Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Jeffrey Epstein case information is critically important for citizens to examine for understanding the human trafficking markets and how victims are procured into this widespread and concealed market. I have typed up relevant excerpts from TrafficKing by Conchita Sarnoff (The Executive Director of Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking) as well as additional information and links that help to provide a more comprehensive picture of this widespread market impacting many communities around the world. Massive privatization and predatory loaning provides the fuel for child sex slave trafficking markets both within the United States and internationally. It is happening in the US and citizens need to understand it. I hope you will take the time to read the following information so you have a comprehensive understanding of how the ruling class and their political puppets are getting away with far more than robbery.
“TrafficKing.”
Jeffrey Epstein Level 3-sex offender. Epstein was not prosecuted under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), enacted in Florida in 2000. TVPA aims to protect victims and prosecute human traffickers by imposing a minimum mandatory sentence of 20 years in a federal prison…. In the end, Epstein served only 13 months in the Palm Beach county jail and was allowed to leave his private cell on an all day work release program. Following his release from Palm Beach county jail, he served 18 months house arrest in his Palm Beach estate. During that time period, he allegedly committed 11 parole violations according to Brad Edwards, a South Florida Victims Rights attorney representing several victims….
Epstein’s building, at East 66th Street in Manhattan managed by his younger brother, Mark Epstein, is the apartment complex on Second Avenue known to house some of the girls. The building presumably continues to provide a few accommodations for several foreign-born models that allegedly work for MC2. MC2 has offices in Tel Aviv, Miami, and a satellite office in New York. (page 38)
“Kellen used one of those cameras to take pictures of some girls. One nude was “Nadia Marcinkova, alias Nadia Marcinkov, Epstein’s underage girlfriend from Yugoslavia at that time… page 130
In fact, Nadia Marcinkova was allegedly 14 years old, in 2005, when Epstein brought her to the U.S. from Eastern Europe to live with him in Palm Beach. It is still a mystery how Epstein met the 14 year old and convinced her parents to allow their daughter to move with him to the United States. page 134
Another question that troubled me concerned Marcinkova. If indeed she was more a victim than a procurer, given her age at the time she met Epstein, and Epstein’s 14 year-old ‘girlfriend’ when the alleged crimes were committed, why was her visa status not investigated? Why did the United States Attorney’s Office abstain from moving forward with an investigation into the Marcinkova’s case? page 174
Re the two paragraphs following your paragraph 8: I will mention “co conspirators,” but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not have the power to bind Immigration and we make it a policy not to try to, however, I can tell you that, as far as I know, there is no plan to try to proceed on any immigration charges against either Ms. Ross (Adrianna Ross) or Ms. Marcinkova (Nadia Marcinkova). (e-mail sent from Ann Marie Villafana, former Assistant U.S. Attorney during the criminal investigation, to one of Epstein’s lawyers, Jay Lefkowitz. Strangely, Villafana sent the note using her personal e-mail account rather than the official DOJ account) page 175
“The Epstein-Brunel association apparently found the way to source and transport underage girls legally by employing them under false pretenses as models hired to work at MC2. This model corroborated the testimony given by a number of the victims in their depositions, that Epstein promised some of the underage girls modeling jobs at MC2 and Victoria’s Secret. It is also true, however, that some girls brought into the U.S. by MC2 are in fact working models. The question is: what percentage of those girls brought into the U.S. actually earn a living as MC2 models?” – page 35
“Documents filed during the lawsuit exposed that, “MC2 employees told the attorney, Brad Edwards, who at the time was representing several victims, that Epstein’s Manhattan condominium at 301 East 66th Street was used to house the young models.”
The Complaint also made public that, “MC2 brought underage girls from all over the world, promising them modeling contracts. Epstein and Brunel would obtain a visa for the girls and would charge the underage girls rent.”
“Brunel admitted he, “Evaded depositions by Brad Edwards on behalf of several of Epstein’s victims and that his “Evasion was due to Epstein’s instructions.” In paragraph 33, Brunel disclosed that Epstein insisted he “leave Palm Beach in anticipation of a deposition linked to Epstein’s criminal case.” – page 36
“Two former underage survivors who don’t wish to be identified came forward in 2009 and 2010. The girls corroborated the information revealed in the Brunel Complaint and went a step further. They said that Epstein lured some victims by baiting them with potential modeling contracts if they “massaged” him. They mentioned MC2 and Victoria’s Secret. Victoria’s Secret is a lingerie chain owned by Epstein’s friend, Leslie Wexner.” – page 37
“And as Epstein first faced federal prosecution a few years later, one of his lawyers, Gerald B. Lefcourt, wrote to prosecutors to tout Epstein’s pedigree as “part of the original group that conceived of the Clinton Global Initiative,” according to a letter attached to Wednesday’s court filing…
On the day the deal was signed, an attorney for Epstein sent an e-mail to the federal prosecutor handling the case which read, “Please do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public,” according o an email exchange attached to Wednesday’s filing.” – page 182 Several years went by before I ran into Maxwell again. It was 2007, while attending the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York City. CGI, as it is commonly known, is a mammoth quasi-political/public relations fund-raising conference created by former President Clinton. According to a well-known global events executive who wishes to remain anonymous, the former president modeled CGI after Professor Klaus Schwab’s, World Economic Forum.
The World Economic Forum (WEF), which began in 1971, is the foremost global public policy conference in the world. It is held annually in Devos, Switzerland. A perennial high-octane platform for debate, it is committed to improving our world by catering to King’s, heads of state, world leaders, and CEO’s of multi-billion dollar corporations who influence our planet.
The source revealed that the Clinton Global Initiative was originally funded by a generous gift from Epstein for a sum of four million dollars. I have been unable to verify or refute the amount of this claim since the organization’s accounting records do not disclose the information and Clinton did not return my call. However, one media report claims that Epstein’s lawyer, Gerald Leftcourt confirmed in a media report that his client was among the founders of CGI. – page 88 TrafficKing
“Many are lured by promises of finding work in the West as waitresses or nannies. (And models) Once isolated from their families, the sex traffickers take their passports and sell the women to pimps for between $500 and $1,500. At some venues, like the nightclubs in Brcko, near the Bosnia-Serbia border, women are auctioned like cattle to brothel owners. The area is known locally as the “Arizona market” in recognition of American influence. It was established as a zone of separation following the partition of the republic into two entities and is policed by NATO troops. The US provided finance to establish it as a free trade zone and it has long been a centre for trade in illicit goods.”
Tel Aviv has been an important hub in sex slavery for a very long time. Recall that MC2, the modeling agency that procured young girls for Epstein has an office in Tel Aviv?
“After World War II and with the creation of the State of Israel, new immigrants, who were occasionally forced to prostitute themselves in order to survive, fueled Israel’s sex trade. As in countries all over the world, Israeli sex buyers readily exploited economically and socially disadvantaged populations. Yet, as Israel developed into a wealthy nation, it became economically viable to sustain a sex trafficking industry, and international organized crime quickly recognized a financial opportunity.
By the 1990’s Israel was established as a destination country for trafficking, and international sex trafficking victims had replaced the local market. Israel’s flesh trade was booming and making between half a billion to three quarters of a billion dollars a year. It was a particularly desirable market for traffickers because the purchase of sexual services was, and still is, legal in Israel. This protects traffickers because it makes it difficult to prosecute them and to identify their victims. Throughout the 1990’s traffickers acted with impunity….”
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
“The sex industry in Israel has since grown into a US$450 million a year industry, which is dependent on trafficked women from Eastern Europe. Professor Menachem Amir of Hebrew University, an expert on organized crime in Israel, estimates that 70 percent of the women in prostitution in Tel Aviv are from the former Soviet republics.28 Moreover, according to Israel’s report to CEDAW (Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) Report, more than 95 percent of the women deported from Israel for illegal prostitution are repatriated to the former Soviet Union…. The women are enslaved and get to keep little, if any, of the money….
In Israel, a Russian or Ukrainian woman earns the pimp who controls her between US$50,000 and $100,000 per year. The women are enslaved and get to keep little, if any, of the money… Women are held in debt bondage in which they must repay their purchase price, travel expenses and all other expenses charged to them, which can be considerable, before they are allowed to leave. woman may be sold from one pimp to another at which time her debt to be repaid starts all over again.”
FRONTLINE follows Viorel on an extraordinary journey deep into the world of sex trafficking to try to find his wife, Katia, who was four months’ pregnant when she left home, and then free her from the violent pimp who now “owns” her. Along the way, the production team takes a rare, hidden-camera look at the various traffickers, pimps and middlemen who illegally buy and sell hundreds of thousands of women each year. Lured by traffickers who prey on their dreams of employment abroad, many of the women are then kidnapped and “exported” to Europe, the Middle East, the United States and elsewhere. During this process, they may be sold to pimps, locked in brothels, drugged, terrorized and raped repeatedly. In Eastern Europe, since the fall of communism, sex trafficking has become the fastest growing form of organized crime, with Moldova and Ukraine widely seen as major suppliers of women into the global sex trade.”
Many women and children are trafficked into janitorial service markets here in the states.
LOWELL BERGMAN:
Oksana traveled from her hometown in Ukraine to Philadelphia, where she met her new boss.
OKSANA:
When I came to the house, he came out. And first thing for welcome to America was, “About time you arrive, bitch.”
LOWELL BERGMAN:
On arrival, Oksana learned that her boss beat and sexually assaulted her fellow janitors. One was her sister-in-law.
OKSANA:
She got beat up, dragged down the stairs by her hair, got raped. That night, I did not sleep because I’m, like, “Well, I don’t know if there’s anybody else who’s coming. And what if he’s going to give me a welcome present, too, like she’d gotten one?” So I was terrified.
LOWELL BERGMAN:
Fear kept Oksana and others cleaning Targets, Walmarts and other big box stores throughout the Northeast for a gang of Ukrainian brothers led by their boss, Omelyan Botsvynyuk.
NED CONWAY, Special Agent, FBI:
The Botsvynyuk brothers were supplying laborers to, generally, subcontractors of companies that were cleaning stores. And if you did go in that store in the middle of the night, you might see a cleaning crew cleaning the floors, cleaning the bathrooms. That’s the type of work that the victims in this case were doing seven nights a week, every day of the year.
LOWELL BERGMAN:
FBI special agent Ned Conway spent years investigating the case.
NED CONWAY:
Unlike smuggling, where the debt is paid off once that person is smuggled in — you pay your fee to the service provider, if you will — traffickers force the individuals, the victims, to work off that debt, and that debt is never paid off and it essentially becomes slavery.
LOWELL BERGMAN:
[on camera] And the sexual assault on the women, that’s a form of coercion?
NED CONWAY:
Rape is a crime of violence. It’s about controlling. It’s making sure that those women understand that the Botsvynyuk brothers are in charge. It’s keeping every one of those workers in constant fear so that they stay there working every day.
LOWELL BERGMAN:
[voice-over] Four of the five Botsvynyuk brothers were charged and convicted. Omelyan, the ringleader and rapist, received a life sentence.
And Oksana? She escaped with the help of a Target employee…”
The story of Jane Doe #102 in the Jeffrey Epstein case is very important because she was a victim turned procurer for Jeffrey Epstein. Her deposition helped corroborate the testimonies of many of the underage victims and provide understanding about how young children are procured in child sex trafficking operations. She decided to disclose her identity after Ghislaine Maxwell launched a character assassination campaign against her. Virginia Louise Roberts is Jane Doe #102 in the court records and she sued both Ghislaine Maxwell and Prince Andrew. Both lawsuits were settled. Here’s Virginia’s deposition and some background into Ghislaine Maxwell and her family businesses.
Excerpts from TrafficKing.
In the summer of 1998, before her fifteenth birthday, Virginia Louise Roberts was working as a bathroom attendant at Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. Trump publicly admitted that Epstein’s membership to Mar-A-Largo was revoked after his arrest. Born August 9, 1983, Roberts was earning $9 an hour, the day she met Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein. Her father, Sky Williams Roberts, a maintenance manager at Trump’s property, helped his daughter secure the job.
The fourteen-year old Roberts was working part-time when Maxwell made the proposition…
While reading a book about anatomy, Ghislaine Maxwell, met me at the spa, not having an education of anything behind me, I thought this was a great opportunity to work for her.. to make some extra money and learn about massage. So, I went to Jeffrey’s mansion about five or six that afternoon.
My dad drove me there. My dad worked at Mar-A-Lago with me and he met Ghislaine (the same afternoon) and she seemed (to him) like such a nice and proper English lady, and I mean, you know… She just seemed really nice and like someone who would like to help me out. So my dad dropped me off and I had no problem getting home that night. One of her drivers would take me back after my trial…
Not afraid or fearful for my life but unsure of how all this started and wanting to obtain a profession, I was so afraid of upsetting and disappointing them, I don’t know, it was a weird situation… and I was expected to lick his nipples and give him oral sex while he fondled me and then at the end I was told by Ghislaine to get on top and straddle Jeffrey sexually.
When we were done, we all went and had a shower in the bathroom and Jeffrey told me to wash him up and down, you know with a bar of soap and make sure he was all cleaned up. And then he took me downstairs to meet two of his guards and told John to bring me home. John Alessi was the butler at the time…. – page 55
They both gave us instructions and it wasn’t just me, Jeffrey asked most girls to bring a friend to make extra money. They would use us young girls so that way it probably looked a lot safer to a girl that we were procuring younger girls that were already doing it. That was the way Jeffrey did it. Jeffrey and Ghislaine both taught me how to, depending on the circumstances, depending on the girl, how to procure a girl. You could offer them a job as a massage therapist or you could tell them you have a really rich friend with great contacts in the acting world or modeling world and he loves pretty girls, you should come back and meet him, make some money… We had a whole bunch of ways we were able to procure girls. There could have been a hundred girls, there could be more, honestly. I’m not sure how many girls, really. I wish I did know. Like I said there were so many girls over the course of 4 years, between 1998-2002, with Jeffrey… I would say definitely more than one hundred…
Jeffrey loved the latex outfits Ghislaine had for us girls. He had bondage outfits, he had all different kinds of outfits, but his favorite was the schoolgirl. Ghislaine would dress me up to surprise Jeffrey or Jeffrey would ask me to get dressed up. … Jeffrey would tell me to go give an erotic massage to (his) friends, he wouldn’t give me details, but he would say “treat them like you treat me.” So I would do what he wanted without having him say anything…. – page 61
There were about eight guys perhaps whom Virginia provided massages. Jeffrey always paid for those services, according to the telephone transcription. When asked to name the eight men, Virginia grew scared and refused to identify them.
“No, not at this stage, I just—some of these people are really influential and powerful and I don’t want to start another shit-storm with a few of them. I’ll tell you there were some erotic massages given to… I’m just afraid to say it to you. I’m really scared of where this is going.”
Scarola quickly changed the subject detecting Virginia’s distress and asked her about her travels with Epstein… – page 62
“The worst story I heard directly from his own mouth as about these pretty 12 year-old girls he had flown in, transported to Palm Beach by somebody else, for his birthday. It was a surprise birthday gift from one of his friends. They were from France. I did see them. I did meet them. Jeffrey bragged after he met them that they were 12 years-old and flown over from France because they are really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever. That was the worst. He was constantly bragging about the girls’ ages or where he got them from or about their past and how terrible their past was and how good he is making it for them.”
Scarola circled back and asked Virginia more questions about what took place on Epstein’s jet…
“I remember asking Jeffrey what’s Bill Clinton doing here. He laughed and said, ‘Well he owes me a favor.’ He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They’re all in each other’s pockets…”
“Virginia,” Scarola asked, when asked Epstein why is Bill Clinton here, where was here?” Virginia replied, “On the island.” Besides living in Palm Beach, Epstein owns a private island, Little St. John’s in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). “When you were present with Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?” Scarola asked
“Ghislaine, Emmy (Taylor), and there were two young girls that I could identify. I never knew them well anyways. It was just 2 girls from New York.” Scarola asked, “And were all of you staying at Jeffrey’s house on the island including Bill Clinton?”
“That’s correct,” said Virginia. “Jeffrey’s house has about 4 or 5 different villas on the island separate from the main house and we all stayed in the villas.”… Scarola continued, “Were sexual orgies a regular occurrence on the island at Jeffrey’s house?”
“Yes,” responded Virginia. – portions from page 67 & 68
I walked away from it all… it hadn’t really ended… Jeffrey sent me to Thailand where I met my husband and escaped to Australia, never to return to the States. Six months prior to that, he came up with a proposition that I thought was really disgustingly sick. And it really showed me for the first time in four years, I had been with him, that nothing was going to change and that I was always just going to be used by him.
He offered me a mansion and some of his money every month. I forget what he called it. a monthly income, in order to bear his child.
The proposition was to have a child with him but sign my child over to him. Basically, the child would be his and Ghislaine’s and I would be looking after it as long as nothing happened between Jeffrey and me. So, I was kind of freaked out by all of that.
I was 19 (by then) and he likes females a lot younger, so I pushed Jeffrey to get me some more training since I was getting older and no longer of much interest to him. He sent me to Thailand in September 2002, where I was supposed to meet a girl and bring her back for him, but I never met up with her. Instead, I got a short course in Thai massage. Sending me there was his way of shutting me up about my training… so I went….
I called Jeffrey and told him I’m never coming back, I’m married. I’ve fallen in love. I thought he’d wish the best for me. He was rude and said, “Have a good life,” and hung up the phone. That was the last time I talked to him-ever- until all this started again. – page 52
Virginia’s telephone testimony substantiated many facts previously included in her earlier testimonies given under the alias Jane Doe No. 102. Her earlier Complaint described in detail how Maxwell apparently recruited underage girls turning the victims of sex trafficking into both procurers. – page 72
Scarola continued, “If we were to take sworn testimony from the people I am going to name, and if those people were to tell the truth about what they knew, do you believe that any of the following people would have relevant information about Jeffrey’s taking advantage of underage girls?”
“Yes,” confirmed Virginia
“So, I’ll just name a name, and you tell me ‘yes’ if they told the truth, I think they have relevant information of ‘no,’ I don’t think they would, or ‘I don’t know whether they would or not,’ Ok? You understand?”
“Yes,” responded Virginia
Scarola: Ok, Les Wexner?
Roberts: I think he has relevant information, but I don’t think he will tell you the truth.
Scarola: What about Alan Dershowitz?
Roberts: Yes…..
Scarola: Prince Andrew?
Roberts: Yes, he would know a lot of the truth. Again, I don’t know how much he would be able to help you, but seeing he’s in a lot of trouble himself these days, I think he might, so I think he may be valuable. – page 70
(Virginia Louise Roberts has since sued Prince Andrew. “Prince Andrew spared trial as underage ‘sex slave’ settles out of court.”
Virginia Louise Roberts was the underage ‘sex slave’ he settled out of court with. *Take note that this link is now no longer functional.)
Information regarding Ghislaine Maxwell and her family business activities and associations from “TrafficKing.”
Her professional activities are far narrower than her social life. Publicity for her foundation, The Terra Mar Project, started in 2012. According to one article, The Terra Mar Project was blessed if not partially funded by the Clintons since according to a Vanity Fair report, Maxwell “is passionate about Bill Clinton, with whom she is close friends.” – page 91
A few media reports attributed the elder Maxwell’s death to the Mossad while others maintained he was besieged by debt and consequently ended his life. During my investigation, a former Mossad agent, who wishes to be anonymous, suggested the Mossad killed Maxwell… – page 8
… less than one month after Maxwell’s death, the Serious Fraud Office in England began an investigation into Ian and Kevin Maxwell’s participation in Maxwell’s companies.
As a result of the investigation, both sons, Kevin and Ian, were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit fraud; allegedly misusing pension funds; the use of pension funds to finance the Maxwell Group of companies; and use of fraud by the Maxwell’s to extend bank credits.
In 1996, after an eight months trial, Kevin and Ian Maxwell were acquitted on charges of fraud. Three financial institutions: Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Coopers & Lybrand, interceded on their behalf in an effort to rescue them and their partner, the American financial advisor, Larry Trachtenberg.
Trachtenberg, 38 at the time of the indictment, “was a former compliance officer at London & Bishopsgate, the pension fund managing company at the center of the 400 million pound sterling black hole in Maxwell’s Mirror Group pension assets.”
The Los Angeles Times reported that, “Kevin Maxwell and Trachtenberg were charged with defrauding Swiss Bank Corp of $101 million by selling stock they did not own and stealing $13 million worth of stock belonging to Mirror Group Pension Trustees Ltd., one of Robert Maxwell’s company pension stocks.”
When Ian, Ghislaine’s older brother, “was charged with defrauding Swiss Volks Bank of $35.5 million by misrepresenting ownership of stock in Berlitz International after his father’s death, according to the fraud office documents,” Trachtenberg and Kevin were also charged with the same crime.
Ghislaine may not have been privy to her father’s business activities, although that was never proven. With the exception of Maxwell, no one will ever know with any certainty the professional relationship that existed between Ghislaine and her father. Except that Maxwell’s media empire was considerably overextended by the time he attempted to take over The New York Daily News and MacMillan Publishers where Ghislaine was to begin her apprenticeship.
Had the deal materialized, it was reported that Maxwell would have moved to a position of power. One can assume that if that was going to be her role, then during the negotiations, Ghislaine might have also been privy to some of the financial details of the deal.
What is known is that, “at the time of her father’s death, auditors discovered that about $670 million was missing from the Maxwell companies’ pension funds. All but some $50 million were recovered, mostly through settlements among the funds and Maxwell companies, their auditors and financial advisers, including Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Coopers & Lebrun, “the very same financial institutions that later came to the brother’s rescue.” – page 81
Unlike her father, Ghislaine was known as a “fixer.” She has to this day an impressive list of friends from around the globe including presidents, heads of state, and a bouquet of British aristocrats. For years, she was known as the go between former President Clinton and Epstein. – page 8
As it stands, Maxwell, 54, must comply with Judge Sweet’s order instructing her to disclose “documents and records of conversations (emails) she had with Epstein and others related to the sex trafficking operation between 1999 and 2016,” if Roberts Guiffre is specific in her pretrial discovery questions and identifies the individuals who communicated with Maxwell about the alleged sex trafficking of girls.
As of April 11, 2016 the case is pending and Maxwell has yet to be deposed.
– page 266
(“Virginia Roberts, the woman who claims she was an underage sex slave for perverted financier Jeffrey Epstein, has settled her lawsuit against the woman she claims recruited her, Ghislaine Maxwell.”)
The extent of Jeffrey’s crimes is well documented in TrafficKing and his background is important.
Irrespective of his formal education, Epstein was good with numbers and found work teaching calculus and piano at the Dalton School in Manhattan. Dalton is a private, co-educational day school on the Upper East Side between Park and Madison Avenues at 96th Street. His tenure there was short lived.
Thanks to the tutorial sessions he gave after school, his life took a sharp turn, more about that later. By the late nineteen eighties and throughout the nineties, Epstein turned into a jet setting financial advisor to Leslie H. Wexner. Wexner, founder and CEO of The Limited, recently re-named L Brands, became his longtime client and close friend. – page 2
On the same day, September 24, 2009, L.M. another victim, revealed in her deposition, “The way in which Epstein abused her beginning when she was 13 years old. According to L.M. Epstein touched her vagina with his fingers and vibrator.” She “was personally molested by Epstein more than 50 times and was paid $200 per underage girl she brought Epstein. She brought him more than seventy (70) underage girls.” L.M. told Epstein, “She did not want to bring him any more girls and he insisted she continue to bring him underage girls.”
A victim identified as E.W. was deposed May 6, 2010, E.W. explained that, “Beginning at age 14, Epstein paid me for touching my vagina. He inserted his fingers and used a vibrator. He also paid me $200 for each other underage female I brought him to molest.” E.W. claims she brought him between twenty (20) to thirty (30) underage females.” – page 44
In light of the number of testimonies, Brad Edwards determined that, “Epstein was able to access a large number of underage girls through a pyramid scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for every underage victim brought to him.” – 45
A Complaint filed on April 14, 2010 stated, “There is overwhelming proof that the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds.” During his depositions taken to assess the accuracy of the claims, Epstein “Invoked the Fifth Amendment on questions about his daily abuse and molestation of children.”
Edwards and most of the attorneys representing the victims believed, “Epstein and his attorneys knew the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney’s Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses. In retrospect, it seems their efforts were successful. – page 46
In fact, one of Epstein’s better-known friends, Larry Summers, who traveled with Epstein, according to pilot logs, on his private jet between 1997 – 2005, was a very respected man in the United States.
Summers, former Treasury Secretary and Harvard University President around the same time of Epstein’s indictment had been reporting about the impending crisis. On September 23, 2007, just weeks before Epstein finalized the Non Prosecution Agreement, Summers reported to the Financial Times that, “Central to every policy discussion in response to a financial crisis or the prospect of a crisis is the connect of moral hazard.”
Given the high level conversations that took place behind closed doors in October 2007, I doubt the financial climate did not play a role during negotiations that led to Epstein’s final sweetheart Non Prosecution Agreement (NPA), signed October 27, 2007. – page 116
Conceivably, it was not just Epstein’s high-level banking and political connections that prevented him from a stiff federal prosecution. Perhaps, his generous donations to several Democratic Party leaders furthered his successful defense. Donations to Democrats included: Bill and Hillary Clinton, even after his indictment, Governor Bill Richardson, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, and several others. According to media reports The Clinton Foundation received a $25,000 donation in 2006, after Epstein was charged with solicitation of prostitution with a minor. – page 118
The same scandal involving the Virgin islands Economic Development Corporation program was published by The Daily Caller: ”The (USVI) Governor, his attorney general and a number of USVI legislators also accepted bribes. The former U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, was aware that prosecutors and the elected officials were bribed and compromised but did not hold anyone accountable.”
Which brings me back to the Department of Justice and why it was possibly influenced by Epstein’s lawyers to allow testimony of only a few victims even though countless underage girls came forward against him. The court files made available to the public also showed how more than 100 minor girls courageously testified. Of these sworn statements, no more than two-dozen or so were allowed by the prosecutor’s office to come forward. – page 170
Several police reports confirmed that a number of underage girls who testified were transported across State borders. One victim in particular was instructed to give “massages” to Epstein’s influential friends. That one victim claims she met global leaders such as politicians, aristocrats, and businessmen. That story comes later.
It seems that in most criminal cases involving similar charges and a sizable number of victims, the allegations would have met, at the very least, the federal stipulations for a federal rather than a state prosecution.
The seemingly overwhelming evidence cannot explain why Epstein’s case did not qualify for prosecution under the federal law Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). By any prosecutorial standard, a case of this magnitude should have been prosecuted under the federal bill, TVPA, enacted in Florida in 2000.
Over the years, I have sought out the opinion of many criminal attorneys, law enforcement officials, and immigration lawyers working on this subject. In the final analysis, by perhaps failing to protect the victims under TVPA, most attorneys agreed the Non Prosecution Agreement did a great disservice to the victims and all future of at-risk girls, including those living in or nearby Epstein’s communities. – page 177
Exhibit C, document #1603-3 filed on 4/8/11 titled the Undisputed Statement of Facts in the Epstein vs. Edwards Case pages 1 and 2 stated, “Defendant, Epstein, has a sexual preference for young girls… He repeatedly assaulted more than 40 young girls on numerous occasions between 2002 – 2005 in his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida.”…
“At the end of each massage the victims were paid between two hundred and one thousand dollars.” Several depositions revealed the assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused dozens if not hundreds of girls over a period of several years.
During a sworn taped interview, recorded in Sarah Kellen’s Probable Cause Affidavit, the Arresting Officer, Joe Recarey, said that when he executed the search warrant at Epstein’s home he, “Located various phone message books. First names of girls, dates, and telephone numbers were on the copy of messages.”
Officer Recarey recognized some of the names and numbers of the girls since they had been interviewed at the station. “The messages included the time of day they called and Kellen’s signature at the bottom of the messages.” – page 31
Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking directly ties into the international trafficking operations through Nadia Marcinkova so it’s very important to examine Bosnia and a whistleblower’s testimony.
“Human trafficking was really not a term that was widely used in 1999 and 2001. I think that most UN officers considered these girls to be simply prostitutes. But they were trafficked into Bosnia from other countries and coerced to perform sexual acts. Many knew they might end up in these conditions, but most had no real choice based on the economic conditions in their home countries and the desperation to survive.
Did the higher UN officials know about that?
They certainly did, because I turned my reports over to them along with internal affairs. This was well documented. Many high-level UN officials knew about this, right up to Jacques Klein, the head of the UN mission in Bosnia.
Was there any charge or trial against the replaced UN officers?
No. None. Charges were never brought because the investigations were never allowed to be completed. That was the reason I was terminated and fired from my job, because I was trying to investigate these cases. After that, I took DynCorp to court in the United Kingdom, and I won my case for wrongful termination.”
DynCorp…. (What our State Department didn’t want you to know either since they have numerous contracts with them)
“The first of several nasty shocks came before she’d even left: among the recruits at DynCorp’s training week in Texas was a man from Mississippi. He’d been to Bosnia before and had had such a good time he was going again. He told them all how scenic it was, adding, ‘and I know where you can get really nice 12- to 15-year-olds’. Bolkovac was baffled, believing she’d misheard…
“But I ended up working as much with women who were being trafficked and raped by soldiers and police officers sent to keep the peace.” Bolkovac uncovered a network of brothels and bars at which kidnapped women were enslaved to “service” peacekeepers. “This was a difficult time in my life,” said Bolkovac. “Not being able to know who to trust when you are working with police officers and UN officials … It was clear that the protection of the ‘good old boys’ club’ was a first priority.” – Kathryn Bolkovac (a police officer from Nebraska who went to work for Dyncorp of Virginia, to which peacekeeping police work in Bosnia had been outsourced)
The Whistleblower
State Department Predatory loaning in Bosnia explained…
Nor a Lender Be
Hillary Clinton, liberal virtue, and the cult of the microloan”
By Thomas Frank
.
“Hillary herself proudly recalls in her memoirs how the State Department rebuilt Afghanistan by handing out “more than 100,000 small personal loans” to the women of that country.
These are fine, sterling sentiments. They suffer, however, from one big problem: microlending doesn’t work. As strategies for ending poverty go, micro­lending appears to be among the worst that has ever been tried, just one step up from doing nothing at all to help the poor. In a carefully researched 2010 book called Why Doesn’t Micro­finance Work? the development consultant Milford Bateman debunks virtually every aspect of the microloan gospel. Microlending doesn’t empower women, Bateman writes—instead, it makes them into debtors. It encourages people to take up small, futile enterprises that have no chance of growing or employing others. Sometimes micro­borrowers don’t even start businesses at all; they just spend the loan on whatever. Even worse: the expert studies that originally sparked the micro­lending boom turn out, upon reexamination, to have been badly flawed.
Nearly every country where microlending has been an important development strategy for the past few decades, Bateman writes, is now a disaster zone of indebtedness and economic backwardness. When he tells us that “the increasing dominance of the microfinance model in developing countries is causally associated with their progressive deindustrialization and infantilization,” he is being polite. The terrible implication of the facts he has uncovered is that microlending achieves the opposite of development. Even Soviet-style Communism, with its frequently mocked Five Year Plans, worked better than this strategy does, as Bateman shows in a tragic look at microloan-saturated Bosnia.
No matter. The liberal class is unlikely to abandon its romance with micro­finance, for yet another reason: it is profitable. Lending to the poor, as every subprime-mortgage originator knows, can be a lucrative business. Mixed with international feminist self-righteousness, it is also a bulletproof business, immune to criticism. Naturally the international goodness community discovered that empowering poor women by lending to them at usurious interest rates was a fine thing all around.”
Microloaning/Predatory Loaning in Haiti has produced the same results and once again, UN peacekeeping forces are implicated in child sex trafficking operations again. This will continue until those responsible are held accountable and I’ll leave it with this last information from TrafficKing.
I spoke with Ralph Cioffi on a number of occasions about his case. On November 17, 2014, Cioffi said, “ I do not [know why Epstein was fired from Bear Stearns] and doubt Matt would. I never knew him at Bear. Never met him while he was an employee or even as an investor in the fund.” By early January of the following year, Cioffi warned me, “Epstein is an evil person. Makes the ‘root of all evils money phrase ring true. There were always rumors about what went on, on his jet when flying back and forth from Europe, Cioffi said. – page 114
An example of how his generous political donations might have worked in his favor, in the 2016 presidential election year, Epstein’s case exposed the dangerous challenges confronting campaign finance reform. Epstein’s campaign contributions to Democratic candidates from 1990-2012, excluding universities and other organizations with possible ties to a handful of politicians, exceeded hundreds of thousands of dollars.
His contributions between 1990-2012 included upwards of two thousand dollar donations to: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ($34,00), DCSS?Non-Fed Unincorp Association ($25, 00), Democratic National Committee ($20,00), Independence Party Federal Committee ($5,000), Liberal Party of New York ($5,000), Utah State Democratic Committee ($5,000), DNC Non-Federal Individual ($5,000), Campaign America Inc. ($4,000), Democratic Party of New Mexico ($1,000), Freedom Project ($1,000), Hillary Clinton ($21,000), Chuck Schumer ($22,000), Jeff Bingaman ($8,000) Daniel Robert Glickman ($4,000), John Kerry ($4,000), John Glen ($3,000), Joe Liberman ($3,000), Tom McMillan ($3,000), Daniel Patrick Moynihan ($2,000). – page 156

