Connect with us

Health

Here’s Why The Culinary Institute Of America Wants Restaurants To Serve Less Meat

Published

on

Consumers have become increasingly more health conscious and ingredient-savvy in recent years. No longer satisfied with simply “apple” or “bread,” we want to know how and where that apple was produced and what chemicals and preservatives were put into that bread; we want to know whether our food was sprayed with pesticides and how nutritious it is for us.

advertisement - learn more

But this shift in consumer attitudes represents more than just a health movement. Food has become a question of ethics for many people, too. It isn’t as though an increasing number of people has decided they dislike the taste of meat. Rather, they cannot condone supporting an industry which relies on the torture and confinement of animals in order to sustain itself. Factory farming is a modern day horror, and the more we learn about it, the harder it becomes to ignore.

There are also environmental issues to consider. Meat has a far greater water footprint than grains, vegetables, or beans, as it takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce just 1 pound of meat, according to PETA. And animals raised for meat consume vast amounts of food — food that we ourselves could be eating, and then some — for which enormous swaths of land must be farmed. The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people — more than the entire human population on Earth.

And while the vegetarian movement continues to gain momentum as education and awareness about these moral and ecological implications increases, the healthier dining guest isn’t solely seeking more plant-based menu options because they don’t eat meat. As we are slowly discovering, plant-based food tastes incredible, and leaves enormous room for creativity.

Menus of Change

Not wanting to be behind in the times, the Culinary Institute of America and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health are on a mission to redefine what a complete meal looks like in restaurants by shifting the focus away from meat proteins and onto plant-based ones instead. They are encouraging the restaurant industry to do a “protein flip” and offer less animal meat in meals.

“It came about in response to a clear need among foodservice leaders for an integrated, comprehensive, evidence-based set of guidelines for addressing the most pressing health and environmental concerns through business strategies that will keep their culinary operations thriving for decades to come,” said Sophie Egan, director of programs and culinary nutrition for the Strategic Initiatives Group at The Culinary Institute of America.

advertisement - learn more

The Program  

The CIA and Harvard’s “Menus of Change: The Business of Healthy, Sustainable, Delicious Food Choices” aims to promote health and sustainability in the foodservice industry. Three of the program’s initiatives, listed below, involve using plant-proteins. From their website:

  •  Leverage globally inspired, plant-based culinary strategies. Scientific research suggests that the most effective way to help diners make healthy, sustainable food choices is to shift our collective diets to mostly plant-based foods. Growing plants for food generally has less of a negative impact on the environment than raising livestock, as livestock have to eat lots of plants to produce a smaller amount of food. In fact, no other single decision in the professional kitchen—or in the boardrooms of foodservice companies—can compare in terms of the benefits of advancing global environmental sustainability. From the well- researched Mediterranean diet to the cuisines of Asia and Latin America, traditional food cultures offer a myriad of flavor strategies to support innovation around healthy, delicious, even craveable cooking that rebalances ratios between foods from animal and plant sources.

The CIA recommends nuts and legumes as alternative sources of protein.

  • Move nuts and legumes to the center of the plate. Nuts and legumes are full of flavor, contain plant protein, and are associated with increased satiety. Nuts contain beneficial fats, while legume crops contain fiber and slowly metabolized carbohydrates. Legumes also are renowned for helping to replace nitrogen in the soil and produce impressive quantities of protein per acre. Nuts (including nut butters, flours, and milks) and legumes (including soy foods and legume flours) are an excellent replacement for animal protein. They also are a marketable way to serve and leverage smaller amounts of meat and animal proteins.
  • Serve less red meat, less often. Red meat— beef, pork, and lamb—can be enjoyed occasionally and in small amounts. Current guidance from nutrition research recommends consuming a maximum of two 3-ounce servings per week. Chefs and menu developers can rethink how meat is used by featuring it in smaller, supporting roles to healthier plant-based choices, and experimenting with meat as a condiment. From at least some environmental perspectives (e.g., GHGE, feed efficiency ratio), pork is the better choice among red meats (though not distinguishable from a nutritional perspective). Saturated fat is one health concern associated with red-meat consumption, but it’s not the only issue. Chefs should strive to limit bacon and other processed and cured meats, which are associated with even higher incidence of chronic disease than unprocessed red meats. Many diners choose to splurge on red meat when they eat out, and there will always be an appropriate place for meat-centered dishes. But chefs can help to shift eating patterns by building a sense of theater and value in menu concepts that don’t rely so heavily on a starring role for animal protein. For example, they might offer delicious meat/vegetable and meat/legume blends, or smaller tasting portions of red meat as part of vegetable-rich, small-plate formats.

