Think DNA and Blood Taken From Birth Is Crazy, Think Again. Lawsuits Against States Prove Otherwise

MN Court Rules Against State 

MN courts ruled in families favor in regards to the MN Health Dept law that makes it mandatory to take blood and DNA from new born babies unless parents sign forms against it.

Here is the introduction of the lawsuit of Keri and Allen Bearder VS the state of MN Dept of Health (pdf)

Defendants violated the public’s trust and violated the public’s right to privacy and
bodily integrity. Since 1965, Defendants collected newborn blood specimens from children born
in Minnesota. Defendants screened the blood for genetic disorders. Instead of destroying
newborn blood samples and screening results obtained for this newborn screening, Defendants
began operating a newborn blood and DNA warehouse. As of December 31, 2008, the
warehouse held over a 1.5 million screening records and over 800,000 newborn blood
specimens. Unbeknownst to the public at large, Defendants began sharing blood samples and
screening results with private institutions for research projects. At no time did Defendants obtain
consent for these activities.

Failing to obtain consent is a violation of the Genetic Privacy Act and represents an
unprecedented breach of the fundamental and constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity
in Minnesota. In additional to statutory and constitutional claims, Defendants’ conduct gives rise
to liability in tort. Defendants are aware of their violations, but continue to knowingly violate
the law. The record establishes that MDH will do whatever it wishes to effect what it assumes is
best for the public, even if it that means ignoring and violating laws passed by an elected
legislature. Instead of bringing their conduct into conformance with current law, Defendants
sought to amend the Genetic Privacy Act to allow for non-consensual, storage, use, and
dissemination of newborn blood specimens and test results. Those attempts failed. But
Defendants’ unlawful conduct continues unabated.
Plaintiffs are Minnesota citizens attempting to restrain Defendants from violating the law.
This lawsuit is about the State’s unlawful, unconstitutional, and tortious retention and
dissemination to private parties of newborn blood specimens and genetic testing results without
the informed consent of the newborn’s parents after newborn screening is complete. This
lawsuit is not about ending newborn screening. Rather, this lawsuit is an attempt to bring
Defendants’ conduct into conformance with the law once newborn screening is complete. This
lawsuit seeks, damages, exemplary damages, and injunctive relief.

You can download or open the full pdf of this case here.  Or watch the video of the MN Supreme Court Case below.

Here are a few articles on the case:
Minnesota Supreme Court backs families over newborns’ blood storage.  Pioneer Press.  11/17/2011
Minn. Court Backs Families In Handling Of Newborn Blood. CBS News. November 16, 2011
Ruling Restricts Newborn Blood Use. Star Tribune. November 16, 2011

TX Lawsuits

Jeff Higgins has filed a lawsuit in TX also.  Below  is an Austin News KXAN video uncovering the misuse of the blood samples such as giving samples to the military and sold to private companies.

Newborn Blood Spot Litigation: 70 Days to Destroy 5+ Million Samples. Genomics Law Report.  Feb 2 2010.
Parents Sue Texas Health Dept. and Texas A&M over Infant Blood Databank. Texas Civil Rights Project. March 18, 2009.
Suit possible over baby DNA sent to military lab for national database. Statesman.  Feb. 22, 2010

OPT-OUT – PARENT FORMS
Michigan
Minnesota
New York – NY Opt Out Instructions
Advertisements

Original Sources for the Eugenics Jaffe Memo

While searching for the original source of the Jaffe Memo, the memo from Frederick S Jaffe Vice President of Planned Parenthood to  Bernard Berelson, President of the Population Council on March 11, 1969. (because I always do my research).  I found the same chart as in the Jaffe memo in the Family Planning Perspectives, on JStore (full citation follows).

U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature
Author(s): Robin Elliott, Lynn C. Landman, Richard Lincoln, Theodore Tsuoroka
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. i-xvi
Published by: Guttmacher Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2133834

While JStore does require a subscription to view most public library allow free access with your library card number.  So as long as you have a library card you have access to download it and view it for yourself.

I also found an interesting comment on Abby Johnson’s Blog with good links.  I have never read this blog before, (apparently she is a former planned parenthood employee turned pro-life).