Read Full Post »

Poisoned Waters

SENIOR PRODUCER AND CORRESPONDENT
Hedrick Smith

PRODUCED BY
Marc Shaffer

WRITTEN BY
Hedrick Smith and Rick Young

DIRECTED BY
Rick Young

ANNOUNCER: Puget Sound, Chesapeake Bay- they are America’s great coastal estuaries, and they are in peril.

KATHY FLETCHER, People for Puget Sound: I would put Puget Sound in the intensive care unit. The situation is critical.

WILL BAKER, Chesapeake Bay Foundation: The Chesapeake Bay is like the canary in the coal mine. It is an indicator of what we are now learning to expect in any body of water across the planet.

ANNOUNCER: Three decades after the Clean Water Act, FRONTLINE takes a hard look at why America has failed for so long to clean up the nation’s waterways-

J. CHARLES FOX, EPA Asst. Administrator, 1998-’01: Agriculture is by far the largest source of pollution to all of the waters in the country.

EXPERT: We’re not talking about little Ma and Pa on the farm anymore. We are talking about industrial production. It is industrial waste.

ANNOUNCER: And how contaminated waters threaten not only wildlife-

ROBERT LAWRENCE, M.D., Johns Hopkins School of Public Health: You have frogs with six legs, male frogs with ovaries-

ANNOUNCER: -but ultimately threaten our own health, as well.

EXPERT: The same things that are killing animals will kill people, too.

ANNOUNCER: In a two-hour special report, FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith uncovers the danger to the nation’s waterways, tracking new threats-

HEDRICK SMITH, Correspondent: If you were living in Washington, D.C., would you drink water coming out of the Potomac?

VICKI BLAZER, U.S. Geological Survey: Probably not.

ANNOUNCER: -confronting new challenges-

HEDRICK SMITH: This is sick?

MIKE RACINE, Wash. Scuba Divers Assn.: This is sick!

EXPERT: It’s like a cancer. It’s growing.

ANNOUNCER: -and discovering the ultimate problem.

JAY MANNING, Director, Wash. Dept. of Ecology: It’s about the way we all live. And unfortunately, we are all polluters. I am. You are. All of us are.

ANNOUNCER: Tonight, FRONTLINE investigates what’s poisoning America’s waters.

HEDRICK SMITH, Correspondent: [voice-over] The Chesapeake Bay at dawn, one of those magical moments when you feel at peace and in harmony with nature. For me, the Chesapeake is a special place, an extraordinary natural treasure. Over the past 30 years, I’ve spent a lot of time on the bay, sailing, hiking, swimming, crabbing. I love the water, its calm, its beauty, its majesty, and I’m fascinated by its meandering shorelines.

