Edward Snowden, it isn’t hard to imagine just how thorough the tracking program could be! Any mention of the purchase or use of guns or ammo on Facebook or in a text message or in an e-mail could potentially trigger the type of tracing the UN undoubtedly has in mind.

The preamble to the ITI declaration makes particular note of the fact that the mandates of the PoA and the ITI are “not limited to those manufactured to military specifications,” making it very clear that despite what proponents of the agreement might claim, the program is not restricted to trade and transfer of military-style weapons.

Also specifically targeted in the ITI preamble is the prevention of unapproved selling or buying of “ammunition and component parts” intended for use in small arms and light weapons.

History is instructive on this point as readers should remember that the “shot heard ‘round the world” on Lexington Green was fired because King George sent British troops to seize the patriots’ ammunition stockpile stored outside of that small Massachusetts village.

Perhaps the least shocking of all the provisions in the Programme of Action’s ITI is the identification in the document of just whose rights will be protected in the post-PoA world:

"This instrument does not restrict the right of States to acquire, manufacture, transfer and retain small arms and light weapons for their self-defence and security needs, as well as for their capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations, in a manner consistent with the Charter of the United Nations."

Of course the “right” of states to buy, sell, trade, or transfer arms and ammunition is protected by the UN. A house divided against itself cannot stand, after all.

An irrefutable fact of armed violence unaddressed by the UN in its gun grab is that all the murders committed by all the serial killers in history don't amount to a fraction of the number of brutal killings committed by "states" using the very weapons over which they will exercise absolute control under the terms of the Programme of Action.

That’s not surprising given the focus on the language of the UN’s founding document, rather that on that of the Declaration of Independence.

Article II of the UN Charter declares that all men have rights as a result of “membership” in the United Nations.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Replacing the Creator with the “state” as the source of rights is the ultimate aim of the United Nations and will ultimately aid them in eliminating the right of Americans to own weapons, the one right that would prevent them from being completely conquered by the globalists.

Within the terms of the PoA and ITT is also found the definition of what kind of weapon or ammunition would be considered “illicit” for purposes of the program. These prohibitions include those weapons, small arms, or ammunitions that:

are transferred in violation of arms embargoes decided by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, or,

not marked in accordance with the provisions of this instrument, or,

manufactured or assembled without a licence or authorization from the competent authority of the State where the manufacture or assembly takes place, or,

transferred without a licence or authorization by a competent national authority.

Take note of just who decides whether a firearm transaction is approved or not. The Programme of Action and its associated International Tracing Instrument are no less than a wholesale replacement of the sovereignty of the United States and the Bill of Rights with the United Nations Charter, international agreements, and the elimination of the centuries-old recognition of natural rights for the concept of a limited number of rights given and taken by an all-powerful world government.

President Obama and many members of Congress are in favor of fast-tracking these fundamental changes to the Constitution and heritage of Americans.

As I reported a few weeks ago, using the president's new power to unilaterally negotiate and contract trade agreements with foreign powers, these “executive agreements” can cover any topic that the White House considers “trade.” 

That includes firearms.

In this post-TPA era, the PoA, the ITI, and the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are no longer subject to senatorial debate. In fact, these binding agreements are not up for debate at all. TPA permits only a simple up or down vote on such presidentially brokered international agreements.

OREGON HAS BEEN SECRETLY ALLOWING 15 YEAR OLDS TO GET STATE SUBSIDIZED SEX CHANGE OPERATIONS WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION UNDER MEDICAID

Oregon allowing 15-year-olds to get state-subsidized sex-change operations

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

foxnews.com

The list of things 15-year-olds are not legally allowed to do in Oregon is long: Drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo — even go to a tanning bed.

But, under a first-in-the-nation policy quietly enacted in January that many parents are only now finding out about, 15-year-olds are now allowed to get a sex-change operation. Many residents are stunned to learn they can do it without parental notification — and the state will even pay for it through its Medicaid program, the Oregon Health Plan.