It’s important to note that the CIA is not saying restaurants need to remove meat from their menus, but rather that it should function as more of a condiment than the main focus of most dishes.

They also admit that because many restaurant-goers view both dining out and eating red meat as a treat, they want red meat to be the focus of their meal, in order to get their money’s worth and make the most of the special occasion. But Menus of Change asks restaurants to start shifting this paradigm, luring diners away from the traditional large hunks of meat and towards dishes that offer a blend of either meat/vegetable or meat/legume.

This isn’t about demonizing meat, particularly if it has been ethically and sustainably produced, and it’s not about convincing consumers to choose healthy foods even when they want to treat themselves. It’s about changing how we define a meal: “Menus of Change discourages foodservice leaders from hitting diners over the head with messages about a food’s health benefits. Instead, we always lead with flavor. In fact, that is one of the 24 Principles of Healthy, Sustainable Menus: ‘Lead with menu messaging around flavor.’ Because if it doesn’t taste delicious, the rest won’t matter. Research shows that taste trumps just about everything. So the healthier, more sustainable options can’t merely taste pretty good; they have to be so delicious they’re craveable. They’ve got to make diners want to come back to your restaurant time and again,” said Egan.

Giving Restaurants Alternative Protein Recommendations

In addition to these guidelines, Menus of Change has released Protein Plays, an 8-page toolkit that outlines less-meat focused protein solutions and an infographic called The Protein Flip.

“The Protein Flip showcases some of the ways that chefs around the country are offering creative plant-forward dishes, from cauliflower steak at restaurants like Chalk Point Kitchen (of chef Rebecca Weitzman, a CIA graduate) to a broccoli dog and other center-of-the-plate celebrations of vegetables at Dirt Candy (of chef Amanda Cohen). For plant-based proteins specifically, one of the many ways we are seeing chefs use them to achieve fantastic flavor is with blended burgers, like  juicy patties made from combinations such as peanut, mushroom, and farro, or lentil, barley, and black bean, just to name a few,” said Egan.

Source: 

http://www.foodabletv.com/blog/2016/7/10/why-the-culinary-institute-of-america-wants-restaurants-to-serve-more-plant-based-proteins

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

25 Reasons to Avoid the Gardasil Vaccine

Published

on

It has been 13 years since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supplied fast-tracked approval for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine—promoted for the prevention of cervical cancer and other conditions attributed to four types of human papillomavirus (HPV). The agency initially licensed Gardasil solely for 9- to 26-year-old girls and women, but subsequent FDA decisions now enable Merck to market Gardasil’s successor—the nine-valent Gardasil 9 vaccine—to a much broader age range—9 to 45 years—and to both males and females.

As a result of Gardasil’s expanding markets not just in the U.S. but internationally, the blockbuster HPV vaccine has become Merck’s third highest-grossing product, bringing in annual global revenues of about $2.3 billion. However, Gardasil’s safety record has been nothing short of disastrous. Children’s Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have just produced a video detailing the many problems with the development and safety of Gardasil. Please watch and share this video so that you and others may understand why Mr. Kennedy refers to Merck’s methodologies as “fraudulent flimflams.”