In the early morning light, the bay can look so pure and pristine. But that’s deceiving. I know that like most of America’s waterways, Chesapeake Bay is in trouble despite years of trying to save it, and that worries me.

I wanted a firsthand look, and so I headed out on the water with Larry Simns, a waterman who’s been commercially fishing the bay for 60 years.

LARRY SIMNS, Waterman: In its peak time, if you drained the bay, the crabs and the fish and oysters and everything would probably be 10 foot deep on the bottom all over the whole bay.

HEDRICK SMITH: Over the past several decades, Simns has watched the good times of bountiful harvests slip away.

[on camera] It’s about like your home waters here.

LARRY SIMNS: Yeah.

HEDRICK SMITH: Huh?

LARRY SIMNS: Yeah.

HEDRICK SMITH: What is the Chesapeake Bay like today for watermen?

LARRY SIMNS: The only thing that we have in abundance that we had back then was the striped bass, the rockfish. Other than that, everything else is diminished. The oysters, we used to catch two million bushel a year. Now we catch a hundred thousand bushel. I never, ever dreamed that I wouldn’t be catching shad anymore, I wouldn’t be catching yellow perch anymore, I wouldn’t be catching tarpon anymore. I never, ever dreamed that that would come to an end.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Simns took me to the old fishing town of Rock Hall, where watermen were bringing in the day’s crab catch. Crabs have long been the trademark of Chesapeake Bay, but the catch is now down more than 50 percent from 25 years ago.

[on camera] So how was the catch today?

DAVID KIRWAN, Crabber: Well, it dropped off a little bit today.

HEDRICK SMITH: Dropped off. So what are you coming in with, six, seven, eight bushels?

DAVID KIRWAN: I think it was nine altogether.

HEDRICK SMITH: Nine bushels? Ten years ago, how many would you have caught on an average day?

DAVID KIRWAN: Be about 30.

HEDRICK SMITH: About 30 bushels, about three times as many.

DAVID KIRWAN: Yeah.

HEDRICK SMITH: How do you feel about the bay and what’s happened to it?

DAVID KIRWAN: I think it’s a tragedy. I think- a little upset that my children can’t enjoy this way of life that I cherish, you know?

LARRY SIMNS: In Rock Hall harbor, all that used to be processing houses for striped bass, for oysters, for clams, for everything that we was harvesting.

HEDRICK SMITH: So a lot of people in the fish and crab and oyster business went out of business.

LARRY SIMNS: Yeah.

TOM HORTON, Bay Author and Reporter: You’re talking about billions of dollars of economic impact with oysters, crabs, shad, striped bass. The decline in the fisheries has just been dramatic. I wouldn’t have thought even 10 or 15 years ago that we would literally lose oysters as a commercial fishery. We have. It’s done.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Watermen are seeing the symptoms of decline, but the deeper problem, I learned, is that the very dynamics of the bay’s ecosystem are being fundamentally altered by human impact. The bay is acutely vulnerable because its watershed is so large, 11,000 miles of shoreline, and it drains big rivers from six states.

TOM HORTON: In all of North America, it’s the largest estuary. We’re talking a sixth of the East Coast, from Cooperstown, New York, out into West Virginia, almost down to North Carolina.

HEDRICK SMITH: It is the receptacle of an enormous volume of water in a uniquely shallow basin. Its average depth is only 21 feet, making the bay an ecological hothouse.

TOM HORTON: It’s fabulously productive but also exquisitely vulnerable to land use because it has a huge drainage basin. So you have, you know, the classic place for trying to determine whether humans and nature can coexist.

HEDRICK SMITH: One problem for Chesapeake Bay is that humans have drastically overfished the resources, especially crabs. But scientists have also tied the dramatic decline in fisheries here to man-made pollution and a growing phenomenon called “dead zones.”

TOM HORTON: Dead zones happen when too much fertilizer – nitrogen, phosphorous – comes in. It grows lots of excess algae. The algae die, decompose, suck up the oxygen from the deeper waters, which aquatic life needs to live.

HEDRICK SMITH: This is what a healthy, oxygen-rich bay bottom looks like, full of lush grasses where fish and crabs can grow. A dead zone is completely different, barren and empty.

HOWARD ERNST, Bay Historian: The bottom of the bay, when there’s an algae bloom or when you have a dead zone, is as dead as the face of the moon. There is absolutely no oxygen in these dead zones, and nothing can grow that requires oxygen for survival.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] Crabs can’t make it? Fish can’t-

HOWARD ERNST: Crabs can’t make it. Oysters can’t make it. Fish that get caught in the dead zone will literally die if they can’t get out of the dead zone. They’ll float up to the surface. Their bellies will explode. And you’ll see fish kills throughout the Chesapeake Bay.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] In the heat of summer, dead zones now occupy as much as 40 percent of the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay. But it’s not just a bay-wide problem, it’s worldwide. All across the planet, dead zones have been doubling in frequency and size every decade. There’s one in the Gulf of Mexico the size of the state of Massachusetts.

[http://www.pbs.org: More about dead zones]

Pollution is not just creating dead zones, it’s playing havoc with human health and recreation.

NEWSCASTER: -and those health advisories at Sandy Point Beach are still in effect and will be-

HEDRICK SMITH: Every year, more beaches have to close periodically because of pollution.

NEWSCASTER: People are urged to avoid direct contact with the water on the east-

J. CHARLES FOX, EPA Asst. Administrator, 1998-’01: The unfortunate reality is that people get sick from contact with water every single day, and we have information suggesting that that problem is getting worse today than it was 10 years ago. And this is a result of a number of different contaminants being in the water that ultimately can make people sick.

WILL BAKER, Chesapeake Bay Foundation: Today we’re at a point at which this system called the Chesapeake Bay may be on the verge of ceasing to function in its most basic capacities. And what do I mean by that? Providing a place for people to swim – recreation – providing a source of seafood – shellfish, finfish, oysters, crabs – underwater grasses which support the crab population – and being a system that is absolutely wonderful to look at, to support tourism, to be a source of real pride to the region.

We are at the verge where all of those functions of the Chesapeake Bay that we value could be lost to the next generation unless we take dramatic and fundamental action today.

HEDRICK SMITH: What leaves the bay’s defenders distraught is not only its perilous condition but the public’s evident loss of interest and the failure of federal and state governments to stick to their repeated promises over the past 25 years to clean up the bay.

J. CHARLES FOX: There has been so much investment in science and in modeling and in monitoring. We know today precisely what is necessary to save the Chesapeake, and now it’s very clear that it comes down to the question of political will.

TOM HORTON: You know, there’s a tendency to blame it on lack of political will. Well, hell, who elects the politicians and who reelects them? Last time I looked, it was us. We ran out of excuses for delaying many, many years ago around the Chesapeake. We can afford it. We don’t necessarily want to pay for it, but we can afford it. So I have to say that, collectively, we don’t care enough.

HEDRICK SMITH: There was a time when we as a nation did care enough to demand action, four decades ago, when the country was rocked by a series of environmental disasters.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, Jr., Waterkeeper Alliance: Well, I remember what it was like before Earth Day. I remember when the Cuyahoga River burned with flames that were eight stories high. I remember when- the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 that closed virtually all the beaches in southern California. I remember when they declared Lake Erie dead. I remember that I couldn’t swim in the Hudson or the Charles or the Potomac when I was growing up.

HEDRICK SMITH: We could see the pollution, smell it, even touch it. The problem was in our faces, and the public demand for action exploded on Earth Day.

ROBERT KENNEDY, Jr.: In 1970, this accumulation of insults drove 20 million Americans out onto the street, 10 percent of our population, the largest public demonstration in American history.

WILL BAKER: There was anger at the state of the world, at the state of your own back yard, whether it be a water body or the air or your mountain range, whatever it was you related to as the environment. There was anger that we as a country had let it go, and there was very much of a grass roots rebellion saying this has got to stop.

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS, EPA Administrator, 1970-’73: It was a big issue. It exploded on the country. It forced the a Republican administration and a president which had never really- he had never thought about this very much, President Nixon- it forced him to deal with it because public- the public said, “This is intolerable. We’ve got to do something about it.”

HEDRICK SMITH: Responding to congressional pressure, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. He picked Bill Ruckelshaus, a Justice Department lawyer with a solid Republican pedigree, as its first administrator, and Ruckleshaus quickly took charge.

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS: We had to select some big, visible polluters, both industrial and municipal, go after them, make sure the public understood we were being responsive to their concerns, and that would energize the agency and get us in a position to do things that needed to be done in order to address the problem.

HEDRICK SMITH: Congress armed Ruckelshaus and the EPA with a raft of new environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act, that imposed strict pollution limits and penalties for violators. The act called for America’s waterways to be fishable and swimmable again by 1983. It had strong bipartisan support in Congress, but not, it turns out, from President Nixon.

LEON BILLINGS, U.S. Senate staff, 1966-’80: When we finally passed the Clean Water Act in the Senate and the House, Nixon vetoed it. And for the first time in the Nixon administration, he had a veto overridden, substantially and significantly.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] And what does that say, Nixon was out of step with the country, Nixon didn’t care about the problem?

LEON BILLINGS: It was my impression- and I’m a Democrat, so I’ve got to be forgiven for that, but it was my impression that Nixon’s interest in the environment was strictly political.

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS: He didn’t know much about the environment, and frankly, he wasn’t very curious about it. He never asked me the whole time I was at EPA, “Is the air really dirty? Is something wrong with the water? What are we worried about here?” He would warn me. He said, “You’ve got to be worried about that”- “eh-pa.” He called it “eh-pa.” He was the only one person in the country that called it “eh-pa.” Everybody else in the country-

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] EPA-

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS: EPA. He’d call it “eh-pa.” And he said, “Those people over there- now, don’t get captured by that bureaucracy.”

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] But with bipartisan backing in Congress, Ruckelshaus took strong action anyway. He banned DDT, imposed a tight deadline for reducing auto emissions, sued several cities and big steel and chemical companies for polluting the air and water. His tough approach made enemies.

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS: Most of the people running big American manufacturing facilities in those days believed this was all a fad, it was going to go away, and and all they had to do was sort of hunker down until the public opinion subsided, public concern subsided, and it would go away.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] When you went after the big polluters, you sued them, you took them to court, what was the reaction of U.S. Steel?

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS: Oh, boy, they didn’t like it. I remember going up to see Ed Cott, who was the CEO of U.S. Steel, he told me, he said, “You know we don’t like you very much.” And he said, “We don’t- we certainly don’t like your agency.” And I said, “Well, if that’s your attitude, then we’re probably going to get into a fight over it.”

HEDRICK SMITH: So you had to enforce the law. You had to be a tough regulator.

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS: That’s right. You had to reassure the public that this was a problem the government was taking seriously. We had to be tough. We had to issue standards and we had to enforce them.

[http://www.pbs.org: Read the Ruckleshaus interview]

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] One of the first big regulatory success stories came right here on the Potomac River.

J. CHARLES FOX, EPA Asst. Administrator, 1998-’01: The Potomac River goes up to the mountains of Appalachia. It comes past our nation’s capital, and then it enters the estuary of the Chesapeake Bay. And what we saw in the Potomac River in the l960s was what was seen in many rivers around the country, where it smelled so bad, you didn’t want to get anywhere near it. And that odor was in large part created by poorly treated sewage.

WILL BAKER, Chesapeake Bay Foundation: If you were out sailing in a small boat and capsized, you had to go in and get a shot or two. I mean, it was literally hazardous to your health to come in contact with the water.

HEDRICK SMITH: Restoring the Potomac meant modernizing the sewage treatment plants along the river like this one, called Blue Plains, just south of Washington. Blue Plains handles the waste of two million people and it embodies just the kind of pollution targeted by the Clean Water Act, pollution coming out of a pipe. And in the 1970s, Blue Plains was the biggest single source of pollution to the Potomac.

CLIFF RANDALL, Wastewater Scientist: Blue Plains was the key wastewater treatment plant that had to be modified if we were really going to make a good effort at restoring the water quality in both the river and in the bay.

HEDRICK SMITH: The Potomac had become overrun with acres of green algae caused by excess nutrients from human waste, like phosphorous and nitrogen.

CLIFF RANDALL: The regulators said, “OK, phosphorus is the problem in the Potomac. Therefore, you people running the wastewater treatment plants will upgrade to remove phosphorus.” And it happened in a very short period of time.

HEDRICK SMITH: But the river didn’t improve all that much. It turned out that they needed to remove nitrogen, too, a costly process. But Cliff Randall found an answer, a new, more economical technology called biological nutrient removal, or BNR.

CLIFF RANDALL: The way we treat sewage is we take in the sewage and we feed it to a large mass of bacteria and other microorganisms, and basically, they eat the sewage.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] They eat the sewage.

CLIFF RANDALL: That’s correct.

HEDRICK SMITH: Munch, munch, munch.

CLIFF RANDALL: That’s right.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] It took a billion dollars in federal and state funds to modernize Blue Plains with several new technologies, including BNR, but the effort paid off. And more than 100 sewage treatment plants around the bay adopted BNR technology.

[on camera] How much of these early gains were not only the result of technology but of a pretty tough regulatory stick from the EPA and the state governments?

TOM HORTON, Bay Author and Reporter: Well, you know, that was a tried and true formula. I mean, with sewage treatment, where we made the biggest gains early on and continue to make the biggest gains, you have very clear laws. You have penalties. You have deadlines. You have enforcement. You have inspection. I mean, we know what works.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] But the 1980s brought a new era, and the political climate on the environment changed. The winds of deregulation were blowing through Washington, especially during the Reagan years.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: [January 20, 1981] It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment.

J. CHARLES FOX, EPA Asst. Administrator, 1998-’01: There’s no question that the Reagan administration, in fact, brought to Washington a deregulatory agenda. I remember back in the Reagan days of seeing memos that would come out from the White House to the Chamber of Commerce and other big businesses, asking them for a list of regulations from which they would want relief.

HEDRICK SMITH: Environmental regulation was a prime target of the Reagan White House for giving relief to American business.

LEON BILLINGS, U.S. Senate staff, 1966-’80: The Reagan administration essentially gutted the EPA. They stopped it in its tracks for a period of six, seven years. Reagan and his White House appointed people to run the Environmental Protection Agency who were flat-out opposed to the mission of the agency and were set to undo that mission.

HEDRICK SMITH: The Reagan administration not only handcuffed EPA on enforcement, it shifted to a new strategy of voluntary compliance, a strategy typified by the Reagan EPA’s new program for Chesapeake Bay.

HOWARD ERNST, Bay Historian: What we created in the Chesapeake Bay was a grand experiment. It was going to be an alternative to the regulatory approach that had swept the EPA, that had swept the federal system. They were going to try to do this in a non-regulatory, cooperative manner,

HEDRICK SMITH: The new approach was long on promises and targets but short on hard deadlines and clear accountability.

LEON BILLINGS: It is a voluntary program. You are never going to effectively deal with a multi-state pollution problem with a voluntary program.

HEDRICK SMITH: The result was the Chesapeake Bay program repeatedly missed its targets, leaving unfulfilled the Clean Water Act’s promise to radically reduce water pollution.

I saw the consequences of how deregulation has played out here on the Chesapeake Bay’s Eastern Shore, where huge factory-scale farms now dominate the landscape and where half the pollution flowing into the bay, much of it from agriculture, remains essentially unregulated.

I had come here to meet Rick Dove, a professional photographer and environmental consultant, who under the authority of the Clean Water Act has been gathering information for a potential citizens’ lawsuit against agricultural polluters. Dove took me up on a small plane and gave me a bird’s-eye view of his detective work on the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

[on camera] You can actually get a really clear picture up here. It’s almost like a diagram up here, looking at it.

RICK DOVE, Waterkeeper Alliance: That’s one of the interesting things about flying, and that is that there are no “No trespassing” signs. You can look straight down and you can see everything you need to see. You can document it and-

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Dove is investigating the pollution from big chicken farms. As we fly, he points out rows of long, flat sheds, each a couple of hundred yards long, each holding up to 40,000 chickens.

RICK DOVE: No matter where you fly on the Eastern Shore, it’s loaded with these chicken farms.

HEDRICK SMITH: The problem is, where there are chickens, there’s manure.

RICK DOVE: We know there’s bad stuff in poultry waste. Once it gets in those ditches and once those ditches begin to flow down to all these rivers on the Eastern Shore, it’s on its way to the bay. These rivers are delivery systems. Whatever nutrients are flowing in that river are being delivered to the bay.

HEDRICK SMITH: Chicken manure is loaded with nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous. Remember the dead zones in the bay? They were caused by algae, which is fed by nitrogen and phosphorous.

RICK DOVE: We’ll shoot 400, 500, 600 pictures in an afternoon. And we’re going to blow them up and we’re going to take a look at all the details because that’s how you really are able to identify exactly how that poultry waste is leaving that farm and getting to the bay. Today, some of the pictures I took, we’re going to go to the site and we’re going to see that on the ground.

HEDRICK SMITH: The aerial photos lead Dove to a chicken farm he’s been watching for more than a year.

[on camera] That’s Lessig up there?

RICK DOVE: Yes, it is. That’s Lessig’s Farm right there. Those four barns on the right are the original barns, and in the last year, he’s added these two on the end over here.

HEDRICK SMITH: That’s a pretty big place. So we are talking 240,00, 250,000 chickens there at any one time.

[voice-over] Dove can check on farm run-off from public roadways, and the photos give him a clear map of how polluted rainwater moves from the farm to the bay.

RICK DOVE: This is the Lessig Farm. This is animal waste, poultry litter.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] Big piles of it.

RICK DOVE: Yeah, it is a big pile. But what’s really alarming about this is you can see what’s happened when it’s rained. All of this water has collected around it and it has formed some leachate. And you can see how this leachate is running down alongside, in between these barns.

HEDRICK SMITH: With all the stuff in it.