“It is trespassing on the hearts, the minds, the bodies of our children,” said Lori Porter of Parents’ Rights in Education. “They’re our children. And for a decision, a life-altering decision like that to be done unbeknownst to a parent or guardian, it’s mindboggling.”

In a statement, Oregon Health Authority spokeswoman Susan Wickstrom explained it this way: “Age of medical consent varies by state. Oregon law — which applies to both Medicaid and non-Medicaid Oregonians — states that the age of medical consent is 15.”

While 15 is the medical age of consent in the state, the decision to cover sex-change operations specifically was made by the Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC).

Members are appointed by the governor and paid by the state of Oregon. With no public debate, HERC changed its policy to include cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and gender-reassignment surgery as covered treatments for people with gender dysphoria, formally known as gender identity disorder.

HERC officials refused repeated requests by Fox News for an interview and even gave Fox News inaccurate information about the medical director’s work schedule.

Oregon Health Authority officials directed Fox News to their website. It shows transgender policy was discussed at four meetings in 2014. It was passed without any opposition or even discussion about teenagers’ new access to undergoing a sex change.

Gender dysphoria is classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder in which a person identifies as the sex opposite of his or her birth. It is rare, affecting one out of every 20,000 males and one out of every 50,000 females.

According to a 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, “most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty.”

Dr. Paul McHugh, who led the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department and still practices, said Oregon’s policy amounts to child abuse. “We have a very radical and even mutilating treatment being offered to children without any evidence that the long-term outcome of this would be good,” McHugh said.

Dr. Jack Drescher, a member of the APA who worked on the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, says treatment for gender dysphoria has received a lot more attention in recent years. He said this year New York changed its policy to cover cross-sex hormone drugs and sex-reassignment surgery for Medicaid recipients who are at least 18 years old. He thinks Oregon is offering the treatment too early.

“Children age 15 may not fully understand all the consequences of the procedures they are undergoing,” he said.

Jenn Burleton disagrees. She underwent a sex-reassignment surgery and started the Portland non-profit group TransActive. She said requiring parental consent would lead to more suffering and teen suicide attempts.

“Parents may not be supportive,” Burleton said. “They may not be in an environment where they feel the parent will affirm their identity, this may have been going on for years.”

The science is unsettled. A 2010 Murad study concluded “very low quality evidence suggests sex reassignment … improves gender dysphoria and overall quality of life.” The authors admitted the evidence was “sparse and inconclusive.”

Lisa Maloney, a parent and Scappoose, Ore., School Board member, is outraged.

“To know that taxpayers are now on the hook for that, that a child can do that without their parent’s knowledge or information or consent, parents have absolutely no say, that’s appalling,” Maloney said.

The Oregon Health Authority could not say how many Medicaid recipients have been treated for gender dysphoria since the new policy took effect in January. Oregon has 935,000 people enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan. HERC assumes between 14 and 112 of them may be gender dysphoric. It estimates the total cost of adding cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and sex reassignment surgeries to the coverage will be no more than $150,000 per year.

But HERC also believes the state will save money due to fewer suicide attempts. It estimates there will be one less suicide attempt per year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the average cost per suicide attempt in the U.S. is $7,234.

But Dr. McHugh says a sex-change operation, especially for young people with gender dysphoria, is never appropriate.

“We can help them if we begin to explore with them and their families what they’re fearing about development, what they’re fearing about being a young boy, a young adolescent appropriate to themselves.”