What follow are 25 key facts about Gardasil/Gardasil 9, including facts about the HPV vaccines’ clinical trials and adverse outcomes observed ever since Merck, public health officials and legislators aggressively foisted the vaccines on an unsuspecting public.

Inappropriate placebos and comparisons

  1. A placebo is supposed to be an inert substance that looks just like the drug being tested. But in the Gardasil clinical trials, Merck used a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant called AAHS instead of using an inert saline placebo.
  2. Among girls and women who received the vaccine and among girls and women who received AAHS, an astonishing 2.3% in both groups experienced conditions indicative of “systemic autoimmune disorders,” many shortly after receiving Gardasil.
  3. Multiple scientific studies associate aluminum not just with autoimmune diseases but with autism, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia and Parkinson’s disease as well as behavioral abnormalities in animals.
  4. Merck lied to study participants, falsely saying that the clinical trials were not safety studies, that the vaccine had already been found to be safe and that the “placebo” was an inert saline solution. [Source: The HPV Vaccine on Trial  (photo evidence, pp. 6 and 12).]
  5. When Merck conducted clinical trials for its next HPV vaccine formulation, Gardasil 9, it used Gardasil as the “placebo” in the control groups, again relying on the lack of an inert placebo to mask safety signals.
  6. The 500 micrograms of aluminum adjuvant (AAHS) in Gardasil 9 are more than double the amount of aluminum in Gardasil; this raises the question of whether Gardasil 9’s heavy reliance on the Gardasil trials for comparison is justifiable.
  7. The World Health Organization states that using a vaccine (rather than an inert substance) as a placebo creates a “methodological disadvantage” and also notes that it may be “difficult or impossible” to assess vaccine safety properly without a true placebo.

Inappropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria

  1. In the only Gardasil trial in the target age group (11- and 12-year-old girls) with a control group design, fewer than 1200 children received the vaccine and fewer than 600 served as controls. This single trial involving fewer than 1800 children set the stage for the vaccine’s subsequent marketing to millions of healthy preteens all over the world.
  2. The Gardasil clinical trials had numerous exclusion criteria. Not allowed to participate in the trials were people with: severe allergies; prior abnormal Pap test results; over four lifetime sex partners; a history of immunological disorders and other chronic illnesses; reactions to vaccine ingredients, including aluminum, yeast, and benzonase; or a history of drug or alcohol abuse—yet Merck now recommends Gardasil for all of these groups.

Inadequate monitoring

  1. Some of the study participants—but not all—were given “report cards” to record short-term reactions such as redness and itching. The report cards monitored reactions for a mere 14 days, however, and Merck did not follow up with participants who experienced serious adverse events such as systemic autoimmune or menstrual problems.
  2. Injured participants complained that Merck rebuffed their attempts to report adverse side effects. In numerous instances, Merck maintained that these “weren’t related to the vaccine.”
  3. Half (49.6%) of the clinical trial subjects who received Gardasil reported serious medical conditions within seven months. To avoid classifying these injuries as adverse events, Merck dismissed them as “new medical conditions.”
Annual deaths from cervical cancer in the U.S. are 2.3/100,000. The death rate in the Gardasil clinical trials was 85/100,000—or 37 times that of cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer risk-benefit ratio not worth it

  1. The median age of cervical cancer death is 58 years. Gardasil targets millions of healthy preadolescents and teens for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is practically zero. Interventions for healthy people must have a risk profile that is also practically zero.
  2. Annual deaths from cervical cancer in the U.S. are 2.3/100,000. The death rate in the Gardasil clinical trials was 85/100,000—or 37 times that of cervical cancer.
  3. With 76 million children vaccinated at an average cost of $420 for the three-shot Gardasil series, the cost of saving one American life from cervical cancer amounts to about $18.3 million dollars. By contrast, the value of a human life according to the Department of Health and Human Services’s (HHS’s) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is $250,000—the maximum amount that the government program will award for a vaccine-related death.
  4. According to Gardasil’s package insert, women are 100 times more likely to suffer a severe event following vaccination with Gardasil than they are to get cervical cancer.
  5. The chances of getting an autoimmune disease from Gardasil, even if the vaccine works, are 1,000 times greater than the chances of being saved from a cervical cancer death.
  6. Women in Gardasil clinical trials with evidence of current HPV infection and previous exposure to HPV had a 44% increased risk of developing cervical lesions or cancer following vaccination.
  7. Women who get the Gardasil vaccine as preteens or teens are more likely to skip cervical cancer screening as adults, mistakenly assuming that HPV vaccination is a replacement for screening and that the vaccine will eliminate all risk.
Since Gardasil came on the U.S. market in 2006, people have reported over 450 deaths and over 61,000 serious medical conditions from HPV vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Fertility effects