RICK DOVE: With whatever it’s collected from that poultry waste. It comes out of these pipes here, comes in there, comes over to here, and then it goes under the road and right on down to the Minocan River and right on out to the bay.

HEDRICK SMITH: Wow. And have you tested this water right here?

RICK DOVE: This is where we’ve tested- here, there, over there.

HEDRICK SMITH: And what kind of readings did you get?

RICK DOVE: Extremely high. The E. coli standard is 126 colonies. Theirs was 48,392. And nitrogen and phosphorous all elevated, clearly indicating that animal waste is involved here, and even arsenic at nine times what the normal background level would be. So it was a lot happening here.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] Farm owner Aaron Lessig did not respond to FRONTLINE’s repeated efforts to ask him about the water tests, which Dove’s team turned over to the EPA.

[on camera] So look who he’s growing for. Lessig is growing these chickens for Perdue.

RICK DOVE: That’s what the sign advertises, says it’s Perdue, Lessing Farm.

FRANK PERDUE: [television commercial] Every Perdue chicken has one of these tags on it. It means you’re getting a fresh, tender, tasty young chicken. I make sure of that because every one of these tags has my name on it.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Over five decades, Perdue Farms grew from a family business to the dominant poultry processor on the Chesapeake’s Eastern Shore. And as Perdue grew, it transformed the chicken industry.

JIM PERDUE, Chairman, Perdue Farms, Inc.: There used to be 200 companies on the Shore involved in the poultry industry, but they were all independent. So you had an independent hatchery, an independent processing plant. The story of the poultry industry and of Perdue is vertical integration.

HEDRICK SMITH: Integration meant a few big chicken companies controlling all aspects of production. Perdue mushroomed into a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate. Small family chicken farms became chicken factories.

JIM PERDUE: Well, I think capitalism in general stimulates efficiency, and efficiency often is size. And so, you know, I think things had to become bigger in order to keep costs lower so you could maintain, you know, your price structure.

HEDRICK SMITH: Factory-style poultry production drove down chicken prices, and Americans responded. Over the past 50 years, per capita consumption of chicken has tripled. But there’s been another price to all those cheap chickens.

TOM HORTON, Bay Author and Reporter: Poultry farming, like most animal farming, has become much more intense, much more concentrated. Where you had 50,000 chickens on a given plot of ground, you’ve got a half million or two million now, which produces a huge problem of what to do with the manure.

HEDRICK SMITH: In 2008, Delmarva peninsula poultry farms raised more than 570 million chickens, and all those chickens produced massive mountains of manure, 1.5 billion pounds a year. That’s more manure than the annual human waste from four big cities- New York, Washington, San Francisco and Atlanta- all put together.

Before mass production chicken farms, local crop farmers used to absorb the chicken manure. Now there’s way too much for them to absorb.

J. CHARLES FOX, EPA Asst. Administrator, 1998-’01: Agriculture is by far the largest source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay and it is arguably the single biggest source of pollution to all of the waters in the country.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So the problem isn’t just manure, but it’s too much manure.

J. CHARLES FOX: It’s too much manure and arguably too many animals under the current structure. Now there’s all-

HEDRICK SMITH: You mean too many animals in one place.

J. CHARLES FOX: Exactly.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] It’s a problem all over the country- hog farms in the Carolinas and Iowa, poultry farms in Arkansas and Texas, cattle farms in Wisconsin and along the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, Jr., Waterkeeper Alliance: In terms of just damage to the ecosystems, you know, the destruction of entire ecosystems, of aquatic communities, of fish going extinct, there’s nothing as bad as these factory farm operations. Nothing.

HEDRICK SMITH: So to save the bay, the EPA says it’s essential to get control over the animal manure. What’s made that hard is deciding just who’s responsible for all that manure.

To understand how the chicken business is organized and how it’s run, I checked in with Carole Morison, a successful Perdue grower for many years.

CAROLE MORISON, Chicken Grower: Typically, the farmer has a contract with the company, whether it be Perdue, Tyson’s, whoever, and you contract to raise their chickens. They own the chickens. They just drop them off on the farm for us to raise to a marketable age, and then they come and pick up the chickens, take them for processing.

HEDRICK SMITH: When Perdue required that Morison modernize her chicken houses at a cost of $150,000 or more, she decided to get out of the business. This is her last batch of Perdue chickens.

[on camera] Now, what’s the relationship here? Do you bargain with one company or another as a grower?

CAROLE MORISON: There’s no bargaining in the contracts. Contracts are designed by the company, brought out to the farm, and you either sign it and get chickens, or not sign it and not get chickens and ultimately lose the farm.

HEDRICK SMITH: So you’re saying that the processors dictate the terms. They run the show.

CAROLE MORISON: Yes, the processors dictate all of the terms,

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] The terms are very specific. The big chicken companies own the chickens, supply the feed, dictate the growing regimen, do all the processing. They own it all- except the chicken waste.

CAROLE MORISON: Well, anybody else who owns an animal is responsible for their waste. If the company owns the animal, why are they not responsible for their waste? I’ve never understood that. I have horses. I have a dog that’s outside. I’m responsible for their mess. Now, chickens are owned by these companies, like Perdue and Tyson. How is it they’re not responsible for it?

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] Help me understand one thing. How do you wind up by owning the chickens, owning the feed, and not owning, in the sense of legal responsibility, the manure?

JIM PERDUE: The manure is considered a resource, actually. The producers want the litter. They want the chicken litter. It’s not a matter of who owns or doesn’t own it, it’s a matter of what use is being made from it.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] As factory farming has grown, the volume of excess manure has mushroomed, and there’s been an increasing push to regulate farm pollution. But American agriculture has fought off pollution controls for three decades.

TOM HORTON: The whole agricultural community has remained maybe the last big or the biggest unregulated- largely unregulated area of water pollution. And it’s why EPA tells you across the country agriculture’s responsible for 60 percent or something like that of our water quality problems.

[http://www.pbs.org: More on the agricultural industry]

J. CHARLES FOX: We are talking the equivalent of medium-size cities in terms of the waste that is generated that is virtually untreated, going into the Chesapeake Bay and-

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So cities have their waste treated, go through water treatment plants. Farming, agriculture, these concentrated animal raising operations, they’re not treated the same way.

J. CHARLES FOX: That is absolutely correct.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] The Delmarva poultry industry on the bay’s Eastern Shore doesn’t see it that way. It contends that there’s a fundamental difference between industrial pollution, or urban sewage, and agricultural waste. Industry spokesman Bill Satterfield,

[on camera] Shouldn’t the poultry farms be subject to the same kind of limitations as sewage treatment plants or industrial plants?

BILL SATTERFIELD, Delmarva Poultry Industry: A small industrial site that has to have a permit knows the source of what goes into that pipe. With non-point source pollution, there are various ways that nutrients can get into the groundwater and maybe flow through that pipe. Farm fields-

HEDRICK SMITH: I’m not talking about fields. I’m talking about growers and sheds where- I mean, I’ve literally stood in front of farms and I’ve literally looked at chicken houses, and I’ve seen pipes coming into the drainage ditches coming from ditches between the chicken houses. The source visibly is quite clear.

BILL SATTERFIELD: To know where those nutrients came in would require an investigation. And if the pipe passed under a chicken house and started over here in a field, who’s to say what entered that pipe on that end? Who’s to say whether the nutrients, if there are any, came from chickens or fox or deer or birds or something else?

HEDRICK SMITH: Russell Long, famous senator from Louisiana, used to say when people gave an answer like that, “It’s not you, it’s not me, it’s that guy behind the tree.” It seems to me as though every time we get to this, even though the evidence is pointing to most highest concentrations right near agriculture poultry operations, you’re saying, “Well, it could be the foxes or the geese.”

BILL SATTERFIELD: If there were proof positive that those nutrients are from chickens, then we can accelerate our programs and do a better job. But we can’t solve all the river’s problems with all the people, all the growth, all the other animals on the back of the chicken and the poultry farmers.

CAROLE MORISON: I’ll be the first one to say I did it. I’ve said this before. We’re all part of it. And yes, I think agriculture is a big contributor to the pollution, to the run-off into the Chesapeake Bay. The industry knows it. And what I am tired of is everyone wasting all their time and energy in saying, “I didn’t do it.” I did it! Why can’t they admit it? I mean, you know, let’s all say, “OK, we’re a part of it. Now let’s find an answer.”

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] But finding an answer has been politically impossible. In the late 1990s, a bill went before the Maryland legislature to require mandatory nutrient management by farmers to curb run-off from chicken manure. Big chicken didn’t like that idea at all.

JIM PERDUE: I think the survival of poultry industry is at stake on the Eastern Shore-

HEDRICK SMITH: The poultry industry, among the most financially powerful lobbies in Maryland, pushed for a looser alternative.

HOWARD ERNST, Bay Historian: The alternative was to have voluntary goals. It was going to be cooperative. It was going to have no regulatory teeth, and it was going to be overseen by the Maryland Department of Agriculture, a non-regulatory agency, rather than the Maryland Department of Environment.

FARMER: The farming industry can’t live with mandatory nutrient regulations. We’ve got to keep it voluntary.

HEDRICK SMITH: And the industry bill won. And since then, the industry has been successful in blocking or tying up subsequent efforts to regulate their waste.

[on camera] You sat in the Maryland legislature for 12 years. During that period, did you see the big chicken companies steadily resist regulation on manure run-off?

LEON BILLINGS, Maryland Legislator, 1991-’03: Absolutely. Big chicken companies were a presence. Jim Perdue, the son of Frank Perdue, was a constant presence, whether he was sitting in my chairman’s office or holding a reception in the evening or whatever. The chicken lobby was well represented. They hired the top guns in the lobbying community in Annapolis and they made every effort to prevent us from enacting tough regulations on agriculture.

HEDRICK SMITH: Some people have said to us that you’d clean up the whole situation much faster if the integrators, the poultry processors, were responsible. You got to clean it up and you all are responsible.

JIM PERDUE: Well, we can only do what we can do. The farmer certainly is, you know, his own businessman out there on the farm. And I think it works better if it’s a cooperative effort.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] So Perdue pioneered a process to recycle part of the chicken growers’ excess manure, to ship it across the country. And Perdue launched a voluntary program to teach its growers better manure management.

[on camera] And the programs that we’re looking at are an alternative to more regulation, I guess.

JIM PERDUE: More regulation and enforcement, which nobody likes. I mean, nobody likes, you know, somebody coming onto your farm, you know, without any warning, and those kinds of things.

[http://www.pbs.org: Read the interview]

J. CHARLES FOX, EPA Asst. Administrator, 1998-’01: There’s no question that the influence of the agricultural farm lobby in general has had a very successful role in limiting the amount of pollution control regulations that we see in the Chesapeake Bay watershed or nationwide.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, Jr.: You know, corporations are externalizing machines. They’re constantly devising ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. And you know, if you’re in a polluting industry, the most obvious way to do that is to shift your clean-up costs to the public, make yourself a billionaire by poisoning the rest of us.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] Are you saying the market’s distorted?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, Jr.: You show me a polluter, I’ll show you a subsidy.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Chicken farmers bristled when the Obama EPA started demanding pollution discharge permits this spring. The industry claims it’s already doing enough.

BILL SATTERFIELD: The poultry industry is doing more every year. We’re seeing more best management practices on farms. Our program to put trees on poultry farms to uptake the nutrients is a very progressive thing. There are more and more programs offered to help farmers put in manure storage buildings. And as the science says we can do more without putting our people out of business, I’m sure we will do more.

HEDRICK SMITH: But environmentalists like Rick Dove remain skeptical.

RICK DOVE: Now, this industry says they’re doing better, and you know, I can’t say if that’s true or false. But I can tell you that what I’m seeing here on the ground right now is absolutely terrible. So if it was worse before, then I can understand why the bay is in such bad trouble.

HEDRICK SMITH: While the bay is beseiged by run-off from the big chicken and cattle farms along its rivers, I learned about a whole new kind of pollution as I traveled up the Potomac as it winds its way past Washington up towards the hill country of West Virginia.

Up here, near the headwaters of the Potomac, I heard about the big new pollution threat not even known when the Clean Water Act was passed. Six years ago, marine biologists became alarmed at reports of massive fish kills on the rivers in this region. Every year, smallmouth bass were being decimated by some mysterious problem. Spring and fall, hundreds of fish would be found floating in the water belly-up.

I caught up with Vicki Blazer, a fish pathologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, who was trying to figure out why the fish were dying.

[on camera] What have you got here?

VICKI BLAZER, U.S. Geological Survey: So here we have this large discolored area in the liver, and then you see all these little white spots. Here’s another totally discolored area.

HEDRICK SMITH: And that’s a signal of some bigger problem.

VICKI BLAZER: Yes, when we see a really high prevalence in a population, that indicates there’s some problem going on in that water.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] And when Blazer dug deeper, she found a surprise.

VICKI BLAZER: One of the major and most interesting findings was intersex in the male bass. When we look at the male gonads, or testes, what we find is immature eggs within the male testes.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So you got a sort of feminization of male fish. Is that a big, alarming finding in marine biology, aquatic biology?

VICKI BLAZER: Yes, and that has certainly attracted a lot of concern and attention.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Scientific studies have linked abnormal mutations in marine creatures, like intersex, to exposure to chemical compounds that mimic or imitate natural hormones in the body. These chemicals are called endocrine disrupters.

ROBERT LAWRENCE, M.D., Johns Hopkins School of Public Health: Endocrine disruptors are very, very potent chemicals at infinitesimally small quantification. I mean, you’re talking about parts per million or parts per billion. They interrupt the normal way in which the body controls everything from growth and development to thyroid function to reproductive function to estrogen levels, testosterone levels. So they’re very, very important, and they are of deep concern because there are so many of them now.

HEDRICK SMITH: There are thousands of these worrisome chemicals that have gotten into the environment, and one reason is that they’re part of everything we do.

Dr. ROBERT LAWRENCE: The list of things that bring these organic pollutants into our bodies is a long list, and it ranges from home care products – soaps, toothpaste, cleaning agents in the household – to things we put on our lawns, the things that we use all the time- the plastic industry, the rubber industry, lubricants, fuels, the highways.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] When you see scientists like Vicky Blazer cutting open fish, finding intersex in the male fish, seeing high levels of fish kills, seeing immune systems disrupted, seeing other damage to the fish, is that a warning to you, potentially, about human health?

Dr. ROBERT LAWRENCE: Oh, absolutely. The warning- not just from the smallmouth bass in the Potomac but from amphibians all across the country. You have frogs with six legs, hermaphroditic frogs, male frogs with ovaries, female frogs with male genitalia. These are the canaries, the modern canary in the mine that we haven’t been paying enough attention to.

[http://www.pbs.org: More on endocrine disruptors]

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] So many new chemicals have emerged lately that scientists and regulators are playing catch-up to industry, trying to spot which chemicals they think pose new danger in our water.

VICKI BLAZER: EPA does not regulate any of these things yet. And in many cases, there isn’t even the methods to measure them in the amounts that they actually have a biological effect.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So science and the regulators are behind the curve dealing with what industry and society is producing or wants.

VICKI BLAZER: Correct.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Playing catch-up in regulating these new chemicals may be a problem for more than just these fish.

VICKI BLAZER: The endocrine system of fish is very similar to the endocrine system of humans. Fish have thyroid glands. They have the functional equivalent of adrenal glands. They pretty much have all the same hormone systems as humans, which, again, is why we use them as sort of indicator species.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So if fish are having intersex, or lesions, that’s kind of spooky.

VICKI BLAZER: It is. You know, we can’t help but make that jump to ask the question, “How are these things influencing people?”

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] To get a handle on that question, I headed downriver. Just above Washington, I found another USGS team sampling water from the Potomac, part of a nationwide survey checking for 300 emerging contaminants in our drinking water.

They were looking for well-known pollutants, like pesticides, and for newly detected contaminants found in pharmaceuticals, body lotions, soaps and deodorants. In all, they found 85 compounds on their watch list.

JUDY DENVER, U.S. Geological Survey: Many of them are chemicals we’re just now starting to be able to even analyze for in water, but the treatment isn’t intended to remove those products.

HEDRICK SMITH: What makes this a matter of concern is that this is the intake for the Washington Aqueduct, where one million people in the D.C. area get their drinking water. Few of us may realize it, but people downstream use the wastewater from people upstream. The Potomac, like other rivers, serves as both the place where we dump our wastewater and the place where we get our drinking water. It’s one big, continuous recycling operation from the toilet or the shower to the tap.

THOMAS JACOBUS, Gen. Mgr., Washington Aqueduct: The river flows down, a community takes water out of the river, puts it back through a wastewater plant a few miles down- out, back, out, back. And with proper regulation and proper processes at the wastewater plant and proper processes at the drinking water plant, it works very well. So we sort of continuously recycle this.

HEDRICK SMITH: The recycling process works well for known contaminants, but what about the new chemicals for which the EPA has not yet set safety standards?

[on camera] How tough is the challenge just to keep up with all that, new sources of pollutants?

THOMAS JACOBUS: As new elements come in – synthetics, herbicides, pesticides, pharmaceuticals – as those things enter the water stream in concentrations because of more advanced development, more human activity, more animal activity, more commercial activity, those things as they get in the river make it harder for us to do our job. There’s no question about that.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Not just harder but actually impossible to stop all the new contaminants, according to the USGS findings, because the old filters weren’t designed to catch the new threats.

JUDY DENVER: We sampled the finished water at the Washington Aqueduct and we found about two thirds of the compounds we detected were still detected in finished water.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So you’re saying that roughly two thirds of these emerging contaminants that you found in the river water at the intakes for the Washington Aqueduct came all the way through-

JUDY DENVER: Yes.

HEDRICK SMITH: -the filtering system and were in-

JUDY DENVER: Right.

HEDRICK SMITH: -the drinking water, the tap water in the District.

JUDY DENVER: And that’s what we saw at all the studies that were done.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Denver’s findings mirrored what USGS has found all across the country. Everywhere, they saw lots of new contaminants in America’s drinking water, even if at low doses.