Dear Friends – My name is Randy Engel, and I am the founder and National Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, the oldest prolife research agency in the world.

Since it was the USCL which originally exposed the Jaffe/Berelson Memo nearly 40 years ago I thought it necessary to make the following clarifications.

The chart which appears at our USCL research library website [http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=49&action=inline] is a re-set copy of the chart that originally appeared in Family Planning Perspectives 1970. The FPP text however was too small to read, so I called Planned Parenthood/World Population in NYC and was told there was no copyright on the publication, so the USCL reset the text and distributed the chart almost immediately. Therefore the chart, in its new format has been available to the public from the USCL since 1970.

When we opened the USCL Research Library in February 2008, we posted both the Berelson/Jaffe chart [re-set] as well as the original article by Berelson of the Population Council titled “Beyond Family Planning” online. [http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=83&action=inline]

The latter should be read in conjunction with the chart in order to understand the significance of the term “population control.”

If you have any questions about either, I can be contacted at rvte61@comcast.net.

Sincerely, Randy Engel, USCL


WEATHER MODIFICATION PROOF

Weather Modification is real and my proof is as follows.  The question is weather techniques such as seed clouding has any damaging effect on the environment and humans.  Many believe that weather modification is used in sinister ways.  Whether this is true or not I do not know.  I do know that most people do not know that many states in the US and other countries allow weather modifications.  Weather modifications usually come in the form of cloud seeding, spraying silver iodide near clouds by airplane to create rain.  In the US most states allow companies to use weather modification as long as they get a permit.

Proof In CA

the following was recently posted in the “Legal Notices” section of the classified ads in a local newspaper called The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California….

NOTICE OF INTENTION WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY HEREBY GIVES NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONDUCT A WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM NATURE AND PURPOSE: The purpose of the project is to increase rainfall to help alleviate deficiencies of water supplies in Santa Barbara County. Clouds would be seeded by the dispersal of Silver Iodide (AgI). Two possible modes of seeding, air based and ground based, would be used. LOCATION OF PURPOSE: Project operations could be conducted during the period between November 15 and April 15, for each year, 2011-2012 through 2015-2016. Airborne seeding operations would utilize air space over Santa Barbara County, portions of San Luis Obispo County as well as the Pacific Ocean immediately west of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. Ground based seeding operations would be conducted from the Santa Ynez Mountains, the Casmalia Hills and the San Rafael Mountains. The target areas for seeding operations are the watersheds behind Cachuma and Gibraltar reservoirs on the Santa Ynez River as well as Twitchell reservoir on the Cuyama River. LICENSEE: The project would be operated and supervised by a licensed weather modification consultant.

“Licensed weather modification consultant”  Hmmmm…..obviously this has been being developed for awhile……  Not only is the technology available but their actually is a program to license some one in weather modification.  They will be spraying in the  as the Pacific Ocean also?  Do we even known what spraying Silver Iodide into the air and ocean will do?  I guess if it helps us have more rain huh?

Proof In TX

From the TDLR Texas Department of Legislation and Regulation “Currently, cloud-seeding projects designed to increase rainfall from convective cloud towers are conducted in nearly 31 million acres of Texas (or almost one-fifth of the state’s land area). In administering the Texas Weather Modification Act (enacted by the Texas Legislature in 1967), TDLR’s weather modification program issues licenses and permits for these projects, many of which have been in existence since 2000. The projects use specialized aircraft and sophisticated weather radar systems, operated by skilled meteorologists, at sites near Amarillo, Plains, Pecos, San Angelo, and Pleasanton. “

Proof in WI

From WI state and license Permit and Registration Services Weather Modification Project Permit

Proof In MN

MN Legislation first enacted in 1977  view it in full here.  Below are so excerpts from the law.

42.01 Policy.

The legislature finds that it is necessary for the state to regulate weather modification to protect its citizens, but nothing in sections 42.01 to 42.14 shall be construed to encourage or promote weather modification.

42.03 Sovereign right claimed by state.

It is declared that the state of Minnesota claims its sovereign right to use for the best interest of its residents the moisture contained in the clouds and atmosphere within its sovereign state boundaries.

42.06 Licenses.

Subdivision 1. No person shall engage in weather modification without a license issued by the commissioner. Applications for weather modification licenses shall be on forms prescribed and furnished by the commissioner. The applicant shall pay a fee of $100. The license shall be valid for one year. The commissioner may waive the license fee in situations the commissioner deems appropriate.

Subd. 2. The commissioner shall issue licenses only to applicants who demonstrate good character, adequate education and sufficient competence in the field of meteorology and cloud physics to engage in weather modification. At a minimum, each applicant shall meet at least one of the following:

(1) demonstrate at least eight years of experience at the professional level in weather modification field research or operations, at least three of these years as a professional director; or

(2) has obtained a baccalaureate degree in engineering, mathematics, or the physical sciences plus three years experience in weather modification field research or operations; or

(3) has obtained a baccalaureate degree in meteorology, or a degree in engineering or the physical sciences which includes, or is in addition to, the equivalent of at least 25 semester hours of meteorological course work and two years practical experience in weather modification operations or research.

If the applicant is an organization, the competence must be demonstrated by the individuals who are to supervise and conduct the weather modification.

Subd. 3. The commissioner may renew a license annually if the applicant has the qualifications necessary for issuance of an original license and pays a fee of $100.

Subd. 4. Repealed, 1996 c 310 s 1

HIST: 1977 c 426 s 6; 1986 c 444

42.09 Permits.

Subdivision 1. No person shall conduct an operation without a permit issued by the commissioner. Applications for permits shall be on forms prescribed and furnished by the commissioner. Permits shall be issued only to applicants who hold a valid weather modification license, pay a fee of $100 and furnish proof of financial responsibility pursuant to subdivision 2. Prior to conducting an operation, the permittee shall publish notice of the operation as the commissioner shall require and shall give written notice to the county boards of the counties over which the operation is to be conducted and counties contiguous thereto. The permit shall be valid for one year or until the operation terminates, whichever first occurs.

Subd. 2. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commissioner the ability to respond to damages for liability which might reasonably result from the operation for which the permit is sought.

Subd. 3. Repealed, 1996 c 310 s 1

Subd. 4. To the extent the commissioner deems necessary, emergency weather modification operations for the purpose of controlling fire, frost, sleet, hail, fog, or wind shall be exempt from the permit requirements.

Subd. 5. The commissioner may renew a permit annually if the applicant has the qualifications necessary for issuance of an original permit and pays a fee of $100.

Subd. 6. No permit shall be issued to use a cloud seeding apparatus which emits cloud seeding material into the air when located on or in contact with the ground.

Subd. 7. Before a permit is issued, the commissioner may hold an informal hearing on the permit, at a location within the same geographic area as the proposed operation will be conducted.

Subd. 8. No more than one weather modification permit shall be issued for a given geographic area.

Subd. 9. The applicant must submit a complete operational plan for each proposed project prepared by the licensee who shall conduct the operation, which shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) a specific statement of the nature and objectives of the intended operation,

(b) a map of the proposed operating area which specifies the primary target area and shows the area reasonably expected to be affected and a rain gauge system for both seeded and downwind areas,

(c) an estimate of the amount of cloud seeding material expected to be placed in the clouds,

(d) a statement of the types of clouds to be seeded and identification of a procedure for random selection of at least a portion of the clouds to be seeded during the operation,

(e) the name and address of the licensee,

(f) the person or organization on whose behalf it is to be conducted,

(g) a statement showing any expected effect upon the environment and results of weather modification operations, and methods of determining and properly evaluating that operation, and any other detailed information as may be required to describe the operation and its proposed method of evaluation.

HIST: 1977 c 426 s 9; 1985 c 248 s 11; 1986 c 444

Proof In China

China Works to Stave Off Wheat Crisis. February 13, 2011. NY Times

China has been using weather modifications since the 1950’s

Proof in Abu Dhabi
The gov has used cloud seeding 50 times over the course of the summer

Companies that Supply this Service

Weather Modification INC Fargo, ND

Ice Crystal Engineering Kindred, ND

Other Resources

Weather Modification and the Law (pdf download)

Unilateral GeoEngineering 2008 CFR Council on Foreign Relations (pdf download)

A Seriously In depth site on weather modification


Gerald Celente’s Accounts Frozen Due To MF Global Bankruptcy

Gerald Celente is a world renowned trend researcher.  The guy is super funny and always right on the money.  He predicted long ago the world wide protests (including in the US) due to the economy.  He often says, “When the people have nothing to lose, they lose it”.  I was checking up on his latest interviews only to find out  that his account with over $100,000 in it has been closed on (meaning it as a $0 balance now) due to the bankruptcy of MF Global (whom he had an account with since they bought out the company he did business with).  They were one of the largest brokerage companies in the US.

Transcript of Gerald Celente interview with Chris Waltzek about MF Global Nov 17 2011

Excerpt from KWN interview with Gerald Celente Nov 17 2011 link to hear to in full

Relief, but grief from MF Global clients: NY Post. November 18 2011

This case illustrates my concerns about our economy.  MF Global took customers deposits and gambled with it.  The gamble went bad and they didn’t have the money to cover the customers accounts, and therefore went bankrupt.  The question is what happens to the customers?  The judge in the case has ordered the trustee to give some of the customers 60% of there accounts.  I looked up on the gov FDIC page to see what is covered and found this: “Increasingly, institutions are also offering consumers a broad array of investment products that are not deposits, such as mutual funds, annuities, life insurance policies, stocks and bonds.  Unlike the traditional checking or savings account, however, these non-deposit investment products are not insured by the FDIC.”

So what does this mean?  To me it means that banks are using customers deposits to gamble.  If it is an FDIC account you are unlikely to personally have any interruption in your service and will have access to your funds (according to recent case histories I looked at), however we as tax payers will be on the line for it.  While banks do pay a fee towards the FDIC fund, but it is shrinking according to a 2009 NPR article  If they were not to have enough they would borrow from the treasury department (i.e. the tax payers).  If you have an account (or safety deposit box) that is not FDIC insured your screwed.


New Study Proves a Small Group of Companies Wields Huge Power Over the Global Economy.

A University of Zurich study is the first to look at all 43,060 transnational corporations and the web of ownership between them – and created a ‘map’ of 1,318 companies at the heart of the global economy.

The study found that 147 companies formed a ‘super entity’ within this, controlling 40 per cent of its  wealth. All own part or all of one another. Most are banks – the top 20 includes Barclays and Goldman Sachs. But the close connections mean that the network could be vulnerable to collapse.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies

1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company

* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

Graphic: The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy

(Data: PLoS One)

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world.  New Scientist.  Oct 19 2011.


Anwar al-Awlaki has been reported killed in an air strike in Yemen

Al Qaeda Boogie Man Anwar al-Awlaki has been reported killed in an air strike in Yemen, which is the exact same way he died in 2009.

On December 28 The Washington Post reported that U.S. and Yemeni officials had confirmed that al-Awlaki was at the al-Qaeda meeting.

Then on December 29 it was reported by Newsweek that a Yemeni journalist called Abdul Elah Hider al-Shaya had been in contact with Awlaki after the air raid, and was claiming that he was still alive.

Guess he can die twice like Bin Laden.  Interesting how he is connected to the underwear bomber, makes me laugh every time  I know I am so mature, when witnesses saw a sharp dressed man help him get on with out a passport despite the fact that he was on a terror watchlist.  Awlaki was also the spiritual leader of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, among many other terror plots, a fact that didn’t seem to concern Pentagon top brass who invited him to dine with them just months after the September 11 attacks despite the fact that he had personally colluded with the very hijackers who were alleged to have slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon.   These revelations were unveiled in internal Department of Defense emails obtained under the freedom of information act.  You can read the emails from Fox news here.  Why would the pentagon invite him to lunch?   Hmmmm……


Human Activity Is Officially Acknowledged to Cause Earthquake

The United States Geological Survey is America’s official expert on earthquakes. It’s the Federal agency charged with monitoring, reporting on, researching and stressing preparedness for earthquakes. So I was surprised to read the following statement by the USGS: Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations in the United States, Japan, and Canada. The cause was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil, and the use of reservoirs for water supplies. Most of these earthquakes were minor. The largest and most widely known resulted from fluid injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. In 1967, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 followed a series of smaller earthquakes. Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established. (Nicholson, Craig and Wesson, R.L., 1990, Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection–A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1951, 74 p.)