_____________________________________________________________

FOX NEWS INTERVIEW: 

"BORN AGAIN" JIMMY CARTER SURMIZES JESUS WOULD APPROVE GAY “MARRIAGE”~BUT CAN'T FIND THE BIBLE VERSE TO SUPPORT IT~HAS A PROBLEM THOUGH WITH ABORTION, BUT NOT WHEN HE APPOINTED SARAH WEDDINGTON IN 1977

THRILLED THE CROWDS BY WALKING PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C. TO HIS INAUGURATION, JANUARY 1977

THE LIBERAL PEANUT FARMER FROM GEORGIA

WHO PROMISED A LOT WITH A BROAD SMILE, BUT GAVE US HYPER INFLATION 

& 20% INTEREST RATES

40 YEARS LATER STILL TEACHING HERESIES IN SUNDAY SCHOOL & TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

"BORN AGAIN" (SO TO SPEAK?) BAPTIST JIMMY CARTER SAYS 

JESUS WOULD APPROVE GAY “MARRIAGE” 

SEE: http://www.wayoflife.org/friday_church_news/16_29.php;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

(Friday Church News Notes, July 17, 2015,www.wayoflife.orgfbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - In a July 7 interview with HuffPost Live, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said: “I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else. I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage. That’s just my own personal opinion.” Jimmy Carter is a longtime Sunday School teacher at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia, though he doesn’t believe the Bible. In 1997, Carter rebuked the Southern Baptist Convention for targeting Mormons with the gospel. Carter loves modernistic theologians such as Barth and Brunner who denied the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, and other cardinal doctrines. After his election to the presidency, Carter appointed pro-abortion activist Sarah Weddington to the position of assistant to the president. He has been promoting homosexual rights since the early 1990s. To say that Jesus would approve of gay marriage is ridiculous, since Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman as “at the beginning,” referring to Genesis 2. “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Jesus Christ, Matthew 19:4-5).

_______________________________________________________

CARTER CLAIMS HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH ABORTION ON DEMAND, BUT APPOINTED SARAH WEDDINGTON AS ASSISTANT

LAWYER FOR "JANE ROE" IN ROE V. WADE

2011

FROM WIKIPEDIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Weddington

Sarah Ragle Weddington (born February 5, 1945), is an American attorney, law professor, and former member of the Texas House of Representatives best known for representing "Jane Roe" (real name Norma McCorvey) in the landmark Roe v. Wade case before the United States Supreme Court. 

After graduating, Weddington found it difficult to find a job with a law firm. She instead joined a group of graduate students at University of Texas-Austin that were researching ways to challenge various anti-abortion statutes. After deciding that a woman should helm a lawsuit to challenge Texas’ statute, Weddington volunteered.

Soon after, a pregnant woman named Norma McCorvey visited a local attorney seeking an abortion. The attorney instead assisted McCorvey with handing over her child for adoption, and after doing so, referred McCorvey to Weddington and Linda Coffee. In March 1970, Weddington and her co-counsel filed suit against Henry Wade, the Dallas district attorney and the person responsible for enforcing the anti-abortion statute. McCorvey became the landmark plaintiff, and was referred in the legal documents as "Jane Roe" to protect her identity.

Weddington first stated her case in front of a three-judge district court on May 1970 in Dallas. The district court agreed that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional, but the state appealed the decision, landing it before the United States Supreme Court.

Weddington appeared before the Supreme Court in 1971 and again in the fall of 1972. Her argument was based on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 14th amendments, as well as the Court's previous decision inGriswold v. Connecticut, which legalized the sale of contraceptives based on the right of privacy. Of the experience, Weddington later stated, "There was a sense of majesty, walking up those stairs, my steps echoing on the marble. I went to the lawyers' lounge — to go over my argument. I wanted to make a last stop before I went in — but there was no ladies' room in the lawyer's lounge."

The Court’s decision was ultimately handed down in January 1973, overturning Texas’ abortion law by a 7-2 majority, and legalizing abortion within the first trimester of a woman's pregnancy. By then, Weddington had been elected a state legislator. At the age of 27, Weddington remains the youngest person to argue a successful Supreme Court case.

In 1992, Weddington compiled her experiences with the case and interviews with the people involved into a book titled A Question of Choice.

"GAY MARRIAGE": 

"THAT'S NO PROBLEM WITH ME"; "BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY VERSE IN SCRIPTURE FOR IT":

President Jimmy Carter's Jesus 
"approves of gay marriage"