[on camera] Were you surprised by the findings of this USGS study, or did you- did that fit what you thought was probably going on?

Dr. ROBERT LAWRENCE: I was surprised by the number of different compounds that were detectable. I knew we were swimming in a sea of chemical soup, but I didn’t realize the soup was quite as concentrated as it is.

HEDRICK SMITH: You talk about a soup. Some people have used the term “toxic cocktail.” Is there a danger that if a level of a particular compound were acceptable and another one were acceptable, that you start to put a bunch of them together and then that’s no longer a safe level?

Dr. ROBERT LAWRENCE: You put your finger on one of the real concerns about toxicology. It may be safe to have a little bit of compound A or a little bit of compound B, but when the two of them are together, there’s synergism and they become really deadly.

HEDRICK SMITH: If you were living in Washington, D.C., would you drink water coming out of the Potomac?

VICKI BLAZER: Probably not.

HEDRICK SMITH: Because?

VICKI BLAZER: Because we really don’t know what all is in there.

THOMAS JACOBUS: Today I drink the water with great confidence because our water meets the regulations. But of course, the question is, “Do the regulations match the threat?”

HEDRICK SMITH: Were there endocrine disruptors, chemical compounds in the Washington Aqueduct intake water that were of concern to you in terms of their potential impact on human health?

LINDA BIRNBAUM, Dir., Natl. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences: Are there chemicals of concern? Yes. I think at this point, the levels are very, very low, so I don’t have a great deal of concern that something needs to be done imminently. But it would certainly be nice to reduce what’s getting into the water. We can show that people with higher levels of some of these chemicals may have a higher incidence of a certain kind of effect than people with lower levels of these chemicals.

HEDRICK SMITH: Like what kind of effect?

LINDA BIRNBAUM: There are associations with what’s called male testicular disgenesis syndrome. That’s a big term, but it means-

HEDRICK SMITH: Lower sperm count?

LINDA BIRNBAUM: Lower sperm count.

HEDRICK SMITH: Are we facing a long-term, slow-motion risk that we don’t recognize because it’s not readily apparent?

Dr. ROBERT LAWRENCE: We are. There are five million people being exposed to endocrine disruptors just in the mid-Atlantic region, and yet we don’t know precisely how many of them are going to develop premature breast cancer, are going to have problems with reproduction, going to have all kinds of congenital anomalies of the male genitalia, things that are happening. We know they’re happening. But they’re happening at a broad low level so that they don’t raise the alarm in the general public.

HEDRICK SMITH: Do you know what the safe levels are?

LINDA BIRNBAUM: In most cases, we don’t know what the safe levels are. And some of the new science is suggesting that levels that we used to think were safe may, in fact, not be safe.

HEDRICK SMITH: For humans.

LINDA BIRNBAUM: For humans. So we’re finding in certain cases that much lower levels than we previously thought were a problem may, in fact, have the potential to harm at least some segment of the population.

HEDRICK SMITH: Do we have an adequate system of regulation, or should we be regulating on a different standard?

LINDA BIRNBAUM: I’m not a regulator, I’m a researcher. But in my personal opinion, I would like to know that a chemical is unlikely to cause harm before we expose our population to it.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] It’s our failure to control toxic chemicals before they cause trouble in the environment that haunts our waters all across the nation, places like Puget Sound, which I’ve come to know well in recent years. The sound, lying off the coast of Seattle, is a place that I’ve come to cherish as a phenomenal resource, a gorgeous natural playground, gateway to the Pacific, and historically a treasure house of fish and wildlife. But today, the sound is in peril.

KATHY FLETCHER, People for Puget Sound: I would put Puget Sound in the intensive care unit. The situation is critical. We’ve known for decades that Puget Sound had serious issues, but we’re at a point now where the species that are almost extinct are telling us we’ve got some real bottom line problems here.

HEDRICK SMITH: Take these regional icons, the killer whales, or orcas. They’re a major tourist attraction, but increasingly, Puget Sound orcas are being closely studied by scientists as a barometer of the health of the entire sound. To see what scientists are learning, i headed out with Brad Hanson, a team leader with NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

BRAD HANSON, NOAA Wildlife Biologist: Over there! Over there!

HEDRICK SMITH: Hanson and his colleagues have been studying the orca population for several years.

[on camera] Why study these whales?

BRAD HANSON: They’re the top predator in the food chain, so they’re essentially accumulating all the contaminants. They’re the last stop in the food chain.

HEDRICK SMITH: So they’re a laboratory, in a way.

BRAD HANSON: Yeah.

HEDRICK SMITH: A laboratory that tells us what’s going on in the whole ecosystem.

BRAD HANSON: Yes.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] The orca story is troubling. In one year, seven local orcas died. Their population is now down to 86, so low that in 2005, NOAA listed Puget Sound orcas as an endangered species. To figure out why the orca population is in decline, Hanson’s team goes out after biological samples.

[on camera] You get up pretty close to these whales in order to take samples.

BRAD HANSON: We get to about four or five meters.

HEDRICK SMITH: Four or five meters. So that’s pretty close. OK, so let’s see how it works.

BRAD HANSON: OK.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] they shoot darts into the orcas and extract small samples of blubber. That blubber is sent to the lab to be tested for a slew of contaminants, especially telltale toxins like PCBs. The lab results have been alarming.

PETER ROSS, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada: Our research over the last 10 to 13 years has been able to demonstrate that these killer whales are the most PCB-contaminated marine mammals in the world. So we’re very, very concerned about what that might mean to their health.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] PCBs are cancer-causing chemicals so toxic that Congress banned them three decades ago. But they keep showing up.

PETER ROSS: PCBs are probably the number one persistent contaminant of concern anywhere in the northern hemisphere. They bioaccumulate in food webs.

HEDRICK SMITH: You mean they build up.

PETER ROSS: They build up in food webs and in organisms. We have trouble getting rid of them. We have a lot of trouble getting them out of our system. When I say “we,” I mean humans, rats, killer whales, harbor seals, doesn’t really matter.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Increasingly, scientists worry that PCBs are a problem not just for orca whales.

BRAD HANSON, NOAA Wildlife Biologist: Well, we need to pay attention to what’s going on to these guys because if we don’t, we’re going to have the same problems coming back and affecting us. These animals are eating wild fish we want to eat. Wild fish is good for us, too. But if there’s contaminants in it, it’s going to have an adverse impact on us. That’s the thing. That’s why these animals are important sentinel species not just for the ecosystem in general, but also for humans.

HEDRICK SMITH: At the Center for Whale Research, director Ken Balcomb has been keeping records for three decades on the whales that make Puget Sound their regular home.

KEN BALCOMB, Center for Whale Research: Fewer whales are making it to maturity. The population is declining. We are seeing- probably the next 20 years, we’ll be witnessing the departure of this population.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] You think they’re gone, they’re going to die out.

KEN BALCOMB: I’ve already told our government folks that we can go through this for about 20 more years if we don’t provide a remedy, and we will see the end of this population.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Balcomb and his staff know these whales so well by sight that they can track them from birth to death.

[on camera] So what’s this? What are these charts?

KEN BALCOMB: These are the family trees of all the whales we’ve been studying for the last 32 years.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] The tombstone markers, Balcomb told me, underscore a worrisome trend among the youngest, most vulnerable, orcas.

[on camera] These older whales up here, they died. That’s kind of normal. But you get all these, the young ones dying. Is that a bad sign?

KEN BALCOMB: Yes, that’s the disturbing part of the mortality pattern we’re seeing now is that young whales are dying way before they even mature.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] He’s alarmed at the high levels of PCBs that Hanson’s team found in younger whales which absorbed PCBs from their mother’s milk.

[on camera] Are there enough parallels between the way the human body works, the chemistry and biology of the human body, and the whales so we can actually take lessons from them?

KEN BALCOMB: Yes. We can take lessons from not only the whales but the seals and the fish. And it’s been demonstrated in the health statistics in especially Arctic environments, cold environments where there’s a high-fat diet, and the children of these high Arctic people are suffering these same problems- immune deficiencies, reproductive problems, nervous disorders- are affecting humans as well as the other mammals.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] At NOAA testing labs like this one, scientists have established that king salmon are more heavily contaminated with PCBs than salmon in other Pacific coastal waters

PETER ROSS: Everything we see points to Puget Sound being a hot spot for PCBs and a persistent problem. We’ve seen contamination of animals. We’ve seen no improvement in the levels of PCBs in the last 20-odd years, despite regulations implemented in the l970s. And that to me indicates there are continuous inputs from land-based sources, from the sediments, and delivering them right into that food web.

HEDRICK SMITH: One big reason PCBs are a persistent problem is that it takes so long to clean up places like the Duwamish River, Seattle’s industrial corridor. Some of Seattle’s heaviest industry settled here decades ago, and today it’s the region’s largest hot spot for PCBs.

B.J. CUMMINGS, Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition: My name is B.J. Cummings. I represent the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition.

HEDRICK SMITH: B.J. Cummings leads tours of the river. But this isn’t your typical tourist outing, it’s an environmental wake-up call.

B.J. CUMMINGS: The EPA did an investigation here on Duwamish River about 10 years ago and concluded that industrial history had left such legacy of toxic pollution that the river was declared a federal Superfund site in 2001.

HEDRICK SMITH: Superfund is one of EPA’s big sticks. It was the regulatory program created in 1980 to clean up America’s worst pollution problems.

B.J. CUMMINGS: Your typical Superfund site used to be factory, pipe, Superfund site-right at the bottom of your pipe. That’s not what we have here. We have what’s called a mega-site. We have a five, five-and-a-half-mile stretch of river, end to end, that’s being investigated for clean-up. This is one of the largest Superfund sites in the country. The river was listed as a Superfund site because of an accumulation, a legacy of toxic pollution that has built up in the mud at the bottom of the river.

PETER ROSS: There’s a direct link between contaminated sediments in certain areas and contamination of the food web above those sediments. In fact, one might even think of the PCBs riding an elevator up from the sediments up into plankton, up into little fish, big fish, harbor seals, killer whales, eagles, humans.

HEDRICK SMITH: The toxic build-up in the Duwamish river-bottom is the product of more than a half century of industrial development along the river. Boeing, for example, the area’s biggest corporation, had its main operations here during World War II.

BOEING PROMOTIONAL VIDEO: We are the builders. We are the builders of the B-17. With our hands a million strong, we built and drilled and-

HEDRICK SMITH: The success of Boeing mirrored the 20th century boom in the American economy, an era when industrial progress brought unprecedented expansion.

BOEING PROMOTIONAL VIDEO: Ours were the hands that built the queen, the B-17-

HEDRICK SMITH: But that progress also left behind an unprecedented amount of pollution, or what’s called legacy pollutants.

STEVE TOCHKO, Boeing Environmental Officer: The term “legacy pollutants” is when its historical practices what, what was acceptable in the ’40s and ’50s is we would find very objectionable today in the ’90s, in the ’80s and beyond. People did not know the damage that some of these materials caused at the time. They did not know the long-term effects of them that we do today.

HEDRICK SMITH: PCBs are a classic legacy pollutant found here at Boeing, a toxic chemical once widely used by industry, often as a high stress lubricant in power stations and also in building materials. Frequently, it takes a lot of detective work to find hidden PCBs.

[on camera] So Steve, you found a contamination problem in the flight line out here.

STEVE TOCHKO: Yeah, it’s this material that we see between the concrete panels. It’s called joint compound. Material that was installed in the late ’60s contained very high levels of PCBs. And you know, since we had made this discovery, you know, in the late ’90s, we have now removed about 50 miles of this throughout all.

HEDRICK SMITH: Fifty miles of this black tar-looking stuff.

STEVE TOCHKO: This material throughout all of the Boeing facilities here in the Northwest.

HEDRICK SMITH: Why was it so hard to find?

STEVE TOCHKO: Well, it wasn’t obvious to us. It was- you know, normally, when people talk about PCBs, you think about electrical equipment, you think about hydraulics. That’s where it normally PCBs are used. The fact that they were used in something that was right in front of us was, you know, difficult. It was really difficult that we- we overlooked it.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Making sure that Boeing doesn’t overlook any of its legacy pollution is the job of Shawn Blocker, a former Marine who has been EPA’s point man on the clean-up at Boeing.

SHAWN BLOCKER, EPA Boeing Site Manager: OK, what I want to talk about today is based on some additional data we have that’s on the sediments outside the current boundaries of the clean-up for Boeing Plant 2.

The significance of the Boeing facility is the number of contaminants that originate from the facility. It has over 24 things in the ground water, 40-some-odd different things that are in the soil that are above clean-up levels. So it’s the biggest accumulation of contaminants in that area.

HEDRICK SMITH: From the get-go, Boeing and EPA have clashed over how to clean up those legacy pollutants, and the arguments have led to long delays.

[on camera] When were you first ready to go with a clean-up plan?

STEVE TOCHKO: We submitted a plan to EPA in 1999, when, you know, to dredge- we call it an interim measure- to take what is adjacent to Boeing and excavate that material.

HEDRICK SMITH: Boeing says that over a decade ago, it was ready to clean up, and all that held it up was bureaucratic red tape from the EPA.

SHAWN BLOCKER: I would disagree with that. From my review of what they were going to do, I didn’t think they had fully defined where all the bad stuff was. They didn’t know the totality of what the contamination was even in the ground water or soil.

HEDRICK SMITH: But you obviously had a higher threshold for “Let’s get to the bottom of how bad this pollution is” than Boeing did.

SHAWN BLOCKER: Boeing is doing what they’re asked to do. No more, no less.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] So time and again, Blocker pressed Boeing to do more- more work and more tests. By now, Boeing has spent $80 million on testing and interim clean-ups.

STEVE TOCHKO: There’s over 500 sampling locations at this facility that have been drilled over time, you know?

HEDRICK SMITH: If you came here 10 years ago, how many would there have been.

STEVE TOCHKO: Fifty.

HEDRICK SMITH: So hundreds more have been drilled since because of this back and forth with the EPA.

STEVE TOCHKO: That’s correct, yeah.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Not only has Boeing been feuding with the EPA, but it’s been locked in a fierce battle with with the city of Seattle, which used to operate a steam plant next door to Boeing Field.

Typical of Superfund sites, these two powerful neighbors have been wrangling over who’s responsible for PCBs flowing through this ditch, or flume, when it rains. The flume runs from the now defunct steam plant through boeing’s territory to the river. Boeing says it’s the city’s PCBs.

[on camera] So was this just for City Lights steam plant, or did Boeing and others put storm drains into this and use it?

STEVE TOCHKO: Pretty much just for cooling water from steam plant.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] The city flat-out disagrees, and it has taken Boeing to court.

MARTIN BAKER, Seattle Public Utilities: PCBs are coming by connections of other people to our ditch. They come through drainage lines. They come from other properties, most specifically Boeing’s property.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So Boeing was attaching its drainage pipes to your flume, sending some of its dirty stuff down your flume to the river.

MARTIN BAKER: There are over 20 lines attached to our ditch that came from the Boeing property.

HEDRICK SMITH: Twenty lines? So it’s a protracted argument between you and Boeing over who actually put the dirty contaminants in that flume.

MARTIN BAKER: It’s a continuing argument.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] And that argument is holding up the big cleanup on the Duwamish River. Jay Manning, who heads Washington’s Department of Ecology, which helps EPA supervise the clean-up, showed me the cost of this continued delay to Puget Sound.

JAY MANNING, Director, Wash. Dept. of Ecology: We’re looking at four very large outfalls of drainage pipes that carry stormwater from more than 30 square miles of this area. You can see the one there to the right.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So this is an industrial dumping ground, in effect.

JAY MANNING: This stormwater drains a very large industrial area.

HEDRICK SMITH: Are you all still finding PCBs and other contaminants in that water?

JAY MANNING: Unfortunately, the stormwater coming out of those drain pipes, we’re still detecting PCBs.

This is going to cost millions to clean up, maybe tens of millions, and owning 90 percent of that liability is not a place you want to be. So these folks, who are not stupid, are busy trying to prove that it’s somebody other than them that is the source.

HEDRICK SMITH: Pointing the finger at everybody else.

JAY MANNING: That’s right. They’re trying to prove, probably not that they have no liability, because that’s pretty hard to do, but proving that they have very little compared to their neighbor. That’s what it’s about, and it’s about money.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Ultimately, the issues of clean-up – time and money – are tied to a larger question for all of us. That is, how clean do we expect our waterways to be?

Here on the Duwamish, the state has posted warnings not to eat local fish and shellfish because of pollution, and so the fight now is over whether the river can be cleaned up enough to let the locals fish the river once again without risk.

SHAWN BLOCKER, EPA Boeing Site Manager: And what we determined was that the most sensitive population we had out there were our Native Americans that eat the fish out of the Duwamish.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] And they eat a lot more fish than most of us.

SHAWN BLOCKER: They do.

HEDRICK SMITH: And so that was the standard you wanted to set, clean it up so the tribes can eat the fish safely without getting poisoned from PCBs.

SHAWN BLOCKER: Yes.

HEDRICK SMITH: And Boeing objected to that?

SHAWN BLOCKER: Basically, they don’t feel that that stretch of the river can ever be returned to where you could harvest these kind of fish and shellfish. We disagree with that.

STEVE TOCHKO, Boeing Environmental Officer: So I think people need to understand is that there are going to be certain uses of the Duwamish River that aren’t going to be possible in the future. I’ll give you an example. I don’t think people are going to be able to subsistence fish out of the species that are in the Duwamish. I think we have to set reasonable expectations for clean-up in industrial areas. I don’t think that you can say it’s going back to zero.

HEDRICK SMITH: Where do you come down on that? [voice-over] Do we need to get rivers back to where people can fish and safely eat the fish without fear to their health?

Gov. CHRIS GREGOIRE (D), Washington: That is the goal. That has to be the goal because every one of those rivers and streams are going into Puget Sound. So it’s not as though it’s that river or that stream alone, it’s about the whole ecosystem.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Just across the river from Boeing, the threat of legacy pollution and the question of how clean is clean became personal right here in South Park, where in 2004, the community was rocked by news that some of its streets and people’s yards were contaminated with PCBs.