  1. Accumulating evidence points to Gardasil’s potentially severe adverse effects on fertility, including miscarriage and premature ovarian failure.
  2. Merck never tested the vaccine for fertility effects. However, Gardasil and Gardasil 9 clinical trials showed high spontaneous miscarriage rates of 25% and 27.4%, respectively—significantly higher than the background rates of approximately 10%-15% in this reproductive age group.
  3. Polysorbate 80 and sodium borate (Borax) are associated with infertility in animals. Both are Gardasil ingredients, and both were present in the one clinical trial protocol that professed to use a benign saline placebo.

Post-licensing

  1. In 2015, Denmark opened five new “HPV clinics” to treat children injured by Gardasil. Over 1300 cases flooded the clinics shortly after their opening.
  2. Since Gardasil came on the U.S. market in 2006, people have reported over 450 deaths and over 61,000 serious medical conditions from HPV vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
  3. Merck lied to VAERS about the case of Christina Tarsell’s death, falsely claiming that her doctor blamed a virus instead of Gardasil. [Source: The HPV Vaccine on Trial  (p. 144).]

The vaccine that should never have been licensed

As suggested in the conclusion to the 2018 book The HPV Vaccine on Trial, the rollout of Gardasil in 125 countries worldwide has illustrated—in an all-too-real and shocking manner—the phenomenon that prompted Hans Christian Andersen to write “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Around the world, over 100,000 Gardasil-related adverse events have now been reported to the FDA and WHO, and accounts continue to multiply of “scandal, lawsuits, severe injuries, and deaths.” For almost 200 years, Andersen’s story has taught readers about the need to speak the truth, pay attention to evidence and listen to children. The rosy narrative manufactured for the dangerous Gardasil vaccine must not be allowed to hold sway any longer. It is time, in the words of the HPV Vaccine on Trial authors, to proclaim—loudly—that “the Emperor has no clothes.”

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Health

Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard Would Drop Charges On Julian Assange & Pardon Edward Snowden

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has been quite outspoken about not participating in politically motivated wars, the corporate stranglehold on America and much more. Recently, she said she would drop charges on Julian Assange & Edward Snowden.

  • Reflect On:

    If the presidency is controlled by a higher power, can anybody really 'get in' without being 'selected' instead of elected? Can anybody without powerful connections, like Gabbard, really become the president?

It’s become quite clear over the years that we don’t really live in a democracy. The American government is ruled by a ‘higher power,’ and this is evident by the fact that corporations are really the ones who dictate government policies, which is why we constantly see a ‘revolving door’ of employees going to and from corporations and government agencies. For example, many former employees of the Food and Drug Administration are now employed by Monsanto (Bayer). There is a great infographic you can find here depicting some of this revolving door.

Tulsi Gabbard, who we will get to in a bit, also references this revolving door in a recent interview with Joe Rogan. 

This isn’t a secret anymore; in fact, politicians have been talking about it for decades, referring to a secret government that controls the presidency. A couple of months ago during a live interview, Putin said: “So, a person is elected, he comes with his ideas. Then people with briefcases come to visit him, well dressed, in dark suits, kind of like mine. Except instead of a red tie it’s black or navy. And then they explain what to do, and the whole rhetoric changes, you see? This happens from one administration to the next.”

