Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Media Fog of War Ensues in Wake of Boston Marathon Bombing

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
April 16, 2013

Yesterday, shortly after the Boston Bombing, I wrote an article entitled, “Early Evidence Indicates Boston Bombing Was A False Flag,” where I acknowledged that the facts were still emerging in regards to exactly what happened on April 15 in Boston Massachusetts. Although I did my best to present the relevant information as it was unfolding, a portion of that material appears to have been muddled in the confusion and fog of information surrounding the immediate aftermath of such an event.

Shortly after the article was posted, some of the questions resulting from the reports I cited (particularly that regarding the Boston Globe tweets and the announcement of “controlled explosions”) were answered.
image source

Considering the track record of government-sponsored false flag attacks, however, the incident has seemed suspicious from the very beginning. This suspicion has been bolstered by the fact that mainstream media pundits are uniting in their promotion of the theory that the Boston Bombing was, in fact, the handiwork of “rightwing extremists” and “anti-tax people.” With the obvious and increasing trend toward a total police state, it is also a suspicious that one result of the attack would be the de facto military occupation of Boston by the Massachusetts National Guard.

Regardless, however, some information which was reported in the fog of the aftermath of the bombings by a variety of alternative media outlets, including myself, such as the existence of a planned “controlled explosion.” After further examination, it has been determined not to be of the significance that it was originally thought.

Truth on the Tracks with Brandon Turbeville - Ep 22

Truth on the Tracks with Brandon Turbeville discussing SC Mayoral elections, SC US House elections, Katerina Jeleva's court victory, DNA databases, Freemasonry, and the nature of the mysterious booms heard all over the world. Truth on the Tracks airs on UCY.TV every Monday night at 9:00 PM EST at http://UCY.TV/TT.

More info:




Thursday, April 11, 2013

After 20 Years, Codex Alimentarius Draft Statement Still No Closer To Allowing GM Food Labeling

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
April 11, 2013

image source
Over the past few years, I have written extensively on the subject of Codex Alimentarius, particularly on the organization’s guidelines related to Genetically Modified (GM) food. Although I have largely focused on the inferior methodology used by Codex to evaluate the safety of GMOs, much of the safety discussion has been delegated to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL), which, up until this point, has tended to focus more on promoting the unscientific claims of GM safety and the proliferation of GM Food as a whole than on actual labeling.

Indeed, the debate over GM food labeling is one that has been raging since 1993, when the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) decided to take up the issue. Only in 2011 did Codex come to some sort of decision in this regard, even though that decision has taken the form of a very vague and open-ended declaration which is still only in its draft stage.

When the CAC decided to examine the issue of GM food labeling, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) was designated as the Codex body to take up the challenge. For close to eighteen years, that body has held continual meetings to no avail (in terms of the labeling issue) as many anti-GMO nations have supported labeling, while the pro-GMO psychosis of nations like the United States and Canada have typically ruled the day due to their active opposition to any and all forms of labeling.

However, in July 2011, the Codex Alimentarius Commission created a “draft proposal of Codex texts” which some have interpreted as allowing for the labeling of GMO food by individual nations. Of course, it is extremely important to note that this decision clearly does not provide for the mandatory labeling of GM food, nor does it make any requirements toward that end.

The new CAC guideline merely implies that a decision may be forthcoming which could possibly, according to Codex Alimentarius and the World Trade Organization (WTO), declare that the labeling of GM Food cannot be considered as an unfair trade practice or unfair barrier to trade. Still, this possibility should only be recognized as just that – a possibility – at this point.

Read More