B.J. CUMMINGS, Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition: People in South Park, particularly people with families, with small children, got incredibly nervous- I mean, out and out scared about what this might mean. We- you know, I pushed my kid’s stroller down that street every day. I go down there and I fish. My dog runs along that waterfront. What does this mean for me? What does this mean for my health?

RESIDENT: I mean, you’re trying to do the best for your kids, and all of a sudden, something like this comes out.

RESIDENT: It is so scary, what you said-

NEWSCASTER: PCBs, cancer-causing microbes banned in the ’70s but now taking an emotional toll on the residents of South Park today.

HEDRICK SMITH: The city of Seattle realized it had a crisis and moved quickly to pave the contaminated streets, clean up the polluted yards, and tell people how to take safety precautions. Suddenly, South Park, a largely immigrant working-class neighborhood surrounded by industry, was galvanized into action. Residents demanded a long promised clean-up of an abandoned industrial site called Malarkey Asphalt.

B.J. CUMMINGS: Malarkey Asphalt for years operated directly across the street from homes in South Park and was a really, really dirty business. For many years, there was open dumping on the riverbank. There was waste oil that was sprayed in the area to keep the dust in the unpaved streets down, and that contaminated the roads and yards, right in people’s gardens around the property.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] Years earlier, the old Malarkey site had been bought by the port of Seattle, which did a PCB cleanup on part of Malarkey’s property. But people in South Park suspected there were still many more, undiscovered PCB hotspots upland from the riverbank at Malarkey.

B.J. CUMMINGS: So the neighborhood said, “Go take some tests there. Tell us what’s there.” EPA and the port said, “Oh, no, no. We did the upland. It’s finished.” We eventually were able to succeed in getting just a few more tests. “Just assure us, show us it’s OK.”

HEDRICK SMITH: Doug Hotchkiss, the port’s manager for the Malarkey site, ran tests, and what he found surprised everyone.

[on camera] So what was the hottest spot you found? How high was it?

DOUG HOTCHKISS, Site Manager, Seattle Port: The hottest spot for PCBs was right in this area here, and it was about 9,000 parts per million.

HEDRICK SMITH: Nine thousand? And the federal limit is 25. I mean, so this was a really hot spot.

DOUG HOTCHKISS: Yeah. And luckily, it was under asphalt, but it was still something that even under asphalt, you couldn’t just leave there.

HEDRICK SMITH: [voice-over] So Hotchkiss drafted a plan to clean up Malarkey. But it backfired.

DOUG HOTCHKISS: We would be cleaning up to 25 parts per million, which was the cleanup level that EPA had accepted before.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] And how did the community take that? How’d they react?

DOUG HOTCHKISS: They were- they were not happy with it. They didn’t find it acceptable.

Read Full Post »

Our future depends on understanding truth of the past.

Excerpts from Lumumba Speaks: The Speeches and Writings of Patrice Lumumba 1958 – 1961 followed by excerpts from The Devil’s Chessboard by David Talbot

Lumumba’s debate in parliament.

So freedom of the press is guaranteed; anybody can publish a newspaper. Dear brothers, I would rather die preaching the truth than live telling lies, and I will never be afraid to speak the truth. It is all these Catholic groups waging their propaganda in their papers who are stirring up all the trouble that we are going through; should we permit this state of affairs? And then when measures are taken to free you, you call it dictatorship! [Applause from the majority benches]
I for my part will ask this of the opposition: we now have a kind of constituent assembly, and the colonialists have left; let us prepare to hold elections and you’ll see that we’ll win. [Prolonged applause from the majority benches]
Certain deputies are raising a hue and cry and saying untrue things about the government, but the entire nation is with us, millions of people are behind this government!

Mr Colin [from his bench]. Go to the cite…..

Mr. Lumumba, “What’s happening in the cite? It’s you who have been organizing the few signs of discontent on the part of certain individuals; there is nothing spontaneous about them. Moreover, Leopoldville isn’t the whole Congo; you always think that the Bakongos are the whole Congo! [applause from he majority benches]
I will make you the following proposal: we’ll take a plane with you tomorrow and visit the entire country; you’ll see how we’ll be received. There are even some Bakongos who are for us. Everything being done here is fascism to impress foreign journalists and make them believe that there’s something going on. People out of jobs are egged on and exploited; their given twenty or fifty francs and told: Go do this or that—so that foreigners who witness these acts will believe there’s opposition when there really isn’t any. [Applause from the majority benches]

Yes, yes, there’s proof. Is there anything they haven’t tried? Millions of francs were offered certain ministers; then Mr. Kasavubu invites them to his home. Are they at his house? Will they go there? Not one of them. What did the Belgians do before the government was formed? They said: “Lumumba, you’re not going to form the government, Kasavubu is.” The latter has done everything possible; millions of francs have changed hands. Did he succeed? Do you think he’ll succeed now without us? [Applause from he majority benches]
To conclude, dear honorable deputies, I know all of you and you know me, we are all freedom fighters, we have all suffered a great deal; it is only a lack of understanding that divides people. Let us understand each other in order to march in step, for we are pioneers in the building of the nation. The future of the Congo depends on us, on this team of members of Parliament and members of the government. The future depends on the position we take today. Our enemies have long divided us, and they are dividing us today; mistakes have been made on every hand….

The Council of Ministers met yesterday; we realized that as far as our patrimony, our entire economy is concerned, we have no idea where we are heading, since the colonialists have done everything possible to plunge us into poverty. When there is talk against Lumumba, you may be sure that Lumumba is only a scapegoat and a bete noire; it is not Lumumba they’re out to destroy, but you and the future of the Congo…. I am not attempting to hide the fact that for the moment we are playing the Imperialists’ game. Whatever errors have been committed by the government, by Mr. Kasavubu, by one deputy or another, we are playing the imperialists’ game; they are taking advantage of this situation to create a so-called opposition in order to exploit us again and divide us even more. When you see what the journalists who are here are going to write, you’ll be amazed. [Applause from the majority benches]
Tomorrow, when all the chips are down, we’ll be crying and they’ll be off in their own countries having a good time; they’ll say they got the better of us by dividing us. …

The imperialists are very powerful; they have lots of money and we are still weak politically; we let ourselves be fooled, we let ourselves be influenced in all sorts of ways. When we were struggling here, when I was thrown in prison because I was demanding immediate independence, was it the Russians who were advising me to do so? [No! No! several members shout.]
When our brothers were struggling throughout the country, was it the Russians who were egging us on to demand independence? Who exploited us for eighty years—wasn’t it the imperialists? They considered the Congo and its riches their national hunting preserve. When the French, the Americans, and the Belgians come to Congo, the imperialists applaud them, whereas they considered the arrival of the Russians a heinous act.

Queen Elizabeth of Belgium is president of the association for Russo-Belgian friendship. Is she a communist? [Applause from the majority benches.]
I recall a time not long ago when the president of the Belgian Chamber of Deputies, Mr. Kronacker, went to Moscow. Radio Prague announced this. Did people call him a communist? Was he accused of having sold Belgium out to Russia because he made this trip? But today, if Lumumba or Gizenga or any other Congolese goes to Moscow, the entire press raises a hue and cry. They can go to Moscow, but not the Negroes! The son of the Belgian minister of foreign affairs is now in Moscow, studying at the university. Members of the Belgian Parliament go on missions to Moscow every year; they get along fine with each other; but when we want to go, they advice us not to. Why? Haven’t we got the right to travel wherever we want to? Either we are a sovereign state or we are not….

I remind all of you that my parents were married in a Catholic Church. My family is Catholic. My children attend the Leopoldville Athenee, where classes in the Catholic and Protestant religion and ethics are given; my children are being given a Christian education and are enrolled in classes where Catholic doctrine is taught; you can go verify this. [Applause from the majority benches]
In Africa anybody who is for progress, anyone who is for the people and against the imperialists is a communist, an agent of Moscow! But anyone who approves of the imperialists, who goes out looking for money and pockets it for himself and his family, is an exemplary man; the imperialists will praise him and bless him. That is truth, my friends.

The members of the government know what I am; I am merely a nationalist, pure and simple, and I know that we are going to accomplish something magnificent. The representatives of the African states who met together at the Leopoldville Conference said that Leopoldville is not only the capital of the Republic of the Congo, but of all of Africa. – Portions from pages 394 – 400 (Debate in Parliament September 1960)

Lumumba immediately sent the following message by telex to the African chiefs of state:

Thirty minutes ago, I went to the radio station to address a message to the people in order to reassure them that I was no longer under arrest. I was again confronted with the categorical refusal of the United Nations to allow me to do so. The soldiers guarding the radio station even tried to shoot me… The United Nations authorities are directly responsible for these serious incidents. …

On the thirteenth, the United Nations lifted its special security measures, but Bolikango announced over the radio that Lumumba would soon be brought to trial for his “reign of terror.”
On this same day, September 13, Lumumba sent a telegram to the secretary-general asking for immediate military aid and threatening to call for help elsewhere is such aid was refused….

Given the fact that the United Nations Organization does not wish to aid the government in restoring law and order and calm in the interior of the country, declaring that these are internal conflicts in which the United Nations cannot intervene to bring about a settlement, the government finds itself obliged to request such aid. We cannot allow the country to be plunged into destitution and chaos as a result of the refusal of the United Nations to intervene. Should the aid that we have requested be refused, the government will find itself obliged to request such aid elsewhere. We impatiently await a reply, which we hope will favor the cause of restoring peace in the Congo. – page 407

“We are against the policy of power blocs, which we believe are harmful to the cause of peace in the world and interfere with the strengthening of ties of friendship between peoples.
The powers that are fighting us or fighting my government, under the false pretense that they are fighting communism, are in fact concealing their real intentions. These European powers favor only those African leaders who are tied to their apron strings and deceive their people. Certain of these powers conceive of their presence in the Congo or in Africa only as a chance to exploit their rich resources to the maximum by conniving with certain corrupted leaders.

This policy of corruption whereby every incorruptible leader is called procommunist and every leader who is a traitor to his country pro-Western must be fought.

We don’t want to tag along with any bloc. If we aren’t careful, we will risk falling into neocolonialism that would be as dangerous as the colonialism that we buried last June 30. The imperialists’ strategy to maintain the colonial system in the Congo and simply change the cast, as in a stage play, that is to say, replace the Belgian colonialists with neocolonialists who can be easily manipulated.

That is what the imperialists would have us do to obtain their blessing and support.

As I have always said, I am very much in favor of Belgian, American, French, German, Swiss, Canadian, Italian, or other private companies setting up here to do business. But what I will always violently oppose is dishonest machinations to corrupt and divide us.

We are Africans and we wish to remain so. We have our philosophy, our customs, our traditions, which are as noble as those of other nations.

To abandon them merely to embrace those of other peoples would be to depersonalize ourselves. Our objective, that of every Congolese patriot who truly loves his country, must be to unite and build our nation through mutual understanding and national harmony.

Our immediate program must be to exploit the riches of our country through a common effort and thus create a national economy that will permit us to rapidly improve the standard of living of all our citizens.

We are determined to contribute to the liberation of Africa, the land of our forefathers, through our union and our solidarity.

Our wish that of all men and women of this country, is to bring about the reign of peace and order that each of us needs in order to live happy lives and truly reap the fruits of independence.

If the Congolese united before independence in order to combat the colonialist oppressor, it is their duty to unite in order to stand up to the enemies of this independence. Our salvation lies in unity and work. No single person has sufficient strength to build this great Congo all by himself.

The enemies of our country are eyeing us. The whole world is watching us. We must save the honor and the reputation of are valiant people without delay. We did not demand our independence to fight with each other and kill each other, but solely to build our nation in unity, discipline, and respect for all.

That is why, dear compatriots and comrades in the struggle, I call upon you in the spirit of brotherhood to put an end to fratricidal wars, internal and intertribal quarrels, the rivalries between individuals and between brothers. Our children will judge us harshly if out of blind heedlessness we do not thwart the maneuvers to profit from this dissension and sabotage our national independence and slow down the economic and social development of our state.

Many nations are ready to help us, but in order for this aid to be effective, we must first restore order in this country and create favorable conditions for this cooperation.

Such is the message of a man who has fought at your side so that this country may go ever forward and effectively play its role as the standard-bearer of African liberation.

Onward, men and women citizens, to the building of a united, proud, and prosperous Congo.

A radiant future is dawning on our horizon.

Long live the independent and sovereign Republic of Congo!” – Lumumba Speaks (portions from pages 429 – 431_

“Dulles, Doug Dillon (then serving as a State Department undersecretary), the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, led the charge within the Eisenhower administration to first demonize and then dispose of Lumumba. All three men had financial interests in the Congo. The Dillon family’s investment bank handled the Congo’s bond issues. Dulles’s old law firm represented the American Metal Company (later AMAX), a mining giant with holdings in the Congo, and Dulles was friendly with the company’s chairman, Harold Hochschild, and his brother and successor, Walter, who served in the OSS during the war. Ambassador Burden was a company director, and Frank Taylor Ostrander, Jr., a former U.S. intelligence officer, served the Hochschild brothers as political adviser….
“We want no part of the Cold War,” Lumumba declared. “We want Africa to remain African with a policy of neutrality.” But in Dulles worldview, there was no such thing as neutrality. And anyone who professed such notions belonged to the enemy camp. At a July 22, 1960, National Security Council meeting in the Eisenhower White House—just three weeks after Lumumba’s independence day speech—Dulles denounced the Congolese leader as “a Castro or worse… It is safe to go on the assumption that Lumumba has been bought by the Communists.”
Doug Dillion strongly backed Dulles’s distraught view of Lumumba as a Soviet accomplice. It was an alarmist view calculated to convince Eisenhower that the African leader had to be terminated. As it turned out, the president required little persuasion. By the summer of 1960, Ike was sick, tired, and cranky— and he had little patience or understanding for Third World freedom struggles. Conferring with the British foreign minister Lord Home, Eisenhower quipped that he hoped “Lumumba would fall into a river full of crocodiles.” At an NSC meeting in August 1960, Eisenhower gave Dulles direct approval to “eliminate” Lumumba. Robert Johnson, the minutes taker at the NSC meeting, later recalled the shock felt in the room: “There was a stunned silence for about 15 seconds and the meeting continued.” Johnson said there was nothing ambiguous about Eisenhower’s lethal order. “I was surprised that I would ever hear a president say anything like this in my presence or the presence of a group of people. I was startled.”
Over the next several months, the CIA, working with its allies in Belgiun intelligence, engineered a military coup led by a cocky, ruthless, twenty-nine-year-old colonel named Joseph Mobutu that forced Lumumba out of office and placed him under house arrest. But that was not enough for the CIA. Lumumba “would remain a grave danger,” Dulles told an NSC meeting on September 21, 1960, “as long as he was not yet disposed of.” Three days later, Dulles made it clear that he wanted Lumumba permanently removed, cabling the CIA’s Leopoldville station, “We wish give [sic] every possible support in eliminating Lumumba from any possibility resuming governmental position.”…
The New York Times coverage of the Congo crisis had always been slanted against Lumumba, with columns and commentaries labeling him “inexperienced and irresponsible”….

When he spoke, he gave voice to their dreams. “Our program is clear: complete independence, Congo for the Congolese,” he told a group huddled around a fire one night. “Fourteen million Congolese want work, a better future for their children. They want to be citizens with full political rights, they want a new life.”

Years after Lumumba’s death Stockwell fell into conversation with one of his more peculiar CIA colleagues, a “glisteningly bald” man whom Stockwell anointed “Goldfinger.” The man regaled Stockwell with a story of the evening when he had driven around the capital of Katanga, with Lumumba’s battered corpse in the trunk, “trying to decide what to do with it.”…
The Kennedy White House remained in the dark about Lumumba for a full month after his murder. When JFK finally heard of the leader’s death, the news came not from Dulles but from UN ambassador Adlai Stevenson…

Lowe later recalled the moment: “I was alone with the president; his hand went to his head in utter despair. ‘Oh, no.’ I heard him groan…[Lumumba] was considered a trouble-maker and a leftist by many Americans. But Kennedy’s attitude toward black Africa was that many who were considered leftists were in fact nationalists and patriots… He felt that Africa presented an opportunity for the West, and speaking as an American, unhindered by a colonial heritage, he had made friends in Africa… The call therefore left him heartbroken, for he knew that the murder would be a prelude to chaos…

With one of Africa’s brightest lights extinguished, the Congo slid into an endless nightmare of tyranny and corruption. Propped up by the Unites States, Mobutu began a thirty-two-year dictatorship that looted the country of its wealth and left the nation in ruins. In his rampant thievery, Mobutu modeled himself on King Leopold…

Dulles was confident enough that the Dulles era would continue under JFK that he made boasts to that effect on the Washington dinner party circuit, within full earshot of Kennedy loyalists. Shortly after Kennedy took office, the painter William Walton, a close friend of JFK and Jackie, found himself at a gathering at Walter Lippmann’s house where Dulles was a fellow guest. “After dinner, the men sat around awhile in an old-fashioned way, and [Dulles] started boasting that he was still carrying out his brother Foster’s foreign policy. He said, you know, that’s a much better policy. I’ve chosen to follow that one.” Walton, who loathed the CIA boss, couldn’t believe Dulles’s audacity. The spymaster knew that Walton was one of Kennedy’s inner circle, but he felt no need to hold his tongue. Dulles was clearly sending the new president a message—and Kennedy’s close friend duly delivered it. Early the next morning, Walton phoned JFK at the White House and reported what Dulles had told Lippmann and his guests. “God damn it!” swore Kennedy. “Did he really say that?”