This is why so many of the promises made during presidential campaigns end up flip-flopping. A great example of that is the wall issue–everything Donald Trump is saying about building a wall and having a system to keep illegal immigrants out and provide a process for others to come in legally has also been said by other candidates and presidents like Hillary Clinton, Bush, Obama and Bill Clinton. Sure, Donald Trump has presented his message very differently, but it’s now opposed by the Democrats simply for political purposes. You can read more about that here. Politics is about winning and controlling the minds of the masses, it’s clearly not about democracy.

Politicians and presidents in the United States have also been explaining this fact for decades. One of the best examples comes from president Theodore Roosevelt, who told the world that “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” (source)

Here’s a great clip from Senator Daniel Inouye referencing the shadow government.

advertisement - learn more

This is the ‘government’ that seems to control America, among several other allied countries. So why do we continue to play this game? Why are we made to believe that every four years our voting actually matters? Since I’ve been alive, every single president has been used as a puppet, and thus corruption runs rampant. Never have we seen complete and true transparency, and never have we seen a president or any political decisions that aren’t tied to some form of corruption and power.

We have to ask ourselves, is this system one big joke? Why do we continue to use it? Does it actually benefit humanity and the planet in any form? Why are we sitting on solutions to so many of our problems, yet they never see the light of day? What is going on here?

Will we ever see a president that’s not a puppet? Highly unlikely, but who knows? Donald Trump represents something very different than the previous political regimes, as  politician Newt Gingrich pointed out. He’s likely driving the global elite crazy, who clearly picked Hillary, a long time deep state puppet, to serve them. He stated that they’re upset “because he’s an outsider, he’s not them, he’s not part of the club, he’s uncontrollable… He hasn’t been through the initiation rites, he didn’t belong to the secret society.” – Newt Gingrich

This was clear, Trump was very outspoken about vaccines (which has since changed), 9/11, corporate control of the US government, the US government’s funding of and ties to terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, foreign intervention, and other factors that the global elite were using. Trump represented change when he was first elected, but not so much anymore.

“For more than a year, we have been told that Trump is a racist, sexist, xenophobe, liar, cheat, and narcissist. The attack bears all the marks of a coordinated effort among the major news outlets: CNN, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, USA Today, and the rest. It reminded me very much of the concerted media attack against Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff which culminated earlier in 2016 in her impeachment and removal from power. In the case of Rousseff, we see what has been alternately described as a soft coup or a Wall Street coup, rather along the lines of the “color revolutions” of a few years earlier (which are now largely understood as CIA-NGO orchestrated). In both cases, pretexts were created and hammered home by an insistent media that whipped up public opinion. In Brazil, it worked. It seemed like it would work in the U.S..

It is important to understand why Trump was demonized. To be sure, his character makes it easy. There is no shortage of narcissistic, sexist, or otherwise offensive statements in his repertoire from which to draw. But I have never and will never believe this is why he was demonized. Ultimately, Trump is a disruptor, and his disruption falls squarely against the two key pillars of the American ruling elite’s ideology: neoliberalism and neoconservatism.” – Richard Dolan (source

Sure, things have changed within the government since Trump’s presidential campaign, and although it appears he’s been compromised by the ‘Deep State’ and in many ways has become another puppet, perhaps not to the likes of Bush, Clinton and Obama. But again, he represents yet another president that’s not really fit to be called a ‘leader.’

Tulsi Gabbard On Assange & Snowden

Right now, it seems that presidential candidate and veteran Tulsi Gabbard is now the one speaking truth. If she’s elected, would her rhetoric change like all the others did? She has done many great things already. For example, when she was a Congresswoman, Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, the terms of which her website outlines succinctly: “The legislation would prohibit the U.S. government from using American taxpayer dollars to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to groups like the Levant Front, Fursan al Ha and other allies of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups.” (source)

She recently made an appearance on Joe Rogan‘s podcast. Rogan asked her about WikiLeaks founder Assange and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, and she stated that they should not be persecuted for disclosing information.

We have got to address why [Snowden] did things the way that he did them. You hear the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional rights and liberties, period. There was not a channel for that to happen in a real way, and that’s why they ended up taking the path that they did, and suffering the consequences.

What happened with his (Assange’s) arrest and all this stuff that just went down I think poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech. The fact that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore how important it is that we uphold our freedoms… and go after him, it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers… and also on every one of us as Americans. It was a warning call… saying ‘look what happened to this guy.’ It could happen to you. It could happen to any one of us.

This is great to hear, as it’s quite clear that Assange, Snowden and others are threatened not because they put our ‘national security’ at risk, but simply because they threaten various corporate and political interests.

Tulsi is completely funded by the people as well, just like Trump was. She has no support from big corporations.

One of my favourite quotes from the show:

If I put my tinfoil hat on when I talk about these interventionist foreign policy wars and regime change wars, the tinfoil hat thinks military industrial complex. People being asked or forced into making decisions that benefit these giant corporations that make weapons and profit off of war. This is the worst case scenario in terms of conspiracy theories, the idea that someone wants war so they can make money, and they don’t care if people die, even needlessly. This is our number one conspiracy fear.

First of all, I don’t know how anyone who is well-versed on this subject could call this a conspiracy theory. It’s not just for money, these decisions are made to further their global domination agenda. That’s why William Binney, an NSA whistleblower like Edward Snowden, stated that surveillance is not for national security, it’s simply for “total population control.”  (source)

This is why it was great that Tulsi replied with the following:

Well, you can take your tinfoil hat off, because the military industrial complex is a real thing.

She then references the Eisenhower speech, when he warned us about the military industrial complex and how dangerous it is and the importance of guarding “against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for a disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

This misplaced power is what currently rules America.

During her presidential campaign so far, Tulsi has been very outspoken about the corporate rule over America, speaking out against major pharmaceutical companies and corporations like Bayer/Monsanto and their products and ingredients including glyphosate. She’s called out American connections to terrorist organizations, and clearly opposes any type of war. She is also calling out the flip-flopping of Trump’s promises, such as his promise to get us out of “stupid” wars, but now how he’s become a puppet pushing war with Iran.

She recently stated on her Facebook: “Trump says he doesn’t want war with Iran, but that’s exactly what he wants, because that’s exactly what Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu, al-Qaeda, Bolton, Haley, and other NeoCons/NeoLibs want. That’s what he put first–not America.”

Again, as you can tell by the quote above by Dolan, Trump opposed these things during his campaign. But now, things seem to be much different as he continues the cycle in support of the “New World Order” agenda by creating a fake problem and then proposing the solution in order to achieve a desired outcome. In this case, it would be unnecessary military intervention in Iran, which is similar to what we saw with 9/11 and Iraq.

The Black Budget Is A Great Example of The Current Corrupt Power Within Government

On episode 4 of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, we discussed the Black Budget in much deeper detail. Below is a clip exploring the validity behind missing money from the black budget and special access programs, explaining where the money is going and what exactly it’s being used to do.

You can become a member of CETV, get access to the full show and many others, and support conscious media here. You can find the podcast of episode 4 here

Below, we go deep into this very real phenomenon and present an abundance of evidence.

The Takeaway

Before Donald Trump, we hadn’t really seen any presidential candidate question the establishment and the corporate stranglehold that plagues the American government. I figured that after Trump did, we might see another political figure or two do the same thing. Although Gabbard is far less known and does not have connections to big money and power like Trump did, this can be seen as a good thing, and the fact that she is calling out her own government and its corrupt ways in a truthful manner is very encouraging.

It’s hard to see how she could be compromised or corrupted or become a puppet like many of those before her have.

The point is, America is ruled by a power that controls the government. Playing this game every four years is not really addressing the problem, and it’s questionable as to whether or not a fair voting process even exists in America given that the electoral college selects the president, regardless of the popular vote.

Positive change will not come as a result of the current president or politicians, it has to come from us and from supporting people like Gabbard who stay true to their words. Who knows, maybe she can threaten the power that holds control over the presidency and tackle the “Deep State” like we’ve never seen before.

At the end of the day, more and more people are waking up, and Gabbard seems to be one of these ‘woke’ individuals in many ways.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Wikileaks: Ecuador is Being Run By “Criminals & Liars.” Assange’s Entire Legal Defense Given To The United States

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Three weeks before the U.S. deadline to file its final extradition request for Assange, Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow U.S. prosecutors to help themselves to Assange's belongings.

  • Reflect On:

    How do the global elite have the right and power to do what they do to people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden? Do we really live in a democracy when small groups of people in power can basically make decisions that go against the majority?

What’s happening with Julian Assange is heart-breaking. He’s a hero, just like Edward Snowden. Government secrets are kept, not to protect ‘national security’ as commonly claimed, but rather to protect political and corporate interests. After all, the United States is evidently run by a small group of corporations. These corporations have a huge influence when it comes to dictating government policy, and they do not like those who disclose their secrets. For years, Wikileaks has been leaking documents that’ve exposed major corruption within multiple governments, including the United States and basically the entire western military alliance. They’ve exposed that our world operates very differently than how it’s been presented, and they’ve never had to retract a single story. They exposed the invisible government, or “the real menace of Republic,” a term coined by John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City. Hylan has said that the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposes the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.”  (source)

Transparency is what Julian Assange is all about, and the American empire and even the global empire have been desperately trying to keep their secrets and prosecute anyone or anything that threatens their secrecy. That’s what this is all about. And they proved that with Chelsea Manning.

It’s not just people like Assange who are being demonized and hunted, it’s alternative media as well. The war on ‘fake news’ that’s been happening for the last little while has resulted in alternative media outlets being labeled as ‘fake’, even if they’re presenting credible information and sources. Any media outlet who even questions a controversial issue has been labeled as ‘wrong’ or ‘fake.’

What is happening to Assange is extremely unjust, and should serve as a massive ‘wake up’ call for anyone who isn’t already ‘awake.’ Truth and free press threaten the ability of the global elite to continue their cycle of creating problems and then proposing solutions in order to achieve their desired outcome. Some of the biggest leaks WikiLeaks has made were when they revealed the connections between terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to the western military alliance, and more specifically to the US government. Current presidential candidate and Congresswoman at the time, Tulsi Gabbard, even introduced a bill to stop this from happening.

We saw arms deals and the funding/support of terrorist organizations that the US claimed to be fighting against. This is a great example of how the global elite funds and creates a problem in order to justify a desired outcome (in this case it was heightened national security measures back home to protect people from ‘the war on terror’ and justify their infiltration of another country for ulterior motives).

I could go deeper into this, but the bottom line is that the arrest of Julian Assange comes at the hands of the criminals around the globe he was exposing, and it’s ironic that they are using their power and influence over mainstream media to portray Assange as the one who needs to be put behind bars.

advertisement - learn more

The Latest Update On Assange

Below is the latest update from the Wikileaks team via a recent press release.

Three weeks before the U.S. deadline to file its final extradition request for Assange, Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow U.S. prosecutors to help themselves to Assange’s belongings.

Neither Julian Assange nor U.N. officials have been permitted to be present when Ecuadorian officials arrive to Ecuador’s embassy in London on Monday morning.

The chain of custody has already been broken. Assange’s lawyers will not be present at the illegal seizure of his property, which has been “requested by the authorities of the United States of America.”

The material includes two of his manuscripts as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment. The seizure of his belongings violates laws that protect medical and legal confidentiality and press protections.

The seizure is formally listed as “International Assistance in Criminal matters 376-2018-WTT requested by the authorities of the United States of America.” The reference number of the legal papers indicates that Ecuador’s formal cooperation with the United States was initiated in 2018.

Since the day of his arrest on April 11, 2019, Mr. Assange’s lawyers and the Australian consul made dozens of documented demands to the embassy of Ecuador for the release and return of his belongings, to which they received no response.

Earlier this week the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, who met with Mr. Assange in Belmarsh prison on April 25, asked to be present to monitor Ecuador’s seizure of Assange’s property. Ecuador inexplicably refused the request, despite the fact that since 2003, Ecuador has explicitly committed itself to granting unimpeded open invitations for UN special rapporteurs to investigate any aspect of their mandate in Ecuadorian jurisdiction.

The seizure and transfer of Mr. Assange’s property to the U.S. is the second phase of a bilateral cooperation that in January and February saw Ecuador arranging U.S. interrogations of past and present Ecuadorian diplomats posted to the embassy of Ecuador in London while Mr. Assange was receiving asylum. The questioning related to the U.S. grand jury investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks. As part of phase one of the cooperation, the United States also asked Ecuador to provide documents and audiovisual material of Assange and his guests, which had been gathered during an extensive spy operation against Assange inside the embassy.

On Friday, President Lenin Moreno initiated a state of emergency that suspends the rights of prisoners to “inviolability of correspondence, freedom of association and assembly and freedom of information” through Executive Decree 741.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks said:

“On Monday Ecuador will perform a puppet show at the Embassy of Ecuador in London for their masters in Washington, just in time to expand their extradition case before the U.K. deadline on 14 June. The Trump Administration is inducing its allies to behave like it’s the Wild West.”

Hrafnsson continued:

“Ecuador is run by criminals and liars. There is no doubt in my mind that Ecuador, either independently or at the behest of the US, has tampered with the belongings it will send to the United States.”

Baltasar Garzon, international legal coordinator for the defence of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, said:

“It is extremely worrying that Ecuador has proceeded with the search and seizure of property, documents, information and other material belonging to the defence of Julian Assange, which Ecuador arbitrarily confiscated, so that these can be handed over to the agent of political persecution against him, the United States. It is an unprecedented attack on the rights of the defence, freedom of expression and access to information exposing massive human rights abuses and corruption. We call on international protection institutions to intervene to put a stop to this persecution.”

Lawyer for Mr. Assange, Aitor Martinez, whose confidential legal papers were photographed with a mobile phone by embassy workers as part of a spy operation against Mr. Assange in October 2018, said:

“Ecuador is committing a flagrant violation of the most basic norms of the institution of asylum by handing over all the asylee’s personal belongings indiscriminately to the country that he was being protected from–the United States. This is completely unprecedented in the history of asylum. The protecting country cannot cooperate with the agent of persecution against the person to whom it was providing protection.

Ecuador has now also refused a request by the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, Joe Cannataci, to  monitor and  inspect the cooperation measure. Ecuador’s refusal to cooperate with the UN Special Rapporteur defies the entire international human rights protection system of the United Nations. Ecuador will from now on be seen as a country that operates outside of the system of safeguards of rights that defines democratic countries.”

Ecuadorian defence attorney for Mr. Assange, Carlos Poveda, said:

“In the face of countless abuses, and acting on provisions in domestic legislation and international human rights instruments, the defence has challenged the execution of this measure. All applications have been rejected. While the prosecution office proclaims its commitment to human rights protections, there has been no transparency and the investigation is conducted in secret. Without justification, and absent of all legal criteria, the measure shows the interest in obtaining information that the United States can use to proceed with its flagrant persecution. Meanwhile Ecuador has hinted that it too intends to proceed with investigations. Meanwhile, to date our criminal complaints of espionage against Julian Assange remain unprocessed, despite the gravity of the facts reported.”

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

UPDATE: YouTube has demonetized our channel for no apparent reason.

For as little as $3 a month, you can contribute to helping CE thrive! Thanks for being on our Hero's Team. We appreciate you and your support deeply! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.