Video: Over the past few years, the Obama administration has institutionalized the use of armed drones and developed a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.
Editor’s note: This project, based on interviews with dozens of current and former national security officials, intelligence analysts and others, examines evolving U.S. counter-terrorism policies and the practice of targeted killing. This is the first of three stories.
Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the “disposition matrix.”
The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the “disposition” of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.
Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years.
Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight.
“We can’t possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us,” a senior administration official said. “It’s a necessary part of what we do. . . . We’re not going to wind up in 10 years in a world of everybody holding hands and saying, ‘We love America.’ ”
That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism. Targeting lists that were regarded as finite emergency measures after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are now fixtures of the national security apparatus. The rosters expand and contract with the pace of drone strikes but never go to zero.
Meanwhile, a significant milestone looms: The number of militants and civilians killed in the drone campaign over the past 10 years will soon exceed 3,000 by certain estimates, surpassing the number of people al-Qaeda killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Obama administration has touted its successes against the terrorist network, including the death of Osama bin Laden, as signature achievements that argue for President Obama’s reelection. The administration has taken tentative steps toward greater transparency, formally acknowledging for the first time the United States’ use of armed drones.
Less visible is the extent to which Obama has institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counter terrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war. Spokesmen for the White House, the National Counterterrorism Center, the CIA and other agencies declined to comment on the matrix or other counterterrorism programs.
Privately, officials acknowledge that the development of the matrix is part of a series of moves, in Washington and overseas, to embed counterterrorism tools into U.S. policy for the long haul.
White House counter terrorism adviser John O. Brennan is seeking to codify the administration’s approach to generating capture/kill lists, part of a broader effort to guide future administrations through the counter-terrorism processes that Obama has embraced.
The U.S. Joint Special Operations Command, which carried out the raid that killed bin Laden, has moved commando teams into suspected terrorist hotbeds in Africa. A rugged U.S. outpost in Djibouti has been transformed into a launching pad for counterterrorism operations across the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.
JSOC also has established a secret targeting center across the Potomac River from Washington, current and former U.S. officials said. The elite command’s targeting cells have traditionally been located near the front lines of its missions, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. But JSOC created a “national capital region” task force that is a 15-minute commute from the White House so it could be more directly involved in deliberations about al-Qaeda lists.
The developments were described by current and former officials from the White House and the Pentagon, as well as intelligence and counterterrorism agencies. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
These counterterrorism components have been affixed to a legal foundation for targeted killing that the Obama administration has discussed more openly over the past year. In a series of speeches, administration officials have cited legal bases, including the congressional authorization to use military force granted after the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as the nation’s right to defend itself.
Critics contend that those justifications have become more tenuous as the drone campaign has expanded far beyond the core group of al-Qaeda operatives behind the strikes on New York and Washington. Critics note that the administration still doesn’t confirm the CIA’s involvement or the identities of those who are killed. Certain strikes are now under legal challenge, including the killings last year in Yemen of U.S.-born al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son.
Counterterrorism experts said the reliance on targeted killing is self-perpetuating, yielding undeniable short-term results that may obscure long-term costs.
“The problem with the drone is it’s like your lawn mower,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and Obama counterterrorism adviser. “You’ve got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back.”
An evolving database The United States now operates multiple drone programs, including acknowledged U.S. military patrols over conflict zones in Afghanistan and Libya, and classified CIA surveillance flights over Iran.
Strikes against al-Qaeda, however, are carried out under secret lethal programs involving the CIA and JSOC. The matrix was developed by the NCTC, under former director Michael Leiter, to augment those organizations’ separate but overlapping kill lists, officials said.
“Welcome to the Age of Hell: Entrenching Murder as the American Way” by Chris Floyd http://tiny.cc/ef9qmw
“The Washington Post has just laid out, in horrifying, soul-slaughtering detail, the Obama Administration’s ongoing effort to expand, entrench and “codify” the practice of murder and terrorism by the United States government. The avowed, deliberate intent of these sinister machinations is t
o embed the use of death squads and drone terror attacks into the policy apparatus of future administrations, so that the killing of human beings outside all pretense of legal process will go on, year after year after year, even when the Nobel Peace Laureate has left office.
They have even come up with a new euphemism for state murder: “disposition.” The new “counter terrorism matrix” is “designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the ‘disposition’ of suspects beyond the reach of American drones,” the Post reports.
In other words, it involves expanding and varying the menu of arbitrary murder, mixing the blunderbuss of drone blasts and night raids with more selective “bullet-in-the-brain,” “bomb-in-the-car-engine,” “polonium-in-the-pea-soup,” and “doping-and-defenestration” approaches.
Arbitrary murder by unaccountable elites and their spies, paid for by money taken from ordinary citizens who have no say in and no knowledge of what is being done in their names (and who will be the victims of the inevitable blowback from the state terror and murder campaign): this is now being “codified,” officially, formally, as the American way.
To be fair – and by all means, let us be fair with these butchers- the term ‘disposition’ is also stretched to cover a multitude of sins: kidnapping, rendition, indefinite detention, turning captives over to proxy torturers. But it is worth remembering that all of these dispositions- including the murders, wholesale and retail- involve “alleged” terrorists, terrorist “suspects,” people who have found themselves, for whatever reason (or no reason at all) on one of the innumerable “lists” gathered by whatever method (or no method at all) by the many fatly-funded agencies now involved in “counter-terrorism.”
But that’s not all, not by a long shot. These codified murders are also being inflicted on people who are not on any list whatsoever: their names, affiliations, beliefs, intentions- indeed, their dispositions – are completely unknown to those who kill them. They are the faceless targets of “signature strikes,” which allow American death squads to kill people based on “patterns of activity” which may- or may not- signal some possible malign intent- or none- toward someone- or no one – somewhere- or nowhere. This rigorous process rests entirely on in the magical mind-reading abilities of drone jockeys ogling a computer screen. If the armchair warrior doesn’t like the cut of someone’s jib, then he squeezes his joystick and turns the stranger into “bug splatter,” to use the term favored by our bold defenders of civilization.
Like last year’s NY Times piece that first detailed the murder racket being run directly out of the White House, the new Washington Post story is replete with quotes from “senior Administration officials” who have obviously been authorized to speak. Once again, this is a story that Obama and his team WANT to tell. They want you to know about the murder program and their strenuous exertions to make it permanent; they are proud of this, they think it makes them look good. They want it to be part of their legacy, something they can pass on to future generations: arbitrary, lawless, systematic murder.
Perhaps this fact should be borne in mind by all those anguished progressives out there who keep telling themselves that Obama will “be different, that he will “turn to the left,” if we can only get him a second term. No; the legacy of arbitrary, lawless, systematic murder is the legacy he wants. It is the legacy he has been building, with remarkable energy and meticulous attention to detail, day after day, week after week, for the past four years. This is what he cares about. And it is this- not jobs, not peace, not the environment, not equal rights for women and ethnic and sexual minorities, not the poor, not the middle class, not education, not infrastructure, not science, not diplomacy- that he will apply himself to in a second term. (Along with his only other political passion: forging a “grand bargain” with Big Money to gut the remaining shreds of the New Deal.)
There is little point in going through the Post story and offering detailed comment. The sickening nature of this perpetual-motion death-machine- and the husk-like inhumanity of those who operate it and the sycophants who applaud it- are all too plain. Just read the whole thing, and see for yourself. See how these butchers- our bipartisan elites, our whole respectable, self-righteous establishment- have trapped us all in an Age of Hell.
– http://www.chris-floyd.com/ • UPDATE: Arthur Silber has much more on the moral implications- and the heartbreaking historical resonances- of the state murder program. Get over there now, read it- and weep for where we are, and where we’re going.
“A Failed Formula For Worldwide War” How the Empire Changed Its Face, But Not Its Nature By Nick Turse http://tiny.cc/3m9qmw
“They looked like a gang of geriatric giants. Clad in smart casual attire – dress shirts, sweaters, and jeans – and incongruous blue hospital booties, they strode around “the world,” stopping to stroke their chins and ponder this or that potential crisis. Among them was Ge
neral Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a button-down shirt and jeans, without a medal or a ribbon in sight, his arms crossed, his gaze fixed. He had one foot planted firmly in Russia, the other partly in Kazakhstan, and yet the general hadn’t left the friendly confines of Virginia.
Several times this year, Dempsey, the other joint chiefs, and regional war-fighting commanders have assembled at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico to conduct a futuristic war-game-meets-academic-seminar about the needs of the military in 2017. There, a giant map of the world, larger than a basketball court, was laid out so the Pentagon’s top brass could shuffle around the planet – provided they wore those scuff-preventing shoe covers – as they thought about “potential U.S. national military vulnerabilities in future conflicts” (so one participant told the New York Times). The sight of those generals with the world underfoot was a fitting image for Washington’s military ambitions, its penchant for foreign interventions, and its contempt for (non-U.S.) borders and national sovereignty.
A World So Much Larger Than a Basketball Court: In recent weeks, some of the possible fruits of Dempsey’s “strategic seminars,” military missions far from the confines of Quantico, have repeatedly popped up in the news. Sometimes buried in a story, sometimes as the headline, the reports attest to the Pentagon’s penchant for globetrotting.
In September, for example, Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen, Jr., revealed that, just months after the U.S. military withdrew from Iraq, a unit of Special Operations Forces had already been redeployed there in an advisory role and that negotiations were underway to arrange for larger numbers of troops to train Iraqi forces in the future. That same month, the Obama administration won congressional approval to divert funds earmarked for counterterrorism aid for Pakistan to a new proxy project in Libya. According to the New York Times, U.S. Special Operations Forces will likely be deployed to create and train a 500-man Libyan commando unit to battle Islamic militant groups which have become increasingly powerful as a result of the 2011 U.S.-aided revolution there.
Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that the U.S. military had secretly sent a new task force to Jordan to assist local troops in responding to the civil war in neighboring Syria. Only days later, that paper revealed that recent U.S. efforts to train and assist surrogate forces for Honduras’s drug war were already crumbling amid a spiral of questions about the deaths of innocents, violations of international law, and suspected human rights abuses by Honduran allies. Shortly after that, the Times reported the bleak, if hardly surprising, news that the proxy army the U.S. has spent more than a decade building in Afghanistan is, according to officials, “so plagued with desertions and low re-enlistment rates that it has to replace a third of its entire force every year.” Rumors now regularly bubble up about a possible U.S.-funded proxy war on the horizon in Northern Mali where al-Qaeda-linked Islamists have taken over vast stretches of territory – yet another direct result of last year’s intervention in Libya.
And these were just the offshore efforts that made it into the news. Many other U.S. military actions abroad remain largely below the radar. Several weeks ago, for instance, U.S. personnel were quietly deployed to Burundi to carry out training efforts in that small, landlocked, desperately poor East African nation. Another contingent of U.S. Army and Air Force trainers headed to the similarly landlocked and poor West African nation of Burkina Faso to instruct indigenous forces.
At Camp Arifjan, an American base in Kuwait, U.S. and local troops donned gas masks and protective suits to conduct joint chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear training. In Guatemala, 200 Marines from Detachment Martillo completed a months-long deployment to assist indigenous naval forces and law enforcement agencies in drug interdiction efforts.
Across the globe, in the forbidding tropical forests of the Philippines, Marines joined elite Filipino troops to train for combat operations in jungle environments and to help enhance their skills as snipers. Marines from both nations also leapt from airplanes, 10,000 feet above the island archipelago, in an effort to further the “interoperability” of their forces. Meanwhile, in the Southeast Asian nation of Timor-Leste, Marines trained embassy guards and military police in crippling “compliance techniques” like pain holds and pressure point manipulation, as well as soldiers in jungle warfare as part of Exercise Crocodilo 2012.
The idea behind Dempsey’s “strategic seminars” was to plan for the future, to figure out how to properly respond to developments in far-flung corners of the globe. And in the real world, U.S. forces are regularly putting preemptive pins in that giant map – from Africa to Asia, Latin America to the Middle East. On the surface, global engagement, training missions, and joint operations appear rational enough. And Dempsey’s big picture planning seems like a sensible way to think through solutions to future national security threats.
But when you consider how the Pentagon really operates, such war-gaming undoubtedly has an absurdist quality to it. After all, global threats turn out to come in every size imaginable, from fringe Islamic movements in Africa to Mexican drug gangs. How exactly they truly threaten U.S. “national security” is often unclear – beyond some White House adviser’s or general’s say-so. And whatever alternatives come up in such Quantico seminars, the “sensible” response invariably turns out to be sending in the Marines, or the SEALs, or the drones, or some local proxies. In truth, there is no need to spend a day shuffling around a giant map in blue booties to figure it all out.
In one way or another, the U.S. military is now involved with most of the nations on Earth. Its soldiers, commandos, trainers, base builders, drone jockeys, spies, and arms dealers, as well as associated hired guns and corporate contractors, can now be found just about everywhere on the planet. The sun never sets on American troops conducting operations, training allies, arming surrogates, schooling its own personnel, purchasing new weapons and equipment, developing fresh doctrine, implementing novel tactics, and refining their martial arts. The U.S. has submarines trolling the briny deep and aircraft carrier task forces traversing the oceans and seas, robotic drones flying constant missions and manned aircraft patrolling the skies, while above them, spy satellites circle, peering down on friend and foe alike.
Since 2001, the U.S. military has thrown everything in its arsenal, short of nuclear weapons, including untold billions of dollars in weaponry, technology, bribes, you name it, at a remarkably weak set of enemies – relatively small groups of poorly-armed fighters in impoverished nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen – while decisively defeating none of them. With its deep pockets and long reach, its technology and training acumen, as well as the devastatingly destructive power at its command, the U.S. military should have the planet on lockdown. It should, by all rights, dominate the world just as the neoconservative dreamers of the early Bush years assumed it would.
Yet after more than a decade of war, it has failed to eliminate a rag-tag Afghan insurgency with limited popular support. It trained an indigenous Afghan force that was long known for its poor performance – before it became better known for killing its American trainers. It has spent years and untold tens of millions of tax dollars chasing down assorted firebrand clerics, various terrorist “lieutenants,” and a host of no-name militants belonging to al-Qaeda, mostly in the backlands of the planet. Instead of wiping out that organization and its wannabes, however, it seems mainly to have facilitated its franchising around the world.
At the same time, it has managed to paint weak regional forces like Somalia’s al-Shabaab as transnational threats, then focus its resources on eradicating them, only to fail at the task. It has thrown millions of dollars in personnel, equipment, aid, and recently even troops into the task of eradicating low-level drug runners (as well as the major drug cartels), without putting a dent in the northward flow of narcotics to America’s cities and suburbs.
It spends billions on intelligence only to routinely find itself in the dark. It destroyed the regime of an Iraqi dictator and occupied his country, only to be fought to a standstill by ill-armed, ill-organized insurgencies there, then out-maneuvered by the allies it had helped put in power, and unceremoniously bounced from the country (even if it is now beginning to claw its way back in). It spends untold millions of dollars to train and equip elite Navy SEALs to take on poor, untrained, lightly-armed adversaries, like gun-toting Somali pirates.
How Not to Change in a Changing World: And that isn’t the half of it. The U.S. military devours money and yet delivers little in the way of victories. Its personnel may be among the most talented and well-trained on the planet, its weapons and technology the most sophisticated and advanced around. And when it comes to defense budgets, it far outspends the next nine largest nations combined (most of which are allies in any case), let alone its enemies like the Taliban, al-Shabaab, or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but in the real world of warfare this turns out to add up to remarkably little.
In a government filled with agencies routinely derided for profligacy, inefficiency, and producing poor outcomes, its record may be unmatched in terms of waste and abject failure, though that seems to faze almost no one in Washington. For more than a decade, the U.S. military has bounced from one failed doctrine to the next. There was Donald Rumsfeld’s “military lite,” followed by what could have been called military heavy (though it never got a name), which was superseded by General David Petraeus’s “counterinsurgency operations” (also known by its acronym COIN). This, in turn, has been succeeded by the Obama administration’s bid for future military triumph: a “light footprint” combination of special ops, drones, spies, civilian soldiers, cyberwarfare, and proxy fighters. Yet whatever the method employed, one thing has been constant: successes have been fleeting, setbacks many, frustrations the name of the game, and victory MIA.
Convinced nonetheless that finding just the right formula for applying force globally is the key to success, the U.S. military is presently banking on that new six-point plan. Tomorrow, it may turn to a different war-lite mix. Somewhere down the road, it will undoubtedly again experiment with something heavier. And if history is any guide, counterinsurgency, a concept that failed the U.S. in Vietnam and was resuscitated only to fail again in Afghanistan, will one day be back in vogue.
In all of this, it should be obvious, a learning curve is lacking. Any solution to America’s war-fighting problems will undoubtedly require the sort of fundamental reevaluation of warfare and military might that no one in Washington is open to at the moment. It’s going to take more than a few days spent shuffling around a big map in plastic shoe covers.
American politicians never tire of extolling the virtues of the U.S. military, which is now commonly hailed as “the finest fighting force in the history of the world.” This claim appears grotesquely at odds with reality. Aside from triumphs over such non-powers as the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada and the small Central American nation of Panama, the U.S. military’s record since World War II has been a litany of disappointments: stalemate in Korea, outright defeat in Vietnam, failures in Laos and Cambodia, debacles in Lebanon and Somalia, two wars against Iraq (both ending without victory), more than a decade of wheel-spinning in Afghanistan, and so on.
Something akin to the law of diminishing returns may be at work. The more time, effort, and treasure the U.S. invests in its military and its military adventures, the weaker the payback. In this context, the impressive destructive power of that military may not matter a bit, if it is tasked with doing things that military might, as it has been traditionally conceived, can perhaps no longer do.
Success may not be possible, whatever the circumstances, in the twenty-first-century world, and victory not even an option. Instead of trying yet again to find exactly the right formula or even reinventing warfare, perhaps the U.S. military needs to reinvent itself and its raison d’être if it’s ever to break out of its long cycle of failure.
But don’t count on it. Instead, expect the politicians to continue to heap on the praise, Congress to continue insuring funding at levels that stagger the imagination, presidents to continue applying blunt force to complex geopolitical problems (even if in slightly different ways), arms dealers to continue churning out wonder weapons that prove less than wondrous, and the Pentagon continuing to fail to win. Coming off the latest series of failures, the U.S. military has leapt headlong into yet another transitional period – call it the changing face of empire – but don’t expect a change in weapons, tactics, strategy, or even doctrine to yield a change in results. As the adage goes: the more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Whole Foods knowingly engages in massive GMO deception, says undercover video by ‘Organic Spies’
Wednesday, September 26, 2012 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com
Whole Foods deceives consumers into unknowingly buying GMOs while financially supporting a GMO supply chain that ultimately enriches Monsanto, charges an explosive new undercover sting video released by Organic Spies. (Link below.)
The video features secret camera footage from a dozen Whole Foods stores in the Los Angeles area, capturing Whole Foods employees lying on camera about the genetically engineered ingredients found in products sold at Whole Foods.
“It’s against our policy to carry anything that’s grown with GMOs in it,” says one employee, caught on camera.
When asked whether Whole Foods products contain GMOs, another employee says, “Absolutely not. Because the bottom line for all Whole Foods is no preservatives, no additives, no added growth hormones, no GMOs, absolutely, that’s for everything.”
This statement is, of course, patently absurd. Even I’ve noticed all kinds of additives and preservatives in products sold at Whole Foods. And GMOs are found throughout the store, including in many so-called “natural” products that are actually made with GM corn. In fact, Natural News just revealed a list of the top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain GMOs… and some of them are sold at Whole Foods.
“Whole Foods has mastered the art of bait and switch” According to the undercover video, Whole Foods has “mastered the art of bait and switch” by advertising their foods as organic and non-GMO, then inundating customers with foods labeled “natural” which actually contain genetically engineered ingredients and pesticide residues.
“Genetically engineered foods are everywhere…” says the video. “In the salad bar, packaged foods, meats and dairy products. Even the Whole Foods branded vitamin line may contain GMOs.”
The video openly accuses Whole Foods of “deceptive marketing” and says the company knowingly “trains employees to tell customers that they do not sell any GMO food.”
Whole Foods executives “too busy” to talk with Natural News Whole Foods has not offered any rebuttal of this to NaturalNews. I personally offered to interview Whole Foods executives at their headquarters in Austin, Texas, earlier this year, but was told by the Whole Foods public relations team that their executives were “too busy” to meet with the editor of a website that ONLY reaches as many as five million readers a month!
Too busy doing what, you ask? Cashing checks, of course! Whole Foods CEOs are multi-millionaires and yet they have not individually nor as a company done anything meaningful to support Proposition 37, the all-important GMO labeling bill in California.
“We estimate Whole Foods has $2 – $3 billion a year in sales of GMO products,” says the Organic Spies video. It goes on to describe how Whole Foods financially supports Monsanto through the “GMO sourcing supply chain.”
The video specifically calls out Whole Foods executives Jack Mackey, Walter Robb and Margaret Wittenberg for essentially selling out their own customers.
The full video is embedded at the bottom of this article.
Whole Foods = SELLOUT to Monsanto? As this video shows, there is no question that Whole Foods is, through its product sales, financially supporting Monsanto, DuPont and the GMO (biotech) industry.
It’s also clear that many Whole Foods employees are totally clueless about the truth that Whole Foods carries GMO products in its stores.
Personally, I still hold out hope for Whole Foods, and I want them to do the right thing because they’re still far better than most conventional grocery stores. I agree with the video when it says Whole Foods needs to immediately donate $10 million to Proposition 37 and get fully behind GMO labeling.
I say this on the record, in public view, that any natural products organization which does NOT support Proposition 37 is a traitor to consumers and will be exposed as such by the independent online media. Natural News readers have made it crystal clear to us that they strongly advocate our continued exposing of GMO brands such as Larabar, Kashi and Silk. They want us to tell the truth about GMOs, and they want us to organize grassroots support for action items such as boycotts and petitions.
And to those companies who keep hiding GMOs in their products, I ask you this simple question: Why continue to punish yourselves? You know this issue isn’t going away, right? The sooner you come out and DENOUNCE GMOs, the sooner you save your brand and restore customer trust. But the longer you play this deceptive game of hiding GMOs in your foods, the more dishonest, deceptive and downright unethical you appear to everyone. The tipping point on GMOs is here. You either get with the non-GMO program, or you risk being exposed by Natural News and other independent bloggers and websites. You cannot hide your GMOs. The truth is coming out. Wake up and smell the rooibos tea, okay?
NaturalNews pledges massive, ongoing support for Proposition 37 Here at NaturalNews, we are doing everything we can think of to help support Proposition 37 and GMO labeling through videos, articles, interviews, links, music videos, Facebook, Twitter and more. We’re also raising money through our upcoming NaturalNews Store which opens next week, where a portion of every sale will be donated to help fund GMO labeling initiatives (including Proposition 37). That’s opening next week at http://www.ShopNaturalNews.com
I am just astonished that the CEOs of Whole Foods are right now betraying the very customers they claim to serve! Call it “corporate suicide,” if you will, but if Whole Foods doesn’t get behind Prop 37 real soon now, it’s going to be facing a massive backlash of anger and very likely a national boycott from informed consumers.
Whole Foods has backpedaled on the GMO issue for far too long, knowingly selling a huge array of products made with Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn while pushing a public image that tricks many people — including their own employees — into thinking that Whole Foods is GMO-free. This is unethical, dishonest and flatly unacceptable in an industry where integrity is supposed to matter.
This deception must end. Whole Foods must either come clean and support GMO labeling or face an eternal backlash from angry, betrayed customers who are waking up to this issue by the hour, it seems. When voting day arrives in early November, if Whole Foods hasn’t donated some serious cash in support of Proposition 37, I predict there will be an impassioned grassroots call for a nationwide boycott against all Whole Foods stores (as well as any brand that opposed Prop 37).
“Tell the truth,” a public relations innovator once declared. “Because sooner or later people will find out on their own.” And when they do, there’s hell to pay for it. When the truth about GMOs and cancer tumors really becomes public knowledge, how exactly do you think consumers are going to react when they realize they been POISONED by these GMO retailers?
Whole Foods is in bed with Monsanto The truth right now is that Whole Foods sells all sorts of products made with Monsanto’s GM corn… and yet they refuse to label those items as “containing genetically engineered ingredients.”
The other shocking truth is that Whole Foods and Monsanto are both on the same side of Proposition 37.
Personally, I find Whole Foods management to reflect a culture of extreme arrogance and dissociation from the values of its customers and employees. With new research now showing rats suffering horrifying cancer tumors after eating a lifetime of GM corn, Whole Foods not only keeps selling the same exact corn to its human customers, but the company even refuses to label it!
Perhaps Whole Foods and Monsanto should enter a strategic partnership to reposition GMOs as “health foods” under the new company name, “WholeSanto.”
Whole Foods knowingly engages in massive GMO deception, says undercover video by ‘Organic Spies’
Wednesday, September 26, 2012 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com
Whole Foods deceives consumers into unknowingly buying GMOs while financially supporting a GMO supply chain that ultimately enriches Monsanto, charges an explosive new undercover sting video released by Organic Spies. (Link below.)
The video features secret camera footage from a dozen Whole Foods stores in the Los Angeles area, capturing Whole Foods employees lying on camera about the genetically engineered ingredients found in products sold at Whole Foods.
“It’s against our policy to carry anything that’s grown with GMOs in it,” says one employee, caught on camera.
When asked whether Whole Foods products contain GMOs, another employee says, “Absolutely not. Because the bottom line for all Whole Foods is no preservatives, no additives, no added growth hormones, no GMOs, absolutely, that’s for everything.”
This statement is, of course, patently absurd. Even I’ve noticed all kinds of additives and preservatives in products sold at Whole Foods. And GMOs are found throughout the store, including in many so-called “natural” products that are actually made with GM corn. In fact, Natural News just revealed a list of the top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain GMOs… and some of them are sold at Whole Foods.
“Whole Foods has mastered the art of bait and switch” According to the undercover video, Whole Foods has “mastered the art of bait and switch” by advertising their foods as organic and non-GMO, then inundating customers with foods labeled “natural” which actually contain genetically engineered ingredients and pesticide residues.
“Genetically engineered foods are everywhere…” says the video. “In the salad bar, packaged foods, meats and dairy products. Even the Whole Foods branded vitamin line may contain GMOs.”
The video openly accuses Whole Foods of “deceptive marketing” and says the company knowingly “trains employees to tell customers that they do not sell any GMO food.”
Whole Foods executives “too busy” to talk with Natural News Whole Foods has not offered any rebuttal of this to NaturalNews. I personally offered to interview Whole Foods executives at their headquarters in Austin, Texas, earlier this year, but was told by the Whole Foods public relations team that their executives were “too busy” to meet with the editor of a website that ONLY reaches as many as five million readers a month!
Too busy doing what, you ask? Cashing checks, of course! Whole Foods CEOs are multi-millionaires and yet they have not individually nor as a company done anything meaningful to support Proposition 37, the all-important GMO labeling bill in California.
“We estimate Whole Foods has $2 – $3 billion a year in sales of GMO products,” says the Organic Spies video. It goes on to describe how Whole Foods financially supports Monsanto through the “GMO sourcing supply chain.”
The video specifically calls out Whole Foods executives Jack Mackey, Walter Robb and Margaret Wittenberg for essentially selling out their own customers.
The full video is embedded at the bottom of this article.
Whole Foods = SELLOUT to Monsanto? As this video shows, there is no question that Whole Foods is, through its product sales, financially supporting Monsanto, DuPont and the GMO (biotech) industry.
It’s also clear that many Whole Foods employees are totally clueless about the truth that Whole Foods carries GMO products in its stores.
Personally, I still hold out hope for Whole Foods, and I want them to do the right thing because they’re still far better than most conventional grocery stores. I agree with the video when it says Whole Foods needs to immediately donate $10 million to Proposition 37 and get fully behind GMO labeling.
I say this on the record, in public view, that any natural products organization which does NOT support Proposition 37 is a traitor to consumers and will be exposed as such by the independent online media. Natural News readers have made it crystal clear to us that they strongly advocate our continued exposing of GMO brands such as Larabar, Kashi and Silk. They want us to tell the truth about GMOs, and they want us to organize grassroots support for action items such as boycotts and petitions.
And to those companies who keep hiding GMOs in their products, I ask you this simple question: Why continue to punish yourselves? You know this issue isn’t going away, right? The sooner you come out and DENOUNCE GMOs, the sooner you save your brand and restore customer trust. But the longer you play this deceptive game of hiding GMOs in your foods, the more dishonest, deceptive and downright unethical you appear to everyone. The tipping point on GMOs is here. You either get with the non-GMO program, or you risk being exposed by Natural News and other independent bloggers and websites. You cannot hide your GMOs. The truth is coming out. Wake up and smell the rooibos tea, okay?
NaturalNews pledges massive, ongoing support for Proposition 37 Here at NaturalNews, we are doing everything we can think of to help support Proposition 37 and GMO labeling through videos, articles, interviews, links, music videos, Facebook, Twitter and more. We’re also raising money through our upcoming NaturalNews Store which opens next week, where a portion of every sale will be donated to help fund GMO labeling initiatives (including Proposition 37). That’s opening next week at http://www.ShopNaturalNews.com
I am just astonished that the CEOs of Whole Foods are right now betraying the very customers they claim to serve! Call it “corporate suicide,” if you will, but if Whole Foods doesn’t get behind Prop 37 real soon now, it’s going to be facing a massive backlash of anger and very likely a national boycott from informed consumers.
Whole Foods has backpedaled on the GMO issue for far too long, knowingly selling a huge array of products made with Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn while pushing a public image that tricks many people — including their own employees — into thinking that Whole Foods is GMO-free. This is unethical, dishonest and flatly unacceptable in an industry where integrity is supposed to matter.
This deception must end. Whole Foods must either come clean and support GMO labeling or face an eternal backlash from angry, betrayed customers who are waking up to this issue by the hour, it seems. When voting day arrives in early November, if Whole Foods hasn’t donated some serious cash in support of Proposition 37, I predict there will be an impassioned grassroots call for a nationwide boycott against all Whole Foods stores (as well as any brand that opposed Prop 37).
“Tell the truth,” a public relations innovator once declared. “Because sooner or later people will find out on their own.” And when they do, there’s hell to pay for it. When the truth about GMOs and cancer tumors really becomes public knowledge, how exactly do you think consumers are going to react when they realize they been POISONED by these GMO retailers?
Whole Foods is in bed with Monsanto The truth right now is that Whole Foods sells all sorts of products made with Monsanto’s GM corn… and yet they refuse to label those items as “containing genetically engineered ingredients.”
The other shocking truth is that Whole Foods and Monsanto are both on the same side of Proposition 37.
Personally, I find Whole Foods management to reflect a culture of extreme arrogance and dissociation from the values of its customers and employees. With new research now showing rats suffering horrifying cancer tumors after eating a lifetime of GM corn, Whole Foods not only keeps selling the same exact corn to its human customers, but the company even refuses to label it!
Perhaps Whole Foods and Monsanto should enter a strategic partnership to reposition GMOs as “health foods” under the new company name, “WholeSanto.”
The old ones say, lead a simple life. The society we live in is all about getting more houses, cars, luxury and credit cards. The law of worry says, the more you have, the more you need to worry. You get a house, then you need insurance, then you need to take care of the yard and the list goes on. Next, you may want a bigger house with a bigger yard which costs more in insurance. Along with the accumulation of materialism, are other “gifts.” Soon you become a slave and the materialism owns you. Lead a simple life and have peace of mind. Lead a simple life and be spiritual.
Unfortunately the simple life is going the way of the buffalo. Soon it will not be even an option. One of the things that make it so, is the educational system which teaches through readings and through pictures to the youth around the world from a young age, what success means. It is the conditioning of the masses to make them strive for more and more and more to feed the coffers of the fat cats while they fight to get one step ahead of the Jones’s.
Around the world you see the deterioration of the simple life to a more materialistic way of living. Then laws are enforced to enslave the masses further. These laws have the underlying element of fear and play on the insecurities of the masses, who have been relegated to survival and see material successes as the opposite of this pattern. What the masses miss is that the controllers will always need them to stay in that position of scraping to survive, fighting to have more, and being in debt till their dying day. The Power Control Force has no intention of sharing the “dream of the have’s”.
If everyone had what they needed to subsist, there would be no need for wars and other devastations of the planet to keep the Power Control Force in power. So it becomes a constant maze of work, work, work, grasping, like crabs in a barrel seeking for the illusion of success in the material world.
Little by little it becomes harder and harder to live a simple life as others take more than they need leaving scraps for the rest. In fact, you have to fight to remain simplistic in your existence, for you will be cajoled and ridiculed and isolated if you live simply. The conditioned/programmed fears of others will permeate into your reality and before long you begin to doubt yourself and your own intentions.
After a while, being close to nature is no longer important. Chopping away at nature means nothing. Spoiling the air we breathe or the water we drink means nothing. Mass killing of animals for food means nothing. Till finally, we turn on each other.
We have destroyed the one home we all share because we have bought into the illusion of what it means to be successful and are so far removed from simplicity that we would rankle in fear if our things, our stuff, our “way of life” was downsized.
We are a pitiful lot of controlled robots who keep the Power Control Force full. We are so blind that we do not realize that they flaunt their so-called success and have no intention of sharing it fairly, if at all.
Downsizing and letting go of stuff is one of the best ways to strike back! One of the best ways to regain our sovereignty and one of the best ways to save our planet and become whole again. We are all complicit, but we can all change this, one step at a time, one day at a time, one lifetime at a time.
The old ones say, lead a simple life. The society we live in is all about getting more houses, cars, luxury and credit cards. The law of worry says, the more you have, the more you need to worry. You get a house, then you need insurance, then you need to take care of the yard and the list goes on. Next, you may want a bigger house with a bigger yard which costs more in insurance. Along with the accumulation of materialism, are other “gifts.” Soon you become a slave and the materialism owns you. Lead a simple life and have peace of mind. Lead a simple life and be spiritual.
Unfortunately the simple life is going the way of the buffalo. Soon it will not be even an option. One of the things that make it so, is the educational system which teaches through readings and through pictures to the youth around the world from a young age, what success means. It is the conditioning of the masses to make them strive for more and more and more to feed the coffers of the fat cats while they fight to get one step ahead of the Jones’s.
Around the world you see the deterioration of the simple life to a more materialistic way of living. Then laws are enforced to enslave the masses further. These laws have the underlying element of fear and play on the insecurities of the masses, who have been relegated to survival and see material successes as the opposite of this pattern. What the masses miss is that the controllers will always need them to stay in that position of scraping to survive, fighting to have more, and being in debt till their dying day. The Power Control Force has no intention of sharing the “dream of the have’s”.
If everyone had what they needed to subsist, there would be no need for wars and other devastations of the planet to keep the Power Control Force in power. So it becomes a constant maze of work, work, work, grasping, like crabs in a barrel seeking for the illusion of success in the material world.
Little by little it becomes harder and harder to live a simple life as others take more than they need leaving scraps for the rest. In fact, you have to fight to remain simplistic in your existence, for you will be cajoled and ridiculed and isolated if you live simply. The conditioned/programmed fears of others will permeate into your reality and before long you begin to doubt yourself and your own intentions.
After a while, being close to nature is no longer important. Chopping away at nature means nothing. Spoiling the air we breathe or the water we drink means nothing. Mass killing of animals for food means nothing. Till finally, we turn on each other.
We have destroyed the one home we all share because we have bought into the illusion of what it means to be successful and are so far removed from simplicity that we would rankle in fear if our things, our stuff, our “way of life” was downsized.
We are a pitiful lot of controlled robots who keep the Power Control Force full. We are so blind that we do not realize that they flaunt their so-called success and have no intention of sharing it fairly, if at all.
Downsizing and letting go of stuff is one of the best ways to strike back! One of the best ways to regain our sovereignty and one of the best ways to save our planet and become whole again. We are all complicit, but we can all change this, one step at a time, one day at a time, one lifetime at a time. http://p.datastomp.com/9/3/39.js
On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, “turn on the TV.” I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of the neighbor‟s voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to determine whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.
What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade Center towers. It didn‟t seem to be much of a fire, and the reports were that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out why every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire, TV cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then that I learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.
Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower looking out. This didn‟t surprise me. The airliner was minute compared to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on top of the other?
The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath the plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There were no signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners had hit. Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and disappeared in fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the same thing happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into fine dust.
The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.
The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing up were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of the towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off the TV wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such an unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.
I don’t remember the time line, but it wasn‟t long before the story was in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked the US. A passport had been found in the rubble. Another airliner had flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been shot down. Four airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security had failed four times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully assaulted America.
When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100 stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who pulled off such a successful attack on the world‟s only superpower, when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or even possible?
These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which I was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher official survived the attack.
The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel‟s Mossad, and the intelligence agencies of Washington‟s NATO allies. There are simply too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out undeterred.
Washington‟s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop.
As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state, former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story that a collection of individuals unsupported by a competent intelligence service had pulled off the events of 9/11.
As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability. There would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US security could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a catastrophic and embarrassing failure of the national security state would not be left unexamined.
NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air. Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year the demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the public, the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was necessary. The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said meant invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.
Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that he had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was limited to the US government‟s colonial policies and control over Muslim governments.
It makes no sense that the “mastermind” of the most humiliating blow in world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower would not claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news reports he underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most reliable reports that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is simply not credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he feared Washington.
But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts, were released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always showed up on cue when Washington needed it. “Why would the „mastermind‟ be so accommodating for Washington?” was the question that went through my mind every time one of the fake videos was released.
The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution. One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but the news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.
All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two countries to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The neoconservatives who staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating more invasions of more Muslim countries. Paul O‟Neill, President Bush‟s first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. O‟Neill said that no one at a National Security Council meeting even asked the question, why invade Iraq? “It was all about finding a way to do it.”
The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of British intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O‟Neill‟s testimony. The memo, known as the “smoking gun memo” whose authenticity has been confirmed, states that “President George W. Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In other words, the US invasion of Iraq was based on nothing but a made up lie.
As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition. When films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious that building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When physics instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building and established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case was closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled demolition has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.
If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled demolition used to bring down a third building?
I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained people would.
The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to resign his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government had threatened BYU‟s research grants or whether patriotic trustees and alumni were the driving force behind Jones‟ expulsion. Regardless, the message was clear to other university based experts: “Shut up or we‟ll get you.” Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the scientific team in which he participated found nano-thermite in the residue of the twin towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned in the US print and TV media to my knowledge.
Several years after 9/11 architect Richard Gage formed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include 1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner hits and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure except intentional demolition. I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of the shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear bomber plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are farcical. How can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history and capable of devising improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and destroy US military vehicles would rely on something that had to be lighted with a match?
The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have pushed a button on their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb would not have required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all to no effect).
None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the government‟s claims, which were never backed by anything but the government‟s story line. There is no independent evidence that anything was involved other than firecracker powders.
The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept. According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of official has the authority to override established rules, and what did the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power to override standard operating practices would know that it was pointless to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be rejected.
The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the Transportation Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot every person in the US 2.5 times.
Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US government had been involved in 9/11, “someone would have talked by now.” A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed to sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered in a threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years later before one of the USS Liberty‟s officers, James Ennes, told the story of the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to wonder how the professionals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology feel about being maneuvered by the federal government into the unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of the WTC towers.
What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and emotionally weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are far more comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America successfully despite the massive national security state in place. The American public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly, without a peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of law guaranteed by the Constitution in order to be “safe.”
Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor.” When the neoconservatives said that a “new Pearl Harbor” was a requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set the stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If Syria falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct confrontation with Russia and China.
Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with “color revolutions,” these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington‟s hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.
If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be faced with the suspicion it deserves.
If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national security state to deter an attack, the government‟s refusal to conduct a real investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to concerned and qualified individuals to perform the investigative role abandoned by government. The presentations at the Toronto Hearings, along with the evaluations of the Panel, are now available, as is the documentary film, “Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out,” provided by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The government‟s agents and apologists try to deflect attention from disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as the product of “a conspiracy culture.” If people despite their brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution and peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain Washington and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from destroying the world in war.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.
On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, “turn on the TV.” I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of the neighbor‟s voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to determine whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.
What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade Center towers. It didn‟t seem to be much of a fire, and the reports were that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out why every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire, TV cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then that I learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.
Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower looking out. This didn‟t surprise me. The airliner was minute compared to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on top of the other?
The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath the plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There were no signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners had hit. Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and disappeared in fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the same thing happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into fine dust.
The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.
The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing up were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of the towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off the TV wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such an unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.
I don’t remember the time line, but it wasn‟t long before the story was in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked the US. A passport had been found in the rubble. Another airliner had flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been shot down. Four airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security had failed four times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully assaulted America.
When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100 stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who pulled off such a successful attack on the world‟s only superpower, when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or even possible?
These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which I was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher official survived the attack.
The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel‟s Mossad, and the intelligence agencies of Washington‟s NATO allies. There are simply too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out undeterred.
Washington‟s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop.
As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state, former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story that a collection of individuals unsupported by a competent intelligence service had pulled off the events of 9/11.
As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability. There would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US security could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a catastrophic and embarrassing failure of the national security state would not be left unexamined.
NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air. Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year the demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the public, the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was necessary. The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said meant invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.
Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that he had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was limited to the US government‟s colonial policies and control over Muslim governments.
It makes no sense that the “mastermind” of the most humiliating blow in world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower would not claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news reports he underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most reliable reports that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is simply not credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he feared Washington.
But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts, were released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always showed up on cue when Washington needed it. “Why would the „mastermind‟ be so accommodating for Washington?” was the question that went through my mind every time one of the fake videos was released.
The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution. One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but the news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.
All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two countries to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The neoconservatives who staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating more invasions of more Muslim countries. Paul O‟Neill, President Bush‟s first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. O‟Neill said that no one at a National Security Council meeting even asked the question, why invade Iraq? “It was all about finding a way to do it.”
The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of British intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O‟Neill‟s testimony. The memo, known as the “smoking gun memo” whose authenticity has been confirmed, states that “President George W. Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In other words, the US invasion of Iraq was based on nothing but a made up lie.
As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition. When films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious that building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When physics instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building and established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case was closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled demolition has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.
If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled demolition used to bring down a third building?
I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained people would.
The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to resign his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government had threatened BYU‟s research grants or whether patriotic trustees and alumni were the driving force behind Jones‟ expulsion. Regardless, the message was clear to other university based experts: “Shut up or we‟ll get you.” Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the scientific team in which he participated found nano-thermite in the residue of the twin towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned in the US print and TV media to my knowledge.
Several years after 9/11 architect Richard Gage formed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include 1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner hits and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure except intentional demolition. I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of the shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear bomber plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are farcical. How can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history and capable of devising improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and destroy US military vehicles would rely on something that had to be lighted with a match?
The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have pushed a button on their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb would not have required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all to no effect).
None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the government‟s claims, which were never backed by anything but the government‟s story line. There is no independent evidence that anything was involved other than firecracker powders.
The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept. According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of official has the authority to override established rules, and what did the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power to override standard operating practices would know that it was pointless to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be rejected.
The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the Transportation Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot every person in the US 2.5 times.
Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US government had been involved in 9/11, “someone would have talked by now.” A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed to sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered in a threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years later before one of the USS Liberty‟s officers, James Ennes, told the story of the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to wonder how the professionals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology feel about being maneuvered by the federal government into the unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of the WTC towers.
What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and emotionally weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are far more comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America successfully despite the massive national security state in place. The American public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly, without a peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of law guaranteed by the Constitution in order to be “safe.”
Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor.” When the neoconservatives said that a “new Pearl Harbor” was a requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set the stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If Syria falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct confrontation with Russia and China.
Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with “color revolutions,” these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington‟s hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.
If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be faced with the suspicion it deserves.
If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national security state to deter an attack, the government‟s refusal to conduct a real investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to concerned and qualified individuals to perform the investigative role abandoned by government. The presentations at the Toronto Hearings, along with the evaluations of the Panel, are now available, as is the documentary film, “Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out,” provided by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The government‟s agents and apologists try to deflect attention from disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as the product of “a conspiracy culture.” If people despite their brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution and peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain Washington and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from destroying the world in war.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.
“For some reason or another, today the thought popped into my mind that President Barak Obama doesn’t even want to be re-elected!?!?! Sometimes you don’t know what you’re getting into until you are in it; and once you see things (and people) for what they really are, or what you thought could be, you say to yourself, “If I knew then what I know now, there is no way I would have done this.” Something tells me that this is where Obama is at this point in time.” Ray Haggins Tuesday, September 4 at 1:02am
I sure hope that the folks who are pushing for his re-election are not disappointed. I hope that the folks who push him back into the White house are ready to hold the brother up through the storms he will face, and take a few bullets for h im.
I hope the ones, who push him are willing to push him towards the greater good, let his deterrents know that they got his back for all the so called “good things he wants to do” for Americans and the world.
I hope that folks put their money where their mouth is and stop the “Lions” from eating this man alive. I hope these folks can take the programming out of his brain and remove him from his puppeteers, the banksters and corporations. I hope that these folks will stand along with him, against the NWO who want to enslave us all.
I hope that your support is more than a racial thing, and more of a humanity thing. I hope that those who rally behind him will give him support not in cheers but in guidance and direction so that he can come out of the madness that NATO and the EU have sailed him into in terms of Wars in the middle east, and the “staged” economic crisis.
I hope that they haven’t just changed the flavor of the kool-aid, but have decided to give real natural wholesome juicy juice. I hope that his true ideals, if they are not the ideals of the banksters who back and pay for him, are bolstered by his supporters to the point where he does not need the banksters, the prison industrial complex, the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical companies, the oil oligarchy, the drug cartels and the terrorists (AKA CIA).
I hope that in bringing the troops home, that he give them a much better health plan, free housing, education and mental support because they went to war on a dime that turned out to be a lie. I hope that he turns down every penny that comes from the invasions of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan in the form of natural resources, especially water from the Great Man-made River in Libya.
I hope that you all support him away from the catastrophic war with Iran. And I hope that his supporters let him know how important it is to avoid at all cost getting behind world leaders dictators everywhere, and not just in a few choice countries. I hope that with all this rallying that his supporters are prepared to be there down to the wire and stand behind him on every human issue cause assassinating and imprisoning people or dropping drones on them because they have been labeled “enemy combatants, killing innocent women, and children at wedding parties is not humane.
I hope that after his next term in office, if he is victorious, his supporters will carry him on their shoulders and know that it was the work THEY DID that kept him on the path of truth and justice. And sadly, if he fails, I hope that his supporters will still carry him on their shoulders and take him into their homes and start the healing. For I am certain, that Barack Obama, had no idea of what he was getting into. The game of politics is cruel and unyielding in its AGENDA. Too many times this man has been crucified, hands tied behind his back and disrespected all with the adage “it comes with the territory.”
Cause if you want to push him back into the White House for any other reason, then he will continue to be ineffective in creating real change, and the slogan “Yes, We Can” is just a bunch of words. The “WE” in that slogan is every single person, making a conscious decision to cease and desist in supporting this criminal capitalistic warmongering racist/sexist government.
“For some reason or another, today the thought popped into my mind that President Barak Obama doesn’t even want to be re-elected!?!?! Sometimes you don’t know what you’re getting into until you are in it; and once you see things (and people) for what they really are, or what you thought could be, you say to yourself, “If I knew then what I know now, there is no way I would have done this.” Something tells me that this is where Obama is at this point in time.” Ray Haggins Tuesday, September 4 at 1:02am
I sure hope that the folks who are pushing for his re-election are not disappointed. I hope that the folks who push him back into the White house are ready to hold the brother up through the storms he will face, and take a few bullets for h im.
I hope the ones, who push him are willing to push him towards the greater good, let his deterrents know that they got his back for all the so called “good things he wants to do” for Americans and the world.
I hope that folks put their money where their mouth is and stop the “Lions” from eating this man alive. I hope these folks can take the programming out of his brain and remove him from his puppeteers, the banksters and corporations. I hope that these folks will stand along with him, against the NWO who want to enslave us all.
I hope that your support is more than a racial thing, and more of a humanity thing. I hope that those who rally behind him will give him support not in cheers but in guidance and direction so that he can come out of the madness that NATO and the EU have sailed him into in terms of Wars in the middle east, and the “staged” economic crisis.
I hope that they haven’t just changed the flavor of the kool-aid, but have decided to give real natural wholesome juicy juice. I hope that his true ideals, if they are not the ideals of the banksters who back and pay for him, are bolstered by his supporters to the point where he does not need the banksters, the prison industrial complex, the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical companies, the oil oligarchy, the drug cartels and the terrorists (AKA CIA).
I hope that in bringing the troops home, that he give them a much better health plan, free housing, education and mental support because they went to war on a dime that turned out to be a lie. I hope that he turns down every penny that comes from the invasions of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan in the form of natural resources, especially water from the Great Man-made River in Libya.
I hope that you all support him away from the catastrophic war with Iran. And I hope that his supporters let him know how important it is to avoid at all cost getting behind world leaders dictators everywhere, and not just in a few choice countries. I hope that with all this rallying that his supporters are prepared to be there down to the wire and stand behind him on every human issue cause assassinating and imprisoning people or dropping drones on them because they have been labeled “enemy combatants, killing innocent women, and children at wedding parties is not humane.
I hope that after his next term in office, if he is victorious, his supporters will carry him on their shoulders and know that it was the work THEY DID that kept him on the path of truth and justice. And sadly, if he fails, I hope that his supporters will still carry him on their shoulders and take him into their homes and start the healing. For I am certain, that Barack Obama, had no idea of what he was getting into. The game of politics is cruel and unyielding in its AGENDA. Too many times this man has been crucified, hands tied behind his back and disrespected all with the adage “it comes with the territory.”
Cause if you want to push him back into the White House for any other reason, then he will continue to be ineffective in creating real change, and the slogan “Yes, We Can” is just a bunch of words. The “WE” in that slogan is every single person, making a conscious decision to cease and desist in supporting this criminal capitalistic warmongering racist/sexist government. http://p.datastomp.com/9/3/39.js
This country was founded by the so-called founding fathers group of self interests.
When they wrote those documents, many of them were slave owners and slaughterers of the Indigenous. They did not include blacks, natives or women in the documents and only after their “self-interests” were challenged did they make amendments to the original document. This is called cognitive dissonance.
What folks believe to be true really isn’t true at all but they cannot face the fact that they have been duped, so they would rather believe the lie, than face the truth. The trouble is that the lie becomes their reality, a reality that they fight and die for. Maybe it’s the psychological condition of many empires over the ages..
Pulling back the covers of history to reveal the truth of what these Empires were really about will cause a great shock, history is re-written to cover up the shock and keep the masses duped and patriotic about a lie. Then the people wake up and fight back against the lie, then the lie is either doctored, or blamed on mis-interpretation or blame on the “terrorists” who chose to fight the system of lies. After a while a “savior” is born whose puppeteer strings are invisible. This person appears to be able to bring all things together, the people resign to the NWO (which ain’t new at all) and go back to their jobs on the 9-5 slave ship.
The artists throughout the ages have always remained on the fringe of this process, and typically are the ones who begin the “stir” again. And the cycle continues. In this modern age, even the artists are challenged to see past the maze of lies and disinformation. But some of them are so doped that they lose credibility, even if they are on point. And so the saga continues.
This is a prison planet and you can best believe, there is an extraordinary number of options that have been tried, tested and implemented to keep the prison population in a non-aggressive stupor.
This country was founded by the so-called founding fathers group of self interests.
When they wrote those documents,many of them were slave owners and slaughterers of the Indigenous. They did not include blacks, natives or women in the documents and only after their “self-interests” were challenged did they make amendments to the original document. This is called cognitive dissonance.
What folks believe to be true really isn’t true at all but they cannot face the fact that they have been duped, so they would rather believe the lie, than face the truth. The trouble is that the lie becomes their reality, a reality that they fight and die for. Maybe it’s the psychological condition of many empires over the ages..
Pulling back the covers of history to reveal the truth of what these Empires were really about will cause a great shock, history is re-written to cover up the shock and keep the masses duped and patriotic about a lie. Then the people wake up and fight back against the lie, then the lie is either doctored, or blamed on mus-interpretation or blame on the “terrorists” who chose to fight the system of lies. After a while a “savior” is born whose puppeteer strings are invisible. This person appears to be able to bring all things together, the people resign to the NWO (which ain’t new at all) and go back to their jobs on the 9-5 slave ship.
The artists throughout the ages have always remained on the fringe of this process, and typically are the ones who begin the “stir” again. And the cycle continues. In this modern age, even the artists are challenged to see past the maze of lies and disinformation. But some of them are so doped that they lose credibility, even if they are on point. And so the saga continues.
This is a prison planet and you can best believe, there is an extraordinary number of options that have been tried, tested and implemented to keep the prison population in a non-aggressive stupor.
By: Amber KidMarie Howard Hi, Mommy. I’m your baby. You don’t know me yet, I’m only a few weeks old. You’re going to find out about me soon, though, I promise. Let me tell you some things about me. My name is John, and I’ve got beautiful brown eyes and black hair. Well, I don’t have it yet, but I will when I’m born. I’m going to be your only child, and you’ll call me your one and only. I’m going to grow up without a daddy mostly, but we have each other. We’ll help each other, and love each other. I want to be a doctor when I grow up.
You found out about me today, Mommy! You were so excited, you couldn’t wait to tell everyone. All you could do all day was smile, and life was perfect. You have a beautiful smile, Mommy. It will be the first face I will see in my life, and it will be the best thing I see in my life. I know it already.
Today was the day you told Daddy. You were so excited to tell him about me! …He wasn’t happy, Mommy. He kind of got angry. I don’t think that you noticed, but he did. He started to talk about something called wedlock, and money, and bills, and stuff I don’t think I understand yet. You were still happy, though, so it was okay. Then he did something scary, Mommy. He hit you. I could feel you fall backward, and your hands flying up to protect me. I was okay… but I was very sad for you. You were crying then, Mommy. That’s a sound I don’t like. It doesn’t make me feel good. It made me cry, too. He said sorry after, and he hugged you again. You forgave him, Mommy, but I’m not sure if I do. It wasn’t right. You say he loves you… why would he hurt you? I don’t like it, Mommy.
Finally, you can see me! Your stomach is a little bit bigger, and you’re so proud of me! You went out with your mommy to buy new clothes, and you were so so so happy. You sing to me, too. You have the most beautiful voice in the whole wide world. When you sing is when I’m happiest. And you talk to me, and I feel safe. So safe. You just wait and see, Mommy. When I am born I will be perfect just for you. I will make you proud, and I will love you with all of my heart.
I can move my hands and feet now, Mommy. I do it because you put your hands on your belly to feel me, and I giggle. You giggle, too. I love you, Mommy.
Daddy came to see you today, Mommy. I got really scared. He was acting funny and he wasn’t talking right. He said he didn’t want you. I don’t know why, but that’s what he said. And he hit you again. I got angry, Mommy. When I grow up I promise I won’t let you get hurt! I promise to protect you. Daddy is bad. I don’t care if you think that he is a good person, I think he’s bad. But he hit you, and he said he didn’t want us. He doesn’t like me. Why doesn’t he like me, Mommy?
You didn’t talk to me tonight, Mommy. Is everything okay?
It’s been three days since you saw Daddy. You haven’t talked to me or touched me or anything since that. Don’t you still love me, Mommy? I still love you. I think you feel sad. The only time I feel you is when you sleep. You sleep funny, kind of curled up on your side. And you hug me with your arms, and I feel safe and warm again. Why don’t you do that when you’re awake, any more?
I’m 21 weeks old today, Mommy. Aren’t you proud of me? We’re going somewhere today, and it’s somewhere new. I’m excited. It looks like a hospital, too. I want to be a doctor when I grow up, Mommy. Did I tell you that? I hope you’re as excited as I am. I can’t wait.
…Mommy, I’m getting scared. Your heart is still beating, but I don’t know what you are thinking. The doctor is talking to you. I think something’s going to happen soon. I’m really, really, really scared, Mommy. Please tell me you love me. Then I will feel safe again. I love you!
Mommy, what are they doing to me!? It hurts! Please make them stop! It feels bad! Please, Mommy, please please help me! Make them stop!
Don’t worry Mommy, I’m safe. I’m in heaven with the angels now. They told me what you did, and they said it’s called an abortion.
Why, Mommy? Why did you do it? Don’t you love me any more? Why did you get rid of me? I’m really, really, really sorry if I did something wrong, Mommy. I love you, Mommy! I love you with all of my heart. Why don’t you love me? What did I do to deserve what they did to me? I want to live, Mommy! Please! It really, really hurts to see you not care about me, and not talk to me. Didn’t I love you enough? Please say you’ll keep me, Mommy! I want to live smile and watch the clouds and see your face and grow up and be a doctor. I don’t want to be here, I want you to love me again! I’m really really really sorry if I did something wrong. I love you!
I love you, Mommy.
Every abortion is just…
One more heart that was stopped.
Two more eyes that will never see.
Two more hands that will never touch.
Two more legs that will never run.
One more mouth that will never speak.
My Rant on Abortion
This might sound weird, but this is to dramatic. It makes people cry, feel sad for the baby, call the mom all kinds of names and diss the dad. But it does not provide viable options for people, couples families, who are under duress.
Where are the social services the help feed, cloth, and education the children after they are born? Where is the financial assistance to help mothers stay home with their children, so they can go to the schools their children attend and be pro active in their child’s education? Where is the extended family that will support the rape victim who becomes pregnant?
And finally, these same folks who cry about abortions and how can anyone do that to their child, are meat eaters, go to circuses and zoos, wear leather clothes and shoes, wear furs, etc. have their animals neutered, and a host of other things they support that is being done to animals. These same people throw trash on the ground and care nothing about using plastics.
This is just a small comment, but it really gets me, when people generalize and go after others, when they are not offering a viable alternative.
Surely it is unfortunate situation for any pregnant woman to endure the termination of a pregnancy through an abortion, just ask any one who has had one. Emotionally and physically painful to have to come to the abortion clinic and remove a fetus from your womb, a living entity whose fluttering moves could be felt, but, where is the outcry, when these fetuses are aborted and then used in pharmaceuticals, make-up and experiments?
I’m just saying that we have to have a more overall view of what the real issues are, instead of blaming the victims.
By: Amber KidMarie Howard Hi, Mommy. I’m your baby. You don’t know me yet, I’m only a few weeks old. You’re going to find out about me soon, though, I promise. Let me tell you some things about me. My name is John, and I’ve got beautiful brown eyes and black hair. Well, I don’t have it yet, but I will when I’m born. I’m going to be your only child, and you’ll call me your one and only. I’m going to grow up without a daddy mostly, but we have each other. We’ll help each other, and love each other. I want to be a doctor when I grow up.
You found out about me today, Mommy! You were so excited, you couldn’t wait to tell everyone. All you could do all day was smile, and life was perfect. You have a beautiful smile, Mommy. It will be the first face I will see in my life, and it will be the best thing I see in my life. I know it already.
Today was the day you told Daddy. You were so excited to tell him about me! …He wasn’t happy, Mommy. He kind of got angry. I don’t think that you noticed, but he did. He started to talk about something called wedlock, and money, and bills, and stuff I don’t think I understand yet. You were still happy, though, so it was okay. Then he did something scary, Mommy. He hit you. I could feel you fall backward, and your hands flying up to protect me. I was okay… but I was very sad for you. You were crying then, Mommy. That’s a sound I don’t like. It doesn’t make me feel good. It made me cry, too. He said sorry after, and he hugged you again. You forgave him, Mommy, but I’m not sure if I do. It wasn’t right. You say he loves you… why would he hurt you? I don’t like it, Mommy.
Finally, you can see me! Your stomach is a little bit bigger, and you’re so proud of me! You went out with your mommy to buy new clothes, and you were so so so happy. You sing to me, too. You have the most beautiful voice in the whole wide world. When you sing is when I’m happiest. And you talk to me, and I feel safe. So safe. You just wait and see, Mommy. When I am born I will be perfect just for you. I will make you proud, and I will love you with all of my heart.
I can move my hands and feet now, Mommy. I do it because you put your hands on your belly to feel me, and I giggle. You giggle, too. I love you, Mommy.
Daddy came to see you today, Mommy. I got really scared. He was acting funny and he wasn’t talking right. He said he didn’t want you. I don’t know why, but that’s what he said. And he hit you again. I got angry, Mommy. When I grow up I promise I won’t let you get hurt! I promise to protect you. Daddy is bad. I don’t care if you think that he is a good person, I think he’s bad. But he hit you, and he said he didn’t want us. He doesn’t like me. Why doesn’t he like me, Mommy?
You didn’t talk to me tonight, Mommy. Is everything okay?
It’s been three days since you saw Daddy. You haven’t talked to me or touched me or anything since that. Don’t you still love me, Mommy? I still love you. I think you feel sad. The only time I feel you is when you sleep. You sleep funny, kind of curled up on your side. And you hug me with your arms, and I feel safe and warm again. Why don’t you do that when you’re awake, any more?
I’m 21 weeks old today, Mommy. Aren’t you proud of me? We’re going somewhere today, and it’s somewhere new. I’m excited. It looks like a hospital, too. I want to be a doctor when I grow up, Mommy. Did I tell you that? I hope you’re as excited as I am. I can’t wait.
…Mommy, I’m getting scared. Your heart is still beating, but I don’t know what you are thinking. The doctor is talking to you. I think something’s going to happen soon. I’m really, really, really scared, Mommy. Please tell me you love me. Then I will feel safe again. I love you!
Mommy, what are they doing to me!? It hurts! Please make them stop! It feels bad! Please, Mommy, please please help me! Make them stop!
Don’t worry Mommy, I’m safe. I’m in heaven with the angels now. They told me what you did, and they said it’s called an abortion.
Why, Mommy? Why did you do it? Don’t you love me any more? Why did you get rid of me? I’m really, really, really sorry if I did something wrong, Mommy. I love you, Mommy! I love you with all of my heart. Why don’t you love me? What did I do to deserve what they did to me? I want to live, Mommy! Please! It really, really hurts to see you not care about me, and not talk to me. Didn’t I love you enough? Please say you’ll keep me, Mommy! I want to live smile and watch the clouds and see your face and grow up and be a doctor. I don’t want to be here, I want you to love me again! I’m really really really sorry if I did something wrong. I love you!
I love you, Mommy.
Every abortion is just…
One more heart that was stopped.
Two more eyes that will never see.
Two more hands that will never touch.
Two more legs that will never run.
One more mouth that will never speak.
My Rant on Abortion
This might sound weird, but this is to dramatic. It makes people cry, feel sad for the baby, call the mom all kinds of names and diss the dad. But it does not provide viable options for people, couples families, who are under duress.
Where are the social services the help feed, cloth, and education the children after they are born? Where is the financial assistance to help mothers stay home with their children, so they can go to the schools their children attend and be pro active in their child’s education? Where is the extended family that will support the rape victim who becomes pregnant?
And finally, these same folks who cry about abortions and how can anyone do that to their child, are meat eaters, go to circuses and zoos, wear leather clothes and shoes, wear furs, etc. have their animals neutered, and a host of other things they support that is being done to animals. These same people throw trash on the ground and care nothing about using plastics.
This is just a small comment, but it really gets me, when people generalize and go after others, when they are not offering a viable alternative.
Surely it is unfortunate situation for any pregnant woman to endure the termination of a pregnancy through an abortion, just ask any one who has had one. Emotionally and physically painful to have to come to the abortion clinic and remove a fetus from your womb, a living entity whose fluttering moves could be felt, but, where is the outcry, when these fetuses are aborted and then used in pharmaceuticals, make-up and experiments?
I’m just saying that we have to have a more overall view of what the real issues are, instead of blaming the victims.
Where do European people come from. Modern Science has postulated that the European genotype comes from mutated Albinos who traveled and settled into the Caucus Mountains.
However recent findings have shown that Europeans have a significant amount of Neanderthal and Rhesus monkey DNA. This is the source of the Rh blood type. How on earth could such primitive DNA have entered into the European Bloodline? This would mean that all Europeans can trace their genetic ancestry back to the Rhesus Monkey.
As far as Africans are concerned, No African has been found to have any Neanderthal DNA or Rhesus Monkey DNA. There has been no foundational evolutionary origin for African people on the planet earth. We did not evolve from apes or hominids. We have always been this way. The different variants of hominids and primates come from the cosmic radiation that engulfed the Earth after the Lunar Earth Mars Catastrophe, but that is another story…
The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammed taught that A scientists named Yakub grafted the white man in a lab. There may actually be some truth to this story.
The Sanskrit epics Mahabharata and Ramayana speaks of a race of primates called Vanara that where grafted by King Rama to fight various wars.
King Rama is who Elijah Muhammed called Yakub. There may be some truth to his theory.
There are too many contradictory stories, myths and legends that surround the phenomenon of the human arrival on this planet. There is probably a morsel of truth in all stories, and since there are so many different types or ethnic groups, then there is probably a place on this planet that each story fits. Humanity has been robbed of its origin. Stories are created, and even the scientific ones are stories, which can be taken with a grain of salt, as it were. With the various stories dating back several centuries, it seems obvious to me, that we need some type of inner journeying to find the Ultimate reality of life on this planet.
I would venture to say, that all life on this planet and many others was transported/transplanted/genetically developed here. The species that could survive the environment continued to evolve, adapt and change. Who ever is the original is a mute point when perceived from the cosmic perspective.
We are all Cosmic beings taking a journey here till the next journey comes along. With the many disruptions this planet has suffered, how can we at this point be so certain who was here, and who survived the cataclysms.
This planet is on the tip of the Milky Way, a relative stop off point for galactic travelers who have come here checked out the sites, stayed or moved on.
The fighting over what came first the chicken or the egg is futile in the face of advance science and technology. In that world, the possibilities are endless. Genetic manipulations can create all types of life forms that do not adhere to our limited standards of what is possible.
I suggest we reach beyond this petty argument to the question of “What Star Systems” did the Human Species to earth come from. I suggest that we take a look at the Infinite Creation and its many possibilities and think, is the story of natural development on this planet the Law of the entire Universe? I suggest that we realize that from a vantage point outside of this Solar System, this is a planet inhabited by a plethora life forms and, that human beings in their variations demonstrate how magnificent Creation can be. Instead we want to argue about the bump on the butt of an Elephant and therefore never see the Elephant in its totality.
There is an extensive amount of debate on the subject of “What came first? The Chicken or the Egg?” Here are a few alternating views and personal opinions from various Answer.com users:
The Chicken
The answer is the chicken because God created all the animals not all the eggs. It’s easy because for those that believe in Him God made animals not eggs.
The chicken… it had to be because creatures in the sea evolved and they didn’t evolve into eggs now did they?
The chicken. The chicken has to be around to lay the egg.
Depends on what you believe. I believe the chicken came first. Since DNA can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg.
The chicken came first. How would the egg survive without the chicken? I also believe there is a protein that the egg is made of that the egg can only get from the chicken.
Using literature, the chicken comes first.
Using grammar, “the chicken” comes first in the sentence (They come before the words, “the egg.”)
In a dictionary, the word “chicken” comes before “egg.”
Recent studies now show that the chicken came first, because of the methodology of evolution. An egg cannot occur unless a bird, or in this case a chicken, is able to lay that egg.
The answer is the chicken: God created all the animals and not all the eggs. It’s easy because for those that believe in Him God made animals not eggs. The chicken because God wouldn’t just put a egg on the earth and even if he did nothing would warm the egg for it to hatch.
The chicken…it had to be. Creatures in the sea evolved and they didn’t evolve into eggs now, did they?
The chicken. It has to be around to lay the egg.
In the seven days that God created the earth, it makes no mention of animals’ eggs. Thus, the chicken came first.
I say that the chicken came first because the chicken was made before the egg because God made all the animals first and birds and etc….. so the chicken came first before the egg, the eggs came when a male (rooster) and a female chicken repopulate with each other.
The chicken came first because, if the chicken didn’t come first, there would be no egg or care for it. So, God had to make the chicken first.
If you are an evolutionist, you probably think that the chicken evolved from a dinosaur or something. But the chicken came first; if you think about it, how was the chicken alive before the egg.
The Egg
The Answer to this is the egg! the reason for this is that for an animal to change, its genetics would have to change also and this is impossible. Therefore the change would have to take place as an embryo or egg. so the first chicken was most likely spawned in prehistoric times as an embryo/egg. Concluding that the first living organism had to come from the form of an egg or embryo.
The egg would have come first laid from another animal when it was hatched it was that animal but had to move its habitat so it had to adjust and became the chicken.
Theoretically, the egg must come first. A chicken is conceived and born in an egg; therefore, without the egg the chicken could not have been either conceived or born, it may be that the egg was the product of two different species accidentally mating to conceive the egg that contained the first, “chicken” as we know it. the egg came first, think about it logically, instead of trying to question it, there is no other logical/practical conclusion.
The egg came first. Two animals who really liked each other and were not the same breed, mated and the female laid an egg and it came out a chicken. They didn’t know what to call it so they just named it chicken. Therefore the chicken is a crossbreed. I don’t know what between though.
The egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs for millions of years before chickens were present on Earth.
The egg came first because other animals i.e dinosaurs or prehistoric birds (chickens) would’ve laid the egg that hatched to become classed as the first chicken.
What came first, the prehistoric bird or its egg? The egg came first. Definitely.
The ‘chicken or the egg’ dilemma has been frequently asked as “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”. This question baffles many people so it proves that the askers: 1. Have never been taught the theory of evolution. 2. Don’t believe the theory of evolution. With these parameters, the answer becomes obvious. Birds evolved from reptiles, and reptiles evolved from the dinosaurs, so a dinosaur lays an egg – dinosaurs become extinct – the egg remains – and hatches into a new reptile. The older reptiles lay an egg – they evolve into birds – and a bird comes out. Well if you use common sense the egg came first. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a chickens egg. The egg came first. Dinosaurs were laying them before the chicken appeared on Earth.
The egg, dinosaurs were laying them far before the chicken’s existence.
The answer is the egg! For an animal to change, its genetics would have to change also and this is impossible. Therefore the change would have to take place as an embryo or egg. So the first chicken was most likely spawned in prehistoric times as an embryo/egg. Concluding that the first living organism had to come from the form of an egg or embryo.
The egg would have come first laid from another animal when it was hatched it was that animal but had to move its habitat so it had to adjust and became the chicken.
Theoretically, the egg must come first. A chicken is conceived and born in an egg; therefore, without the egg the chicken could not have been either conceived or born, it may be that the egg was the product of two different species accidentally mating to conceive the egg that contained the first, “chicken” as we know it. the egg came first, think about it logically, instead of trying to question it, there is no other logical/practical conclusion.
The egg came first. Two animals who really liked each other and were not the same breed, mated and the female laid an egg and it came out a chicken. They didn’t know what to call it so they just named it chicken. Therefore the chicken is a crossbreed. I don’t know what between though.
The egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs for millions of years before chickens were present on Earth.
The egg came first because other animals came before the chicken that had eggs of some kind. One kind are the fish in the seas; fish lay eggs. Another are snakes; snakes also lay eggs.
A chicken could not have its genetic material altered during life, so the egg must have evolved and been first.
If you take into account the doctrine of evolution, the egg’s coming first becomes plausible on the cellular level under perfect circumstances (abundant food and resources). There will be an asexual reproduction once the environment becomes unfavorable. The species would then evolve, and a lot of animals have no parental instincts but through evolution some have started to look after their young.
An asexual reproduction is reproduction in which there is no fusion of male and female sex cells gametes.
The egg came first because the chicken descended from a dinosaur, and it laid an egg that was changed from Darwin’s theory.
The egg came first because a chicken comes from an egg. At whatever point you decide to call the chicken a true chicken, it must have come from an egg. Because the different species before it must have evolved to make a chicken, the egg came first
The egg comes first because a bird a long long time ago evolving into a chicken lays an egg which hatches into a chicken.
An egg comes first, because dinosaurs laid eggs, and chickens didnt exist at that time.
Simple. The Egg.
Egg. I am not trained in philosophy, but my reasoning is simple and seems solid to me. If it was not born from an egg, it would not meet the definition of chicken so it must have come from an egg. A bird that is not a chicken can still lay an egg with a chicken in it if there is a genetic abnormality in the egg being laid. Because chickens were not the first life form on earth, it conforms to our current scientific understanding that the first ever chicken to be born was a genetic abnormality. Because genetic abnormalities that survive are not substantially different from the original, it is very likely that the parent of the chicken was genetically very similar to a chicken and was an egg layer. The first chicken was a genetic abnormality born from an egg that was laid by a similar parent that was not genetically similar enough to meet the definition of ‘Chicken’.
The egg came first. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution infers genetic adaptation. This adaptation occurs when parents’ DNA is copied inaccurately throughout a species and the strongest of the adaptations survive. The male and female chickens DNA is copied during the mitosis/meiosis process and form the gametes that go on to form the blastocyte/morula/foetus in the egg – so the egg came first.
Neither
Isn’t it both? Because the chicken would have to teach the chick how to do stuff and the egg to reproduce the chickens.
The chickens most recent ancestor laid the egg. Think of it this way: along the slow and steady evolution from single celled organisms to full fledged modern chickens, at some point, if you could observe every animal in that evolutionary line, you would have to say, “well, this one’s not a chicken, but the next one is.” The line simply must be drawn somewhere. So whatever egg that the first chicken hatched from would have come first!
There is no final answer but the most reasonable conclusion is that a certain breed of dinosaur laid an egg, then a period of extremely cold weather preserved the egg. Whilst that occurred the egg genetic form was rearranged into a creature similar to the chicken. At first the animal could have been very different from the chicken we know today but over time it changed into the chicken form we are so familiar with today.
The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.
There is some disagreement about the pseudo-philosophical question “Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?” Those of us who believe that the account of creation found in the Book of Genesis is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth believe that, like everything else, chickens were created fully formed, by magic, and therefore tend to claim that the chicken must have come before the egg. Of course the Bible does not spell it out one way or the other, and for all they know, God created the chicken by causing a fertilized chicken egg to manifest first. Those of us who rely on Biblical poetry for our spiritual truth and on science for our understanding of the material world dismiss the question as childish nonsense, but if pressed will more likely claim that the egg must have “come first,” having been laid by a bird that was almost, but not exactly, a chicken itself.
It depends on how you see the question. The chicken might come first if “it was the result of years of genetic engineering by mother nature”. The egg might have come first if “it was the result of an unexpected mutation inside another animal’s (bird) egg”. None of them, if “the specie was developed in centuries of slow natural selection process”.
Let us begin our discussion with the question properly posed: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Now, this is a brain-teaser, a rhetorical form called a paradox, intended to be finally unanswerable. It is not a question about natural history for which a “correct” answer may -or may not- be discovered. Trying to answer it in real-world terms is like trying to design a runcible spoon, or to find meaning in superfragilisticexpialidocious: missing the point and not getting the joke. Still, the complacency of some of the Wikianswers on the subject cannot be allowed to pass without comment, in my opinion. It is incorrect to claim that the chicken came first on Biblical grounds. God created the chicken, along with everything else, as it says in the Bible. But of course, the Bible does not spell out any of the mechanics of God’s creation – that’s the job of science, after all – and so for all we know from the Biblical account, God created all oviparous creatures egg-first. Clever ol’ God, that’s just how He would do it.
Isn’t it both? Because the chicken would have to teach the chick how to do stuff and the egg to reproduce the chickens.
The chickens most recent ancestor laid the egg. Think of it this way: along the slow and steady evolution from single celled organisms to full fledged modern chickens, at some point, if you could observe every animal in that evolutionary line, you would have to say, “well, this one’s not a chicken, but the next one is.” The line simply must be drawn somewhere. So whatever egg that the first chicken hatched from would have come first!
There is no final answer but the most reasonable conclusion is that a certain breed of dinosaur laid an egg, then a period of extremely cold weather preserved the egg. Whilst that occurred the egg genetic form was rearranged into a creature similar to the chicken. At first the animal could have been very different from the chicken we know today but over time it changed into the chicken form we are so familiar with today.
Neither the chicken, nor the egg came first. It was the rooster that came first.
The egg and the chicken came at the same time. The chicken and the egg are just two different names for the same process or being. It’s like water on its way to becoming ice is still water, and vice versa.
Darwin’s theory; the chicken egg came from a different species.
There is no answer. Since the question is a paradox, there is no answer. If the chicken came first, it came from the egg. If the egg came first, then it came from a chicken, and so forth.
Evolution suggests that both chickens and eggs evolved from creatures and “egg-things” you would not recognize to be part of the lineage. (Similar to how, in the very distant past, some molecule[s] that was [were] not what we would call “life” became “life”.) That was the beginning.
There is no correct answer that can be proven. It’s all theory.
This question has been debated about so many times but no-one really knows. It is undecided.
I think its both because the chicken wouldn’t have been born without a female parent and the female parent would most likely came first in an egg also given birth by the mother.
Additional information:
Without some very serious scientific intervention an egg cannot be produced independently of its parent’s body, whether that parent is a chicken, a lizard, or a spider.
So the chicken had to be there first, for the egg to form. Scientific researchers at the University of Sheffield in England published a report – see link below – in July 2010 confirming this, although their research is more concerned with shells in general: eggs were produced by the earliest egg-producing creatures millennia before chickens evolved.
The scientists involved in this research weren’t interested in solving unsolvable riddles, but in discovering more about how shells are formed.
The question of whether the chicken or the egg came first can never be answered: it is unanswerable. One can work out which came first, the wheel or the wheeled vehicle, because one caused the invention of the other, but when we look at life-forms we cannot say with any degree of authority whether the grass seed came before the blade of grass, or whether the bird came before the egg, because life simply doesn’t work in terms of traceable inventions.
Today we can taste a delicious new strain of tomato and know the seed that produced that improved tomato was developed from tomato plants considered to be less delicious: this new seed came first, before this new tomato. But it came after the other, less delicious, tomato, and that tomato’s seeds came before it, and so on…
Note: There are comments associated with this question. See the discussion page to add to the conversation.
Where do European people come from. Modern Science has postulated that the European genotype comes from mutated Albinos who traveled and settled into the Caucus Mountains. However recent findings have shown that Europeans have a significant amount of Neanderthal and Rhesus monkey DNA. This is the source of the Rh blood type. How on earth could such primitive DNA have entered into the European Bloodline? This would mean that all Europeans can trace their genetic ancestry back to the Rhesus Monkey. As far as Africans are concerned, No African has been found to have any Neanderthal DNA or Rhesus Monkey DNA. There has been no foundational evolutionary origin for African people on the planet earth. We did not evolve from apes or hominids. We have always been this way. The different variants of hominids and primates come from the cosmic radiation that engulfed the Earth after the Lunar Earth Mars Catastrophe, but that is another story… The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammed taught that A scientists named Yakub grafted the white man in a lab. There may actually be some truth to this story. The Sanskrit epics Mahabharata and Ramayana speaks of a race of primates called Vanara that where grafted by King Rama to fight various wars. King Rama is who Elijah Muhammed called Yakub. There may be some truth to his theory.
There are too many contradictory stories, myths and legends that surround the phenomenon of the human arrival on this planet. There is probably a morsel of truth in all stories, and since there are so many different types or ethnic groups, then there is probably a place on this planet that each story fits. Humanity has been robbed of its origin. Stories are created, and even the scientific ones are stories, which can be taken with a grain of salt, as it were. With the various stories dating back several centuries, it seems obvious to me, that we need some type of inner journeying to find the Ultimate reality of life on this planet.
I would venture to say, that all life on this planet and many others was transported/transplanted/genetically developed here. The species that could survive the environment continued to evolve, adapt and change. Who ever is the original is a mute point when perceived from the cosmic perspective.
We are all Cosmic beings taking a journey here till the next journey comes along. With the many disruptions this planet has suffered, how can we at this point be so certain who was here, and who survived the cataclysms.
This planet is on the tip of the Milky Way, a relative stop off point for galactic travelers who have come here checked out the sites, stayed or moved on.
The fighting over what came first the chicken or the egg is futile in the face of advance science and technology. In that world, the possibilities are endless. Genetic manipulations can create all types of life forms that do not adhere to our limited standards of what is possible.
I suggest we reach beyond this petty argument to the question of “What Star Systems” did the Human Species to earth come from. I suggest that we take a look at the Infinite Creation and its many possibilities and think, is the story of natural development on this planet the Law of the entire Universe? I suggest that we realize that from a vantage point outside of this Solar System, this is a planet inhabited by a plethora life forms and, that human beings in their variations demonstrate how magnificent Creation can be. Instead we want to argue about the bump on the butt of an Elephant and therefore never see the Elephant in its totality.
There is an extensive amount of debate on the subject of “What came first? The Chicken or the Egg?” Here are a few alternating views and personal opinions from various Answer.com users:
The Chicken
The answer is the chicken because God created all the animals not all the eggs. It’s easy because for those that believe in Him God made animals not eggs.
The chicken… it had to be because creatures in the sea evolved and they didn’t evolve into eggs now did they?
The chicken. The chicken has to be around to lay the egg.
Depends on what you believe. I believe the chicken came first. Since DNA can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg.
The chicken came first. How would the egg survive without the chicken? I also believe there is a protein that the egg is made of that the egg can only get from the chicken.
Using literature, the chicken comes first.
Using grammar, “the chicken” comes first in the sentence (They come before the words, “the egg.”)
In a dictionary, the word “chicken” comes before “egg.”
Recent studies now show that the chicken came first, because of the methodology of evolution. An egg cannot occur unless a bird, or in this case a chicken, is able to lay that egg.
The answer is the chicken: God created all the animals and not all the eggs. It’s easy because for those that believe in Him God made animals not eggs. The chicken because God wouldn’t just put a egg on the earth and even if he did nothing would warm the egg for it to hatch.
The chicken…it had to be. Creatures in the sea evolved and they didn’t evolve into eggs now, did they?
The chicken. It has to be around to lay the egg.
In the seven days that God created the earth, it makes no mention of animals’ eggs. Thus, the chicken came first.
I say that the chicken came first because the chicken was made before the egg because God made all the animals first and birds and etc….. so the chicken came first before the egg, the eggs came when a male (rooster) and a female chicken repopulate with each other.
The chicken came first because, if the chicken didn’t come first, there would be no egg or care for it. So, God had to make the chicken first.
If you are an evolutionist, you probably think that the chicken evolved from a dinosaur or something. But the chicken came first; if you think about it, how was the chicken alive before the egg.
The Egg
The Answer to this is the egg! the reason for this is that for an animal to change, its genetics would have to change also and this is impossible. Therefore the change would have to take place as an embryo or egg. so the first chicken was most likely spawned in prehistoric times as an embryo/egg. Concluding that the first living organism had to come from the form of an egg or embryo.
The egg would have come first laid from another animal when it was hatched it was that animal but had to move its habitat so it had to adjust and became the chicken.
Theoretically, the egg must come first. A chicken is conceived and born in an egg; therefore, without the egg the chicken could not have been either conceived or born, it may be that the egg was the product of two different species accidentally mating to conceive the egg that contained the first, “chicken” as we know it. the egg came first, think about it logically, instead of trying to question it, there is no other logical/practical conclusion.
The egg came first. Two animals who really liked each other and were not the same breed, mated and the female laid an egg and it came out a chicken. They didn’t know what to call it so they just named it chicken. Therefore the chicken is a crossbreed. I don’t know what between though.
The egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs for millions of years before chickens were present on Earth.
The egg came first because other animals i.e dinosaurs or prehistoric birds (chickens) would’ve laid the egg that hatched to become classed as the first chicken.
What came first, the prehistoric bird or its egg? The egg came first. Definitely.
The ‘chicken or the egg’ dilemma has been frequently asked as “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”. This question baffles many people so it proves that the askers: 1. Have never been taught the theory of evolution. 2. Don’t believe the theory of evolution. With these parameters, the answer becomes obvious. Birds evolved from reptiles, and reptiles evolved from the dinosaurs, so a dinosaur lays an egg – dinosaurs become extinct – the egg remains – and hatches into a new reptile. The older reptiles lay an egg – they evolve into birds – and a bird comes out. Well if you use common sense the egg came first. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a chickens egg. The egg came first. Dinosaurs were laying them before the chicken appeared on Earth.
The egg, dinosaurs were laying them far before the chicken’s existence.
The answer is the egg! For an animal to change, its genetics would have to change also and this is impossible. Therefore the change would have to take place as an embryo or egg. So the first chicken was most likely spawned in prehistoric times as an embryo/egg. Concluding that the first living organism had to come from the form of an egg or embryo.
The egg would have come first laid from another animal when it was hatched it was that animal but had to move its habitat so it had to adjust and became the chicken.
Theoretically, the egg must come first. A chicken is conceived and born in an egg; therefore, without the egg the chicken could not have been either conceived or born, it may be that the egg was the product of two different species accidentally mating to conceive the egg that contained the first, “chicken” as we know it. the egg came first, think about it logically, instead of trying to question it, there is no other logical/practical conclusion.
The egg came first. Two animals who really liked each other and were not the same breed, mated and the female laid an egg and it came out a chicken. They didn’t know what to call it so they just named it chicken. Therefore the chicken is a crossbreed. I don’t know what between though.
The egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs for millions of years before chickens were present on Earth.
The egg came first because other animals came before the chicken that had eggs of some kind. One kind are the fish in the seas; fish lay eggs. Another are snakes; snakes also lay eggs.
A chicken could not have its genetic material altered during life, so the egg must have evolved and been first.
If you take into account the doctrine of evolution, the egg’s coming first becomes plausible on the cellular level under perfect circumstances (abundant food and resources). There will be an asexual reproduction once the environment becomes unfavorable. The species would then evolve, and a lot of animals have no parental instincts but through evolution some have started to look after their young.
An asexual reproduction is reproduction in which there is no fusion of male and female sex cells gametes.
The egg came first because the chicken descended from a dinosaur, and it laid an egg that was changed from Darwin’s theory.
The egg came first because a chicken comes from an egg. At whatever point you decide to call the chicken a true chicken, it must have come from an egg. Because the different species before it must have evolved to make a chicken, the egg came first
The egg comes first because a bird a long long time ago evolving into a chicken lays an egg which hatches into a chicken.
An egg comes first, because dinosaurs laid eggs, and chickens didnt exist at that time.
Simple. The Egg.
Egg. I am not trained in philosophy, but my reasoning is simple and seems solid to me. If it was not born from an egg, it would not meet the definition of chicken so it must have come from an egg. A bird that is not a chicken can still lay an egg with a chicken in it if there is a genetic abnormality in the egg being laid. Because chickens were not the first life form on earth, it conforms to our current scientific understanding that the first ever chicken to be born was a genetic abnormality. Because genetic abnormalities that survive are not substantially different from the original, it is very likely that the parent of the chicken was genetically very similar to a chicken and was an egg layer. The first chicken was a genetic abnormality born from an egg that was laid by a similar parent that was not genetically similar enough to meet the definition of ‘Chicken’.
The egg came first. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution infers genetic adaptation. This adaptation occurs when parents’ DNA is copied inaccurately throughout a species and the strongest of the adaptations survive. The male and female chickens DNA is copied during the mitosis/meiosis process and form the gametes that go on to form the blastocyte/morula/foetus in the egg – so the egg came first.
Neither
Isn’t it both? Because the chicken would have to teach the chick how to do stuff and the egg to reproduce the chickens.
The chickens most recent ancestor laid the egg. Think of it this way: along the slow and steady evolution from single celled organisms to full fledged modern chickens, at some point, if you could observe every animal in that evolutionary line, you would have to say, “well, this one’s not a chicken, but the next one is.” The line simply must be drawn somewhere. So whatever egg that the first chicken hatched from would have come first!
There is no final answer but the most reasonable conclusion is that a certain breed of dinosaur laid an egg, then a period of extremely cold weather preserved the egg. Whilst that occurred the egg genetic form was rearranged into a creature similar to the chicken. At first the animal could have been very different from the chicken we know today but over time it changed into the chicken form we are so familiar with today.
The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.
There is some disagreement about the pseudo-philosophical question “Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?” Those of us who believe that the account of creation found in the Book of Genesis is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth believe that, like everything else, chickens were created fully formed, by magic, and therefore tend to claim that the chicken must have come before the egg. Of course the Bible does not spell it out one way or the other, and for all they know, God created the chicken by causing a fertilized chicken egg to manifest first. Those of us who rely on Biblical poetry for our spiritual truth and on science for our understanding of the material world dismiss the question as childish nonsense, but if pressed will more likely claim that the egg must have “come first,” having been laid by a bird that was almost, but not exactly, a chicken itself.
It depends on how you see the question. The chicken might come first if “it was the result of years of genetic engineering by mother nature”. The egg might have come first if “it was the result of an unexpected mutation inside another animal’s (bird) egg”. None of them, if “the specie was developed in centuries of slow natural selection process”.
Let us begin our discussion with the question properly posed: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Now, this is a brain-teaser, a rhetorical form called a paradox, intended to be finally unanswerable. It is not a question about natural history for which a “correct” answer may -or may not- be discovered. Trying to answer it in real-world terms is like trying to design a runcible spoon, or to find meaning in superfragilisticexpialidocious: missing the point and not getting the joke. Still, the complacency of some of the Wikianswers on the subject cannot be allowed to pass without comment, in my opinion. It is incorrect to claim that the chicken came first on Biblical grounds. God created the chicken, along with everything else, as it says in the Bible. But of course, the Bible does not spell out any of the mechanics of God’s creation – that’s the job of science, after all – and so for all we know from the Biblical account, God created all oviparous creatures egg-first. Clever ol’ God, that’s just how He would do it.
Isn’t it both? Because the chicken would have to teach the chick how to do stuff and the egg to reproduce the chickens.
The chickens most recent ancestor laid the egg. Think of it this way: along the slow and steady evolution from single celled organisms to full fledged modern chickens, at some point, if you could observe every animal in that evolutionary line, you would have to say, “well, this one’s not a chicken, but the next one is.” The line simply must be drawn somewhere. So whatever egg that the first chicken hatched from would have come first!
There is no final answer but the most reasonable conclusion is that a certain breed of dinosaur laid an egg, then a period of extremely cold weather preserved the egg. Whilst that occurred the egg genetic form was rearranged into a creature similar to the chicken. At first the animal could have been very different from the chicken we know today but over time it changed into the chicken form we are so familiar with today.
Neither the chicken, nor the egg came first. It was the rooster that came first.
The egg and the chicken came at the same time. The chicken and the egg are just two different names for the same process or being. It’s like water on its way to becoming ice is still water, and vice versa.
Darwin’s theory; the chicken egg came from a different species.
There is no answer. Since the question is a paradox, there is no answer. If the chicken came first, it came from the egg. If the egg came first, then it came from a chicken, and so forth.
Evolution suggests that both chickens and eggs evolved from creatures and “egg-things” you would not recognize to be part of the lineage. (Similar to how, in the very distant past, some molecule[s] that was [were] not what we would call “life” became “life”.) That was the beginning.
There is no correct answer that can be proven. It’s all theory.
This question has been debated about so many times but no-one really knows. It is undecided.
I think its both because the chicken wouldn’t have been born without a female parent and the female parent would most likely came first in an egg also given birth by the mother.
Additional information:
Without some very serious scientific intervention an egg cannot be produced independently of its parent’s body, whether that parent is a chicken, a lizard, or a spider.
So the chicken had to be there first, for the egg to form. Scientific researchers at the University of Sheffield in England published a report – see link below – in July 2010 confirming this, although their research is more concerned with shells in general: eggs were produced by the earliest egg-producing creatures millennia before chickens evolved.
The scientists involved in this research weren’t interested in solving unsolvable riddles, but in discovering more about how shells are formed.
The question of whether the chicken or the egg came first can never be answered: it is unanswerable. One can work out which came first, the wheel or the wheeled vehicle, because one caused the invention of the other, but when we look at life-forms we cannot say with any degree of authority whether the grass seed came before the blade of grass, or whether the bird came before the egg, because life simply doesn’t work in terms of traceable inventions.
Today we can taste a delicious new strain of tomato and know the seed that produced that improved tomato was developed from tomato plants considered to be less delicious: this new seed came first, before this new tomato. But it came after the other, less delicious, tomato, and that tomato’s seeds came before it, and so on…
Note: There are comments associated with this question. See the discussion page to add to the conversation.
Mitt Romney “The Millionaire” now has a Running Mate, Paul Ryan “The Extremist”.
It doesn’t matter if Ryan is an Extremist or not, the entire media and all Democrats are calling him one. This is a form of Brainwashing. All the American People will hear from now to the Election are the word Extremist, whenever Ryan’s name is used.
He has already been defined. Designed to Fail!
In today’s economic climate, “The Millionaire” (also already defined/designed to fail) was the guaranteed loser. But just so there would be no doubt, they tied “The Millionaire” to “The Extremist”.
A Millionaire and a Extremist versus President Obama. No Contest. The Media will and are hyping it like some sort of Contest, but it’s not.
Add to that, “The Millionaires” recent stance; Romney Defends Decision Not To Release More Tax Returns, Says He’s ‘Not A Business’ (Huff Post 8/11). That should go over real good with the public.
But it doesn’t matter and he knows it. He was never chosen to be President. He’s just a “Fill-In” to make the people think they have a chose. They don’t. The chose was made for them a long time ago. This is all part of the illusion sleeping American’s are still living under.
And American’s are very asleep. We are so asleep, we can’t count our own votes, so President Obama made a government deal to have a company in Spain count the majority of all U.S. Votes through a company called S.C.Y.T.L. It was never all over the news. In fact it was highly censored to this day in all Media.
Can’t have American’s knowing that all their votes are going over seas to be counted because they are to stupid to count their own votes.
You can’t have American’s knowing that their Democracy has been “Outsourced” to a foreign Country and their votes are being counted by a Multi-National Corporation with strong Banking Ties. That just won’t do.
In a Deal arranged by the current President. This is so silly, it’s absurd.
That’s like you or I picking and paying the people to count votes to see if I am elected again. This is what is known as “Governmental Vote Fraud”. System wide government vote Fraud!
So President Obama was never in any danger of not being re-elected. Never!
This show is just to keep the workings hidden and none questioning the outcome.
Today, the True Rulers Of This World, just gave their Blessings to President Obama and just Doomed the Romney Campaign to Utter Destruction and Failure.
Who would question the defeat of a Millionaire and a Extremist for President and Vice President of the U.S.
Nobody. And that’s the blatantly obvious plan!
They think we are so stupid, they have to spell it out big and loud, or it would pass right by most American’s.
And the fact that Ryan is young and inexperienced will remind people of Palin, whom by the way, you don’t hear as much about these days.
Romney, Ryan Appear Together As Running Mates – Huff Post
NORFOLK, Va. — Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney is appearing alongside his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.
Romney says Ryan is a man of what he calls “great steadiness” and “unquestioned integrity.” The former Massachusetts governor says Ryan is a “shining exception” in a political world of pettiness.
The two appeared together for the first time as the Republican presidential ticket on Saturday morning in Virginia. They faced supporters while standing on the USS Wisconsin, a retired World War II battleship.
Just hours after his campaign confirmed Ryan as his selection, Romney says Ryan won’t demonize his opponents. Romney says that Democrats may disagree with Ryan’s policies, but he doesn’t know anyone who doesn’t respect his character and judgment.
Mitt Romney “The Millionaire” now has a Running Mate, Paul Ryan “The Extremist”.
It doesn’t matter if Ryan is an Extremist or not, the entire media and all Democrats are calling him one. This is a form of Brainwashing. All the American People will hear from now to the Election are the word Extremist, whenever Ryan’s name is used.
He has already been defined. Designed to Fail!
In today’s economic climate, “The Millionaire” (also already defined/designed to fail) was the guaranteed loser. But just so there would be no doubt, they tied “The Millionaire” to “The Extremist”.
A Millionaire and a Extremist versus President Obama. No Contest. The Media will and are hyping it like some sort of Contest, but it’s not.
Add to that, “The Millionaires” recent stance; Romney Defends Decision Not To Release More Tax Returns, Says He’s ‘Not A Business’ (Huff Post 8/11). That should go over real good with the public.
But it doesn’t matter and he knows it. He was never chosen to be President. He’s just a “Fill-In” to make the people think they have a chose. They don’t. The chose was made for them a long time ago. This is all part of the illusion sleeping American’s are still living under.
And American’s are very asleep. We are so asleep, we can’t count our own votes, so President Obama made a government deal to have a company in Spain count the majority of all U.S. Votes through a company called S.C.Y.T.L. It was never all over the news. In fact it was highly censored to this day in all Media.
Can’t have American’s knowing that all their votes are going over seas to be counted because they are to stupid to count their own votes.
You can’t have American’s knowing that their Democracy has been “Outsourced” to a foreign Country and their votes are being counted by a Multi-National Corporation with strong Banking Ties. That just won’t do.
In a Deal arranged by the current President. This is so silly, it’s absurd.
That’s like you or I picking and paying the people to count votes to see if I am elected again. This is what is known as “Governmental Vote Fraud”. System wide government vote Fraud!
So President Obama was never in any danger of not being re-elected. Never!
This show is just to keep the workings hidden and none questioning the outcome. Today, the True Rulers Of This World, just gave their Blessings to President Obama and just Doomed the Romney Campaign to Utter Destruction and Failure.
Who would question the defeat of a Millionaire and a Extremist for President and Vice President of the U.S.
Nobody. And that’s the blatantly obvious plan!
They think we are so stupid, they have to spell it out big and loud, or it would pass right by most American’s.
And the fact that Ryan is young and inexperienced will remind people of Palin, whom by the way, you don’t hear as much about these days.
Romney, Ryan Appear Together As Running Mates – Huff Post
NORFOLK, Va. — Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney is appearing alongside his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.
Romney says Ryan is a man of what he calls “great steadiness” and “unquestioned integrity.” The former Massachusetts governor says Ryan is a “shining exception” in a political world of pettiness.
The two appeared together for the first time as the Republican presidential ticket on Saturday morning in Virginia. They faced supporters while standing on the USS Wisconsin, a retired World War II battleship.
Just hours after his campaign confirmed Ryan as his selection, Romney says Ryan won’t demonize his opponents. Romney says that Democrats may disagree with Ryan’s policies, but he doesn’t know anyone who doesn’t respect his character and judgment.
Voting For Obama Because he is Black????by Nana Baakan Agyiriwah on Sunday, March 18, 2012 at 10:58pm
I find it quite troubling that after the many declarations of skills, talents, ability, wisdom, knowledge and understanding herald by African peoples past and present world wide for millions of years on this planet, that we, having only been under the USA/European Slavery system for some four+ hundred years, have devolved to the point of choosing a leader because he is black, and there ain’t nobody else out there. What has this whole nation become? A nation of take the lesser of two evils?? Why do we have to choose evil at all??
The President of the United States is not only representing African people, but supposedly he is a world representative and in some perceptions, the representative of the greatest country in the world, a world leader, et al, and we vote for him simply because he is black, or we feel we are taboo to express our concerns over the policies of this man in black skin.
How is it that on his watch the US has engaged in 3 war campaigns, drone attacks on other sovereign countries and what we saw without regard in Libya, sending troops deep into Africa, and now this Kony thing? These are military operations and we all know what military operations look like. Why is there no challenge to this, or, if folks are so happy about the Health Care legislation, much of those dollars that are spent on war could certainly be spent here in the US, and build infrastructure and develop genuine green energy.
Why is it okay, to look the other way, and say, well, he is black and he is all we have and we have been fighting for our seat at the table for 4 hundred years, instead of looking at the table, see what is being served, check out the room the table is in, then look outside at the neighborhood? Have we become so desperate for leadership, that we will take anything that is thrown at us? Why are people ignoring the aides, backers and financial supporter of Pres. Barack Obama? Why are they stepping over this elephant in the room so they can claim they lived during the time when a Black man was President of the United States.
There have been many African Presidents, Rulers, kings and monarchs, does that mean that they too were above reproach, and therefore their misdeeds could be overlooked, and no one is ever called to task? Is that what happened to the many African nations that have dropped the ball on their developments because the people did not, would not see beyond the corruption?
Again, it is quite troubling to me, that the reason folks are voting for Obama again is because he is black, or, on the other side of the aisle he is being mis-treated by them white folks who don’t want to see no black folks get anywhere. Folks we need to wake up. The fact that he is still in office proves that the “Important White Folks who run this country” want him there. The media talking heads are all on board the good ship lollipop because they are being told and paid to do so. As soon as the tied changes, they too will change and pull out all the dirt and grime they can.
Bottom-line, it is flimsy to support any person in such a high position because of their ethnicity. Since these people will be on the front lines for all folks in this country, they need to have top notch skills to maintain that position on the front lines. They need to know what is going on domestically and globally as it relates to economic, politics, world affairs cultures, religions, societal norms, manners, and etiquette, along with a strong sense of the seriousness of their position as it relates to world peace and maintaining a peaceful environment at the home base. They need to be scholars in all the fields that are needed to govern a whole nation properly. This may sound like a tall task but if they are at least familiar with the nuts and bolts of this kind of leadership, they will call around them folks to advise them that are highly eligible to advise a President. In this way, when they receive advise that is non-supportive of the original agenda, then they can make a determination and have the person step down from the position of adviser.
The President should be keenly aware that the decisions he makes will reflect back on him and not on the advisers behind him. So they should be chosen appropriately. This will probably sound rather idealistic and probably unrealistic, but my point is that we need to get there in our own discernment, before we take this ship down to hell!! Waving an American flag with Obama’s face on it!!!!! What does that mean???
decacsinc 
Recent Comments