The Devil’s Chessboard – page 374

John F Kennedy knew about the dark shadow government and tried to warn the American public about it. He attempted to dismantle it. What he did not know was that it had already fully infiltrated our media. Listen carefully to the words of President John F. Kennedy in his speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association after reading this excerpt. “Also in the first three months of the CIA’s existence, the National Security Council issued Directive No. 3, dealing specifically with the “production of intelligence and the coordination of intelligence activities within the intelligence community.” The National Security Council wanted to know who was producing what intelligence and how that information was being coordinated among agencies. In the opinion of the CIA, “the link between scientific planning and military research on a national scale did not hitherto exist.” The result was the creation of the Scientific Intelligence Committee (SIC), chaired by the CIA and with members from the army, the navy, the air force, the State Department, and the Atomic Energy Commission. “Very early in its existence the SIC undertook to define scientific intelligence, delineate areas of particular interest and establish committees to handle these areas,” wrote SIC chairman Dr. Karl Weber, in a CIA monograph that remained classified until September 2008. “Priority was accorded to atomic energy, biological warfare, chemical warfare, electronic warfare, guided missiles, aircraft, undersea warfare and medicine” –every area involving Operation Paperclip scientists. Each scientific intelligence subcommittees were created, one for each area of warfare.” – Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to America (Page 315.).

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d3IWbKcUKS8

 

 

 

knew about the dark shadow government and tried to warn the American public about it. He attempted to dismantle it. What he did not know was that it had already fully infiltrated our media. Listen carefully to the words of President John F. Kennedy in his speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association after reading this excerpt. “Also in the first three months of the CIA’s existence, the National Security Council issued Directive No. 3, dealing specifically with the “production of intelligence and the coordination of intelligence activities within the intelligence community.” The National Security Council wanted to know who was producing what intelligence and how that information was being coordinated among agencies. In the opinion of the CIA, “the link between scientific planning and military research on a national scale did not hitherto exist.” The result was the creation of the Scientific Intelligence Committee (SIC), chaired by the CIA and with members from the army, the navy, the air force, the State Department, and the Atomic Energy Commission. “Very early in its existence the SIC undertook to define scientific intelligence, delineate areas of particular interest and establish committees to handle these areas,” wrote SIC chairman Dr. Karl Weber, in a CIA monograph that remained classified until September 2008. “Priority was accorded to atomic energy, biological warfare, chemical warfare, electronic warfare, guided missiles, aircraft, undersea warfare and medicine” –every area involving Operation Paperclip scientists. Each scientific intelligence subcommittees were created, one for each area of warfare.” – Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to America (Page 315.). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d3IWbKcUKS8

 

 

And then Kennedy fired Dulles and after Kennedy’s assassination Dulles headed the assassination investigation.

Read Full Post »

The Mother and Child by Norman Barnesby – 1873
Medical Chaos and Crime by Norman Barnesby, M.D. – 1910
The Science of Life by H.G. Wells – 1931
Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry by H.C. Engelbrecht, PhD, and F.C. Hanighan – 1934
The Merchants of Grain by Dan Morgan – 1937
Germany’s Master Plan: The Story of Industrial Offensive by Joseph Borkin and Charles A Welsh – 1943
The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of The Pact Between the Third Reich & Jewish Palestine by Edwin Black – 1984
Facts and Fascism by George Seldes – 1943
On Photography by Susan Montag – 1973
The Sea Around Us by Rachel Carson – 1950
The Devil’s Chemists: 24 Conspirators of The International Farben Cartel Who Manufacture Wars by Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. – 1952
A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases by Max Gerson, M.D. – 1958
Silent Spring by Rachel Carson – 1962
Chemical Carcinogenesis and Cancers by W.C. Hueper, M.D. (Chief Environmental Cancer Section National Cancer Institute) & W.D. Conway, PhD. (Former Senior Chemist ECS of NCI) – 1964
Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World by Steven Johnson – 2006
The Poisoner’s Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine by Deborah Blum – 2010
Chasing Molecules: Poisonous Products, Human Health and The Promise of Green Chemistry by Elizabeth Grossman – 2009
On a Farther Shore: The Life and Legacy of Rachel Carson by William Souder – 2012
Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature by Linda Lear – 1997
In The Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and An American Family in Hitler’s Berlin by Erik Lawson – 2011
The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, The CIA, and The Rise of America’s Secret Government by David Talbot – 2015
The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top Secret Military Research Agency by Annie Jacobson – 2015
Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists to America by Annie Jacobson – 2014
The Science of Leonardo: Inside the Mind of The Great Genius of the Renaissance by Fritjof Capra – 2007
On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin – 1859
The Art of Scientific Investigation by W.I.B. Beveridge – 1950
The Principles of Reasoning: An Introduction Into Logic and Scientific Method by Daniel Sommer Robinson – 1947
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins – 1976
The Magic of Reality: How we know what’s really true by Richard Dawkins – 2011
Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution by Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan – 1986
The Dragon’s Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan – 2004
The Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan – 2006
Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin – 2008
The Universe Within: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets, and People by Neil Shubin – 2013
Why Evolution is True by Jerry A Coyne – 2009
Connectome: How The Brain’s Wiring Makes Us Who We Are by Sebastian Seung – 2012
The Forest Unseen: A Year’s Watch in Nature by David George Haskell – 2012
The Unexpected Universe by Loren Eiseley – 1964
The Invisible Pyramid: A Naturalist analyses the Rocket Century by Loren Eiseley – 1970
In the Shadow of Man by Jane Goodall – 1971
On Human Nature by E.O. Wilson – 1978
Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carrol – 2005
The Second Jurassic Dinosaur Rush: Museums & Paleontology In America At the Turn of The Twentieth Century by Paul Brinkman – 2010
How We Do It: The Evolution and Future of Human Reproduction by Robert Martin – 2013
The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson – 2002
The Social Conquest of Earth by Edward O. Wilson – 2012
Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel by Carl Safina – 2015
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Orestes & Erik M. Conway – 2010
The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History by Elizabeth Kolbert – 2014
The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology is Rewiring Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease, and Inheritance by Nessa Carey – 2012
Unnatural Selection: How We Are Changing Life, Gene by Gene by Emily Monsoon – 2015
Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future by Chris Mooney & Sheril Kirshenbaum – 2009
Our Stolen Future by Theo Holborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers – 1996
Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment by Sandra Steingraber – 1997
Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood by Sandra Steingraber – 2001
Raising Elijah: Protecting Our Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis by Sandra Steingraber – 2011
The Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making by Dr. Henk Tennekes – 2010
DuPont: Behind the Nylon Curtain by Gerard Colby Zing – 1974
The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben: The Unholy Alliance Between Hitler and the Great Chemical Combine by Joseph Borkin – 1978
The Poisoning of Michigan by Joyce Egginton – 1980
Poisoned Profits: The Toxic Assault On Our Children by Philip Shabecoff and Alice Shabecoff – 2008
Wasting Libby: The True Story of How the WR Grace Corporation Left a Montana Town to Die (and Got Away With It) by Andrea Peacock – 2008
The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson (Forward by Dr. Theo Colborn) – 2004
Killing our Own: The Disaster of America’s Experience With Atomic Radiation by Harvey Wasserman and Norman Solomon – 1982
Voices From Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster by Svetlana Alexievich – 2005
Lake Effect: Two Sisters and a Town’s Toxic Legacy by Nancy Nichols – 2008
The GMO Deception: What You Need To Know About The Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families And Our Environments At Risk by Sheldon Krimsky & Jeremy Gruber – 2014
Cowed: The Hidden Impact of 93 Million Cows on America’s Health, Economy, Politics, Culture, and Environment by Denis Hayes & Gail Boyer Hayes – 2015
What’s In Your Milk: An Expose of Industry and Government Cover-Up On The Dangers of The Genetically Engineered (rBGH) Milk You’re Drinking by Samuel Epstein MD – 2006
Breast Cancer Prevention Program by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., and David Steinman – 1997
Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History by Florence Williams – 2012
National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. – 2011
Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare Happen Here by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber – 1997
Sweet Deception: Why Spenda, NutraSweet, and the FDA May Be Hazardous to Your Health by Dr. Joseph Marcela and Dr. Kendra Degen Pearsall – 2006
Tom’s River: A Story of Science and Salvation by Dan Fagin – 2013
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot – 2010
Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner – 2002
Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner – 2013
The Autoimmune Epidemic: Bodies Gone Haywire in a World Out of Balance and the Cutting-Edge Science That Promises Hope by Donna Jackson Nakazawa – 2008
Great Lakes: Great Legacy? by Theo Colborn – 1990
Ecocide in the USSR: Health and Nature Under Siege by Murray & Alfred Friendly, JR. – 1992
The Hundred-Year Lie: How Food and Medicine are Destroying Your Health by Randall Fitzgerald – 2006
Poisoned Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA by E.G. Vallianatos
No Fear: A Whistleblower’s Triumph Over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA by Marsha Colemn-Adebayo – 2011
Silent Shock: The Men Behind The Thalidomide Scandal and an Australian Family’s Long Road to Justice by Michael Magazanik – 2015
The Burn Pits: The Poisoning of America’s Soldiers by Joseph Hickman – 2016
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It by Marcia Angell, M.D. – 2004
Generation RX: How Prescription Drugs Are Altering American Lives, Minds, and Bodies by Greg Critser – 2005
The Sober Truth:Debunking The Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and The Rehab Industry by Lance Dodes, MD, and Zachary Dodes – 2014
Amputated Lives: Coping with Chemical Sensitivity by Alison Johnson (Forward by L. Christine Oliver, MD, Harvard Medical School) – 2008
Unreasonable Risk: How to Avoid Cancer and Other Toxic Effects From Cosmetics and Personal Care Products – The Neways Story by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. – 2005
Slow Death By a Rubber Duck by Bruce Lourie and Rick Smith
Fake Silk: The Lethal History of Viscose Rayon by Paul David Blanc – 2016
The Power of Myth: Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers – 1988
The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon – 1963
A People’s History of The United States: 1492 – Present by Howard Zinn 1980
The True Believer: Thoughts on The Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer – 1951
Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power by Jon Meacham – 2012
The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris by David McCullough – 2011
The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi – 1944
Listening to America: A Traveler Rediscovers His Country by Bill Moyers – 1971
Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and The Carolinas by Sally E. Hadden – 2001
Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United States by Eleanor Flexner – 1959
In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton by Elisabeth Griffith – 1984
The Age of Acquiescence: The Life And Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power by Steve Fraser – 2015
The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Forethought by Susan Jacoby – 2013
Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thom Hartmann – 2002
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky – 1988
The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills – 1956
Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order by Noam Chomsky – 1999
Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and The Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism by Sheldon S. Wolin – 2008
Ghetto: The invention of a Place, The History of an Idea by Mitchell Duneier – 2016
Getting to Know The General: The Story of An Involvement by Graham Greene – 1984
Confessions of An Economic Hitman by John Perkins – 2004
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein – 2007
Nixon land: The Rise of President and the Fracturing of America by Rick Perlstein – 2000
The Trial of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens – 2001
Kissinger’s Shadow: The Long Reach of America’s Most Controversial Statesman by Greg Grandin – 2015
How We Fight: Crusades, Quagmires and the American Way of War by Dominic Tierney – 2010
The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and A Republic In Peril by Eugene Jarecki – 2008
Private Empire: ExxonMobil And American Power by Steve Coli – 2012
The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan by Rick Perlstein – 2014
Hot Money and The Politics of Debt: What links the Mafia, the Vatican, the Moonies, the CIA, Cocaine Barons, Banks.. and You? by R.T. Naylor – 1987
The Best Way to Rob A Bank Is To Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry by William Black – 2005
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economic Explores The Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner – 2005
Crime and Punishment in America: Why the Solutions to America’s Most Stubborn Social Crisis Have Not Worked and What Will by Elliott Currie – 1998
The Defender: How the Legendary Black Newspaper Changed America by Ethan Michaeli – 2016
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander – 2010
Staley: The Fight For A New American Labor Movement by Steven K. Ashby and C.J. Hawking – 2009
Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit From the Nest Eggs of American Workers by Ellen Schultz – 2011
Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and Global Crisis of American Capitalism by Kevin Phillips – 2008
No One Left To Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton by Christopher Hitchens – 1999
Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush by John W. Dean – 2005
Inside the Wire: A Military Intelligence Soldier’s Eyewitness Account of Life at Guantanamo by Erik Saar and Viveca Novak – 2005
Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror by Richard A Clarke – 2004
Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle by Cass R. Sunstein 2005 (It’s an important read because this set the gutting of safety regulations during Obama years)
The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War On Terror Turned Into A War On American Ideals by Jane Mayer – 2008
Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches by John W. Dean – 2007
Blackwater: The Rise of The World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill – 2007
The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule by Thomas Frank – 2008
Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield by Jeremy Scahill – 2013
The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and The Middle Class Got Shafted by Mike Lofgren – 2012
Simpler: The Future of Government by Cass R. Sunstein – 2013 (Should be titled Wrecking Crew re-packaged and concealed by the neoliberal Democratic Party)
This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral—Plus Plenty of Parking—in America’s Gilded Capital by Mark Leibovich – 2013
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of The Radical Right by Jane Mayer – 2016
Pity The Billionaire: The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right by Thomas Frank – 2012
Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and The Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges – 2009
Patience and Fortitude: Power, Real Estate, and The Fight To Save a Public Library by Scott Sherman – 2015
Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein – 2014 (Legal framework to call any journalism that does not fit the Government official releases conspiracy/fake news)
Spooked: How the CIA Manipulates The Media and Hoodwinks Hollywood by Nicholas Schou – 2016
Listen Liberal or What Ever Happened to The Party of The People? by Thomas Frank – 2016
World Order by Henry Kissinger – 2014
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate by Naomi Klein – 2014
Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Picketty – 2014
An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments With Truth by M.K. Gandhi – 1927
Life and Times of Frederick Douglas Written By Himself – 1882
The Politics of Nonviolent Action: The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp – 1973
Gandhi as a Political Strategist with Essays on Ethics and Politics by Gene Sharp – 1979
Resistance by Barry Lopez – 2004
Resistance Against Empire by Derrick Jensen – 2010
Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative to Revolt by Chris Hedges – 2015
Endgame by Derrick Jensen – 2006 (You’ll have to let him know that I still recommend his books despite his unfriending me on FB for providing evidence that his excerpt on his new book was not grounded in scientific reality. Derrick Jensen is not scientifically literate and it should be pointed out that he has a massive blind spot. Scientific literacy should be a requirement for all citizens but this book is composed of enlightening interviews so I will continue recommending it.)
School: The Story of American Public Education with James D. Anderson, Larry Cuban, Carl F. Kaestle, and Diane Ravitch – 2001
The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravich – 2010
Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To Know by E.D. Hirsch, JR. – 1987
Einstein Never Used Flashcards: How Our Children Really Learn—And Why They Need To Play More And Memorize Less by Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, PH.D., And Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, PH.D., with Diane Eyer, PH.D.
Reign Of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public School by Diane Ravitch – 2013
Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder by Richard Louv – 2005
The Nature Principle: Human Restoration and The End of Nature-Deficit Disorder by Richard Louv – 2011
With Bitter Herbs They Shall Eat It: Chemical Ecology and the Origins of Human Diet and Medicine by Timothy Johns – 1990
The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s-Eye View of The World by Michael Pollan – 2001
The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan – 2006
In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto by Michael Pollan – 2008
How to Grow More Vegetables (and fruits, nuts, berries, grains, and other crops) Than You Ever Thought Possible On Less Land Than You Can Imagine: A Primer on The Life-giving Grow Intensive Method of Sustainable Horticulture by John Jeavons (Forward by Alice Waters) – 1974
Chasing Molecules: Poisonous Products, Human Health and the Promise of Green Chemistry by Elizabeth Grossman – 2009
Ecofriendly House Plants: 50 Indoor Plants That Purify the Air in Homes and Offices by B.C. Wolverton – 1996
Toxin Toxout: Getting Harmful Chemicals Out of Our Bodies and Our World by Bruce Lourie and Rick Smith – 2013
Anticancer: A New Way of Life by David Servan-Schreiber, MD, PhD – 2007
Brain Maker: The Power of Gut Microbes to Heal and Protect Your Brain—For Life by David Perlmutter, MD with Kristin Loberg – 2015
The Engine 2 Diet: The Texas Firefighter’s 28-Day Save-Your-Life Plan that Lowers Cholesterol and Burns Away the Pounds by Rip Esselstyn – 2009
A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement by Phillip Shabecoff – 1993
The Sustainable Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift by Andres R. Edwards – 2005
The Revolution Where You Live: Stories From A 12,000-Mile Journey Through New America by Sarah van Geldner – 2017

Read Full Post »

U.S. Nerve Gas Hit Our Own Troops in Iraq

Read Full Post »

Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry by H.C. Engelbrecht, PhD, and F.C. Hanighan, 1934 (Excerpts)

“In 1930, as a result of the endeavors of disarmament advocates, a treaty was signed between the United States, Great Britain, and Japan. While it fell far short of disarming these powers, it did agree on a joint policy of naval limitation and so prevented for a time a costly naval building competition between these countries. President Hoover submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification. At this point an organization called the Navy League entered the picture. It raised strenuous objections to the treaty on the ground that it “jeopardized American security.” The League failed to convince the Senate, however, and the treaty was ratified.
Presumably the Navy League was a collection of individuals who distrusted international efforts to disarm and who believed that a large navy would insure the safety of the United States and its citizens. Some might assail these conservatives for clinging to reactionary ideas, but their point of view was a recognized patriotic policy upheld by many who had no connection with the League. But what was the Navy League and who were its backers?
Representative Claude H. Tavener made a speech in Congress in 1916 which revealed the results of his investigation into the nature and character of the League. He cited the League’s official journal to show that eighteen men and one corporation were listed as “founders.” The corporation was the Midvale Steel Company from which the government had bought more than $20,000,000 worth of armor plate, to say nothing of other materials. Among the individual founders were Charles M. Schwab, president of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, which makes armor plate and other material; J.P. Morgan, of the United States Steel Corporation, which would profit heavily from large naval orders; Colonel R.M. Thompson, of the International Nickel Company, which dealt in nickel, that metal so necessary in making shells; and B.F. Tracy, former Secretary of Navy, who became attorney for the Carnegie Steel Company. More than half the founders of this energetic League were gentlemen whose business would benefit by large naval appropriations. It is evident from this that American arms makers have employed the Navy League to prevent Naval disarmament.
In Europe their colleagues are even more active. Hitler has now become the symbol of the return of German Militarism. Even before he managed to obtain supreme power there was speculation as to his financial backers. Obviously they included German industrialists fearful of socialism, communism, and the labor unions, nationalists smarting under the “insults” of the Versailles treaty, and a host of other discontented folk. But on the list of contributors supplying funds to the Hitler movement were the names of two capitalists—VonArthaber and Von Duschnitz—directors of Skoda, the great armament firm of Germany’s neighbor and enemy, Czechoslovakia.
Interlocking directorates are a familiar phenomenon in the United States. The real controller of industries is frequently found in the most unexpected places. In Europe the same system prevails. And so it appears that Messrs. Von Arthaber and Von Duschnitz represent a firm which is controlled by yet another firm. The head of this holding company is neither German nor Czech. He is a French citizen., M. Eugene Schneider, president of the Schneider-Creusot Company which for a century has dominated the French arms industry and which through its subsidiaries now controls most of the important arms factories in Central Europe. Some of Hitler’s financial support, then, was derived from a company owned by a leading French industrialist and arms maker.
Arms merchants also own newspapers and mold public opinion. M. Schneider is more than just the president of Creusot. He is the moving spirit of another great combine, the Comite des Forges. This French steel trust through one of its officers has controlling shares in the Paris newspaper Le Temps, the counterpart of The New York Times, and the Journal des Debats, which corresponds to the New York Herald Tribune. These two powerful papers constantly warn their readers of the “danger of disarmament” and of the menace of Germany. Thus M. Schneider is in a position to pull two strings, one linked to Hitler and German militarism, and the other tied to the French Press and French militarism.
Arms merchants have long carried on a profitable business arming the potential enemies of their own country. In England today in Bedford Park there is a canon captured by the British from the Germans during the World War. It bears a British trademark, for it was sold to Germany by a British firm before the war. English companies also sold mines to the Turks by which the British men-of-war were sunk in the Dardanelles during the war. The examples of this international trade in arms before the war are legion, as will be shown.
Nor are they lacking today. Recently the trial of the British engineers in Soviet Russia brought up the name of Vickers, the engineering firm which employed the accused. But Vickers has other lines than building dams for Bolsheviks. It is the largest armament trust in Great Britain. For years relations between the Soviets and Great Britain were such that the Soviets were convinced that Britain would lead the attack of the “capitalist powers” on Russia. Yet in 1930 Vickers sold 60 of its latest and most powerful tanks to the Soviets.
Today Russia is less of a problem to England than is Germany. The rise of Hitler has reawakened much of pre-war British suspicion of Germany. Germany was forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles to have a military force. Yet in 1933, at a time at a time when relations between the two countries were strained, the Germans placed an order with an English aircraft manufacturer for 60 of the most efficient fighting planes on the market, and the order would have been filled had not the British Air Ministry intervened and refused to permit the British manufacturer to supply the planes.
Arms makers engineer “war scares.” They excite governments and peoples to fear their neighbors and rivals, so that they may sell more armaments. This is an old practice worked often in Europe before the World War and still in use. Bribery is frequently closely associated with war scares. Both are well illustrated in the Seletzki scandal in Rumania. Bruno Seletzki (or Zelevski) was the Skoda agent in Rumania. In March, 1933, the Rumanian authorities discovered that this Czech firm had evaded taxes to the extent of 65 million lei. In searching Seletzki’s files, secret military documents were sealed and Seletzki’s affairs were to undergo a thorough “airing.”
A few days after the seals were found broken and many documents were missing. Seletzki was now held for trial and his files were carefully examined. The findings at that time pointed to widespread corruption of important government and army officials. Sums amounting to more than a billion lei had been distributed among the “right” officials, hundreds of thousands had been given to “charity” or spent on “entertainment,” because the persons receiving these sums “will be used by us some day.” The war scare of 1930 was revealed as a device to secure Rumanian armament orders, for Russia at that time was represented as ready to invade Bessarabia, and Rumania was pictured as helpless against this threat; all the hysteria vanished over night when Skoda was given large armament orders by the Rumanian government. General Popescu who was involved shot himself in his study and other officials were exceedingly nervous about the revelations which might yet come. It was never revealed who Seletzki’s friends in the Rumanian government had been.
All these incidents took place in times of peace. Presumably arms merchants become strictly patriotic once their countries start warlike operations. Not at all! During the World War at one time there were two trials going on in France. In one, Bolo Pasha was facing charges of trying to corrupt French newspapers in the interest of the Central Powers. He was convicted and executed. In the other, a group of French industrialists were tried for selling war materials to Germany through Switzerland. Although the facts were proved, these industrialists were released because they also supplied French armies.” – Portions from pages 1 – 6

From Dye Stuff Industrialists to Chemical Weapon Makers.

“Wherever there is a chemical or dye-stuff industry, the possibilities are given for rapid production of poison gases for war.
It is not surprising, then, that the great chemical factories of the world are to be found within the borders of the great powers. The largest companies or combines are I.G. Farben Industrie in Germany, the Imperial Chemical Industries in England, Kuklmann in France, DuPont de Nemours, the Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation (Dow Chemical) in the United States.
The Germans have always been leaders in the chemical industry. In the industrial reorganization which followed the war, the great chemical trust, I.G. Farben Industrie, was formed in 1925, with headquarters at Frankfurt and factories in a dozen places. The board of directors is made up of various nationalities, all leaders of the chemical industry in their several countries. The capital of the trust, as noted, is owned, to at least 75 per cent, by the French. The German chemical trust has close connections with other chemical companies in Spain, Italy, France, England, and even in the United States. I.G. Farben has evolved more than a thousand poison gases for use in the next war.
The French Etablissements Kuklmann owes its origin to the Germans. Right after the war with the German industrialists agreed to establish a chemical industry in France. In 1923, during the Ruhr invasion, negotiations were completed and in the next year German experts came to France to train French chemists in the use of German chemical patents. Naturally they were well paid. Kuklmann maintains close industrial relations with the German chemical trust and with the Spanish dynamite companies. Financially it is tied to Dillon, Read of New York, the Credit Suisse of Zurich ,and Mendelssohn of Berlin.
In England the Imperial Chemical Industries (I.C.I.) monopolizes the chemical industry. It, too, owes its real importance to German patents which it secured after the war. It is very closely tied to the government and frankly acknowledges its readiness for war. …
The United States boasts of a flourishing chemical industry which also owes its present status to German patents. A number of giants with many international ramifications are dominant, above all Du Pont de Nemours and the Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation….
Fifteen years have lapsed since the “war to end all wars.” Yet the arms industry has moved forward with growing momentum as if the pacific resolutions of the various peoples and governments had never existed. All these technical improvements, all the international mergers, the cooperation between government and the industry bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the situation during the epoch preceding 1914. Is this present situation necessarily a preparation for another world struggle and what, if any, are the solutions to these problems.” – Portions from pages 255 – 256.

Read Full Post »

Poisoned Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA by E.G. Vallianatos (Important Excerpts)

“Eliminating the public’s ability to halt the selling or planting of these seeds, the groups said, was removing the one sure way of checking this hugely profitable but potentially dangerous forced march toward the genetic engineering of our food.

We knew this was Bush’s view, of course: State Department cables reveal that the Bush administration threatened the European Union with sanctions unless EU governments allowed the planting of Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds in Europe. But the phalanx of Monsanto men and women working for Obama simply confirms that it does not matter who presides over the White House or Congress. Corporations rule the kingdom. While still serving as Obama’s solicitor general, Elena Kagan wrote a brief requesting the Supreme Court to lift a ruling by an appeals court forbidding the planting in California of Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready alfalfa. In August 2010, Kagan was confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. She sits beside Justice Clarence Thomas, who once served as a lawyer for Monsanto.
Indeed, when it comes to genetic engineering, “the Obama administration has not been better than the Bush administration, possibly worse,” wrote Jeffrey Smith, an expert on the health effects of bioengineered food. The triumph of Monsanto within the government is bad for our health and bad for the environment. Let me explain further by introducing Don Huber….

Don Huber knows a lot about biological weapons, and he knows a lot about plants. A retired colonel from the Army’s biological warfare corps, Huber taught plant diseases and soil microbiology at Purdue University for thirty-five years. He has also been the coordinator of the U.S. Agricultural Research Service National Plant Disease Recovery System, a program of the USDA. Of all the things he knows about biological weapons and crops, he is most concerned about the destructive effects of pesticides on the biological systems of plants….

On January 17, 2011, Huber wrote a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, “For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks,” Huber wrote, “Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of high risk status. In laymen’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

Huber explained that the pathogen is “a medium size virus” and “a micro-fungal-like organism” that can reproduce itself. It has been found in livestock feed made by soybeans and corn genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate (“Roundup soybean meal and corn”).  In addition, the pathogen has been found in pigs, cattle, and other animals that have been struck by spontaneous abortions and infertility. The pathogen “may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations,” Huber added. “These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.”

It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases,” Huber continued. Furthermore, glyphosate “dismantles plant defenses” against disease by immobilizing vital nutrients, which means the growing crop is starved of the nutrients it must have to defend itself against disease and to be nutritious. Such impoverished crops, says Huber, are causing “animal disorders.”

Someone leaked the letter Huber sent to Secretary Vilsack. Huber then sent his original letter to the European Union and the European Commission with a cover letter, dated April 20, 2011, explaining why he had felt compelled to write so urgently to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

“I feel it would be totally irresponsible to ignore my own research and the vast amount of published research now available that support the concerns we are seeing in production agriculture,” Huber wrote. He cited evidence showing this new pathogen kills chicken embryos in 24 to 72 hours. The pathogen also intensifies many of the diseases afflicting crops, including an affliction known as Goss’s wilt that in 2010 caused American farmers to lose fully a billion bushels of corn…

Huber’s hopes were quickly dashed. Two weeks after he sent his letter to Vilsack, he received a letter back from the USDA: the government was determined to side with Monsanto on alfalfa. The letter assured Huber that the decision was based “on sound science informed by peer-review research….” – Portions from pages 204 – 207

“Huber responded to the USDA with a long and impassioned letter citing 135 scientific studies supporting his position. He was furious at the intimidation of scientists working on the risks of bioengineered crops, especially on the links between glyphosate and now-unregulated alfalfa.

“The current crop and animal production environment is NOT normal and NOT sustainable!” Huber wrote. “We are experiencing an escalating incidence of crop, animal, and human diseases, the emergence and reemergence of diseases once rare or under practical control, and new diseases previously unknown to science.”

Increasing incidences of disease in animal production programs, especially cattle, dairy, and swine, had become associated with low manganese or other micronutrients, Huber wrote. Manganese deficiencies are associated with infectious diseases, bone and tissue deformities, reproductive failure and death. Discovered just a decade previously, this new “electron-microscope-sized ‘organism’” was causing infertility and miscarriage in animals. “The excessive use of glyphosate is a major contributor to the increased severity and epidemics of plant and animal diseases, reduced nutrient quality, high mycotoxin levels, and toxic chemical residues we are experiencing in production agriculture,” Huber wrote. “I urge your consideration of the decision to deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa based on the principle of ‘Scientific Precaution’ until research can be completed relative to its safety, equivalency, and sustainability.”

Huber must have known that asking the USDA to undo the deregulation of alfalfa was hopeless. The Monsanto-controlled agency would not tolerate scientific resistance. So, on November 1, 2011, Huber left for England, where he made a presentation to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology of the British House of Commons, in which he repeated his conclusions he had reported to the USDA, the European Union, and the European Commission.

Now outside the suffocating atmosphere of USDA Huber expressed himself in less diplomatic language. Glyphosate “predisposes plants to disease” and stimulates pathogens” in the soil, he said. Glyphosate compromises the defense of crops against disease and kills the targeted plants by acting as a biological war agent—in a sense, by boosting disease organisms in the soil while killing disease resistance organisms….

Like Morton Biskind sixty years earlier, Don Huber spoke of “a new factor” in our civilization causing havoc in nature, human health, and global food security. The new factor for Biskind in 1953 was the “miracle” of DDT; for Huber in 2011, the danger was posed by a pathogen associated with another “miracle” chemical named glyphosate. In both cases, we have the sick feeling that little, if anything, has changed. The same irresponsible agribusiness policies reign, threatening the very integrity of our food and our health….

Huber, now an emeritus professor at Purdue, wrote to me in August 2012 to say that all his efforts with the USDA had “fallen on deaf ears.” The USDA was busy deregulating genetically modified crops, and scientists working at universities with industry contracts were in hot water: “Several scientists have been limited in what they can say or share, while others have been denied promotion or tenure,” Huber wrote. Thankfully, he said, his own research was still privately funded,” since we couldn’t take a chance on it being shut down earlier.”

Huber’s dire warning is like a sword hanging by a thread. The USDA “regulators” of genetically engineered crops continue with business as usual. In early 2012, they were ready to approve the dangerous herbicide 2.4-D (which, you will remember, was half of Agent Orange) for a new genetically modified corn. This action is certain to double the adverse effects of genetically modified crops. 2,4-D may even trump glyphosate as the greatest chemical threat to American agriculture. Its history of more than seventy years as a chemical weapon, and as a weed killer contaminated by the lethal 2378-dioxin, doesn’t bode well for America…. Dow has convinced the “regulators” of America, Canada, and the European Union that 2,4-D is safe…” – Portions from pages 208 –  212

“According to the EPA, 25% of samples of 2,4-D were contaminated with dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), which is mutagenic, carcinogenic, and causes reproductive problems at very small doses.” (CDC NIOSH, 2005).

“Charles Benbrook, a former Capitol Hill staff scientist, has shown that, in the period between 1996 and 2011, the GM crops in the United States increased the use of pesticides by about 7 percent, or 404 million pounds a year.” – page 213

“In Wyoming, a small farmer named John Fenton has twenty-four gas wells on his farm, and his drinking water is full of poisons, including drilling fluids, driving muds, and high levels of the cancer causing benzene. Since the contamination, Fenton’s property has lost half of its value; he has to buy drinking water, though he still bathes in the contaminated water. Around his community, he has seen people with “a lot of neurological problems, neuropathy, seizures, people losing their sense of smell, sense of taste. People with their arms and legs going numb.”

Local officials, meanwhile, continue to tell Fenton his water is potable. When Fenton persuaded the EPA to test his water and investigate the fracking of gas wells under his land, the agency agreed with him: fracking had poisoned his water.

The political response to this evidence was predictable. House Republicans held a public meeting on the Fenton water testing case, but when the “public” actually showed up—in the form of Josh Fox, the producer of Garland, a documentary on the devastation caused by natural gas drilling—the elected officials had Fox arrested.

In May 2012, the Obama administration proposed regulations requiring drillers to reveal the composition of their fracking chemicals thirty days before they blasted underground deposits of oil and gas with those chemicals. Once again, industry pressure diluted the effort, and the lobbyists for ExxonMobil and other drillers convinced the White House to reverse the regulation. The drillers would name their fracking chemicals only after they completed their work.

Once again, we find ourselves asking fundamental questions: What does such a policy say about our country’s priorities? Who are such laws meant to protect? As with pesticides, so with fracking: America needs to reinvent itself, to reverse the pervasive and insidious influence of the petrochemical-agribusiness complex” – Portion from pages 227 – 228

“But with the testing of the various toxic compounds released into the human economy and environment, we now also know that pesticides “injure man’s genetic material in precisely the same way radiation does,” my EPA colleague John Hou-Shi Chen, a distinguished geneticist, told me more than thirty years ago. “And what is so awful about such genetic injury is that it is permanent—it can’t be recalled, corrected or somehow restricted to the victim, unless you also castrate the individual. So now with a greater number of pesticide poisons loose in the environment, we as a society are creating a generation of people who will be weak in facing the future. We are then changing, irreversibly, the future itself. The price for that change is—or should be—unacceptable to any people with dignity and respect for themselves and love for their children.”

I agree with this wisdom wholeheartedly. For decades, the EPA was my personal university, where I learned the hard way why America and the rest of the industrialized world have become so hooked on dangerous farm sprays. No science or policy has been allowed to interrupt this corruption. In fact, science and policy themselves have been made a prop to the pesticides industry and agribusiness.

This is a tragic turn of events, especially given the evidence. Tomes of scientific studies have shown farm sprays for what they are: biocides, which cause and promote insect infestations of crops; give cancer to animals and humans; and leave a trail of death among fish and wildlife.

Just as petroleum companies pay for fake “science” that muddles the debate about climate change, most studies funded by the chemical industry muddy the debate about pesticides. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA continue to take up the cause of agribusiness, with catastrophic consequences for family farmers, who have been almost completely swallowed up (or driven into bankruptcy) by industrial-scale farms. In the twentieth century, 98 percent of black farmers and more than 60 percent of white family farmers were forced off the land. The few large farmers and agribusinesses left in charge of rural America are hooked on pesticides precisely because these enable them to control their vast estates.”  – Page 230

“EPA officials know global chemical and agribusiness industries are manufacturing science. They know their products are dangerous. Yet industry power either corrupts or silences EPA scientists, who are forced then to bury or ignore the truth. Scientists find themselves working in a roomful of funhouse mirrors, plagiarizing industry studies and cutting and pasting the findings of industry studies as their own.

These are the behaviors of a traumatized organization. And these are the reasons why, fifty-two years after Silent Spring, farm sprays remain ubiquitous, their makers remain more powerful than ever, and we remain overwhelmed with diseases and imbalances in nature.

President Barack Obama—indeed, any president—needs to take human health and family farming much more seriously. He needs to discard the toxic policies of agribusiness in favor of small-scale agriculture that raises healthful food without injuring humans and wildlife or contributing to climate change. Traditional (and often organic) farmers—until seventy-five years ago, the only farmers there were—are slowly beginning to make a comeback. They have always known how to raise crops and livestock without industrial poisons. They are the seed for a future of good food, a healthy natural world, and democracy in rural America—and the world.”  – Portions from pages 235 – 236

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »