By Darren Weeks

The harmonization of regulations that govern the food industry and nutritional supplements moves forward. Legislation is currently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives that would attempt to undermine state regulations of the food industry.

This legislation is an implementation of the Codex Alimentarius commission and is designed to conform with international standards (read: United Nations), further undermining national and state sovereignty.

Our food supply has been among the safest in the world. Why "fix" something that isn't broken?

The name of the game is control. Remember what Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program stated:

Food is Power! We use it to control behavior. Some may call it bribery. We do not apologize."

• HR 4167 the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005
  
  
• Codex Alimentarius

By Darren Weeks

As I mentioned on Monday's broadcast, the sixth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests is currently underway at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Delegates have been attempting to hammer out details of the International Arrangement on Forests (IAF). In other words, they're trying to build the foundation that will dictate to the world what we can and cannot do with our forests.

Thankfully, progress has been slow, as delegates have been fighting over the wording of the document. The following excerpt from the International Institute for Sustainable Development illustrates the poor progress:

Delegates remain divided on key issues within both working groups, with gains few and hard-won. As precious negotiating time slipped by, Co-Chairs huddled with major players to urge flexibility and consensus, but little of either was forthcoming. Yet most were
either convinced or "cautiously hopeful" that a resolution would be finalized by Friday. Some delegates were skeptical, however, that such an agreement would deliver substantive content. On a positive note, one delegate argued that whatever the outcome, there is a consensus that the regional approach holds promise, and that if properly empowered, the UNFF could play a role in linking this to the IAF.

Let's hope the delegates remain divided. In-fighting on the other side is always a good thing. Any slowing of the progress in curtailing individual liberty and land-ownership is welcomed. Sustainable Development is the death of both liberty and property rights.

For more details about the United Nations Forum on Forests, visit the IISD's event reporting page.

The following items were covered on the Tuesday, February 21st broadcast of Sweet Liberty. Links are being published here for further research.

• Rumsfeld urges using media to fight terror
  
• Rumsfeld: U.S. must outdo terrorists in public opinion battle
  
• Lawmakers decry takeover of U.S. ports
  
• Frozen account ruffles nuns
  
• Wikipedia: Know your customer
  
• ACL: What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
  
• ACL: Communitarian law and European community law
  
• Wikipedia: Public private partnership
  
• The National Council for Public Private Partnerships
  
• State Department: Sustainable Development Partnerships
  
• Definition of "fascism"
  
  Also check out News from Sweet Liberty by Dennis Hodges.

By Darren Weeks

I've been having what is turning into a rather spirited discussion with a person who contacted me from the Philippines.

This is all in response to the original entry that I wrote on the mudslide in that country.

For those interested, the previous items will appear in the February 2006 archives of this blog.

I will now add more.

This person said,

Hi Darren, I just want to ask, since you're an american, why would the United States fund for cloud seeding in Southern Leyte, Philippines? Isn't it a bit too far from the Balikatan site? (Are you, by the way familiar with the Balikatan exercises? Note though that there are a lot of Filipinos protesting, while there are others supporting, the presence of the US Military here.) Aside from being too far (geographically), having American soldiers exposed to real-life calamities also raises the danger involved with regards to the soldiers acting as rescuers. I also want to mention the fact that a lot of outside help also came in not only from the US but from other countries and international organizations as well.

My point is, I don't think that anybody cloud seeded Southern Leyte. I know, weather manipulation is not new! But don't you think that burying a whole town is a bit too low even for the US?? I hate to say this but you sound crazy.

You know what? I never liked the US government, but in times like this, I would like to say thank you for having rescuers here. Whatever the US military agenda is, at least they are helping.

Also with regards to the globalwarming fact, it's not a meaningless cliche. And we are not helpless about it. *link*, *link*

And I'm sorry about that business over there that got it's roof blown out.

My response to this message is what follows:

Thanks for checking back. I'd rather have done this by e-mail, but this venue will work, I guess.

First, I never said that cloud-seeding had anything to do with the Balikatan exercises. As I understand it, the Balikatan exercises were a joint war game operation between the U.S. and Philippine militaries. Correct?

Do the Balikatan exercises continue today? I know they discontinued them for a while, due to a disagreement between our governments.

Either way, obviously, if what happened was a manipulation of the weather, it was a covert operation. That doesn't necessarily mean that the aircraft would be military aircraft. In my part of the world (I live in southern Michigan, U.S.A.), they are constantly spraying something in the skies. I have sat on my deck and watched as they have turned a clear day into an overcast day by going back and forth with these jets in the skies. This is NOT ordinary jet exhaust.

Without understanding the conditioning process of the controllers, everything I say will sound nuts. You really should study the Hegelian Dialectic. It is the process by which they condition people to accept changes that they ordinarily would reject.

I don't make this stuff up.

They create the problem, then they create their own opposition to the problem, and finally they present the pre-determined solution to the problem -- which is what they wanted to do to begin with.

A perfect example of that is the "problem" of terrorism. Americans are more willing today to relinquish their liberties than they were before 9/11. But we weren't really attacked on 9/11. It was a scam. That is easily proven with documentation. Go to http://911.sweetliberty.org.

I don't doubt that there are some Filipinos who welcome the U.S. military. When the help is needed, it isn't very likely it will be refused.

Regardless, if the crisis wasn't a natural occurance, then it certainly accomplished the end of getting our military into your country where they otherwise might not have been as welcome.

You said,

"...having American soldiers exposed to real-life calamities also raises the danger involved with regards to the soldiers acting as rescuers".

You have to understand that the dirtbags who are in control think we're overpopulated, anyway. They don't care about the loss of life. They only want to control the world. That may sound crazy, but I've done plenty of research. How about you?

You said,

"I also want to mention the fact that a lot of outside help also came in not only from the US but from other countries and international organizations as well."

Precisely! This is an "international operation". In other words, a U.N. operation. Your country is being invaded by foreign military and you are grateful it's happening because there's a crisis. But is it a created crisis for the purpose of invading your country? That's the question that we cannot know for sure.

You said,

"My point is, I don't think that anybody cloud seeded Southern Leyte."

I sincerely hope that you're right. But you have to keep an open mind to the possibility. Disasters are great tools for the globalists.

You said,

"I know, weather manipulation is not new! But don't you think that burying a whole town is a bit too low even for the US?? I hate to say this but you sound crazy."

First of all, burying a town is nothing to those who are in power. It really has nothing to do with the U.S. The globalists control many countries. I believe the war on terror is intended for them to shore up their power in the countries that won't go along with the program of world governance.

I acknowledge that the truth is difficult to believe and may sound crazy. But that is why you have to do research. The documentation speaks for itself. Please study the Hegelian Dialectic. Some people call it "problem, reaction, solution" while others refer to it as "thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis".

No matter what you call it, it is a very effective tool for conditioning people to accept changes they would ordinarily reject. Creating a crisis, anticipating the reaction to it, and presenting the pre-determined solution.

People won't oppose the solution when it is presented, because they have been confronted with a problem that demands it -- even though the problem might never have materialized had it not been CAUSED by the same people who now want to "solve" it. The people are being manipulated without even knowing it.

Again, I'm not saying FOR SURE that is what happened in your country. I just suggested that it is possible.

As far as those in control of the U.S. government being evil enough to kill innocent people to get their way, I suspect that you are quite naive.

I'll refer you to the declassified documents of "Operation Northwoods", where the U.S. government was planning acts of terrorism upon American citizens in order to start a war with Cuba. The "Northwoods" operation was never executed, but the declassified documents (pdf format) prove that those in positions of power within the U.S. government were seriously considering it.

September 11th is an example of a time where they did execute their Shadow operation.

There are many other examples of terrorist acts that the globalists who control our government have executed.

For example, the U.S. has admitted it tested nerve gas on American soldiers. That story was from the Guardian out of Britain.

Please don't dismiss me as some kook, without looking into the facts. It's vital for everyone to understand what's really going on today.

A silent, undeclared war is being waged upon all of humanity. It's imperative that everyone awakens to the reality.

I'm not crazy; I'm just well-researched.

Now, on a more personal and softer note, I do want to extend my deepest condolences for you and everyone in your country.

Despite the aforementioned statements, I do recognize that it is a very dark hour in your part of the world. Please know that nothing I've ever said was intended to trivialize the pain and suffering of the victims and their families.

If it was construed that way, then I offer my sincerest apologies.

God bless, Darren

P.S. Hey, I almost forgot... regarding the "global warming" debate...

I've interviewed the head of the Science and Environment Policy Project, Dr. Fred Singer, on my radio broadcast some months ago. He is an atmospheric physicist, and professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He says that there is nothing we can do about global warming.

I've also repeatedly interviewed Professor James McCanney, M.S., another physicist who studies weather and weather-related patterns and he says that humans are not causing global warming. Hence, there is nothing we can do about it.

I would like to also call your attention to the Leipzig Declaration (1997), the Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), and the Oregon Petition (1998) -- all drawn up by real scientists who dispute the notion that humans are causing global warming.

If we're not causing it, there's NOTHING we can do about it.

By Darren Weeks

I get so angry when people criticize me without doing ANY research, whatsoever!

I wrote my entry about the Philippino disaster, and an "anonymous" reader posted a question to ask me, "Why do you have so much hate?"

Hate?

I suppose they are referring to my statements to the effect that the mudslide creates a "great" opportunity for the U.S./U.N. globalists to enter and control the devastated "region". I had said that this is yet another opportunity to send our military into a sovereign country.

All of this is a matter of fact.

Suggesting that this is "hateful" rhetoric, illustrates the critic is unknowledgable about the tactics of those who seek to build a world-wide totalitarian command-and-control structure.

What happened in the Philippines is, undisputably, a tremendous tragedy. There will be no argument from this writer on that! I cannot imagine the hell of being buried alive.

But, as I previously stated, it is a huge "opportunity" for the globalists who control the U.N. and the U.S. Tragedies, whether natural or man-made, are always opportunities for the global elite. They thrive on chaos. They love it!

Whenever there is chaos, there is an opportunity for them to enter and "manage" the problem. In other words, chaos and destruction lead to more ability to control. Therefore, it is only natural that they would want to cause such destruction.

I never emphatically said that the crisis in the Philippines wasn't a natural occurance.

However, with Weather Modification techniques, which is a documented science, it isn't difficult to create a mud slide. You keep seeding the clouds, causing the moisture to fall from the upper atmosphere, and after several weeks of torrential rainfall, you have a recipe for disaster and a new "opportunity".

The United Nations thinks the earth is over-populated. This is a fact, not my opinion. They believe there are too many of us here. I don't make this stuff up. I read what they say in their reports. I'm just a researcher and reporter of the information.

Anyone can do the research.

The U.N. and other environmentalists contend that human beings are screwing up the earth so bad, and that population growth is taxing the earth's eco-system and its ability to support life.

In their eyes — NOT MINE — disasters like that of the Philippines, New Orleans, the Sumatra tsunami, etc., are very useful in lessening the human population's impact upon the earth's eco-system.

Don't believe me?

Then, you need to read the Sustainable Development and Natural Hazzards Mitigation report. Don't miss page 19, where it says under the heading of "Windows of Opportunity",

"Despite the wide array of tools and techniques that are available to governments to operationalize the priciples of sustainability and mitigation, one of the roadblocks to implementation is the fact that much of the land within local jurisdictions has already been developed according to practices and traditions that are far from sustainable.

Ironically, the time immediately following a natural disaster provides a community with a unique window of opportunity for inserting an ethic of sustainability in guiding development and redevelopment in high risk areas. ... At the same time, the community is given the opportunity to incorporate other attributes of sustainability into its "second-chance" development, such as energy efficiency, affordable housing, use of recycled building materials, reduction of water use, and environmental protection."

The radical environmentalists at the UN and its many non-governmental organizations (called NGOs), want to redevelop the neighborhoods. They believe that the neighborhoods are not "sustainable" in most places. They also believe that private property rights are not "sustainable". Disasters clear the land of the property owners. Disasters neutralize the opposition to redevelopment.

I didn't say I agreed with the tactic or the agenda, but it is a reality.

Former president George Walker Bush, the 41st president, on September 11th, 1990, spoke of the same concept when he said of the first Gulf war:

"We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge..."

9/11 is a perfect example of the globalist elite creating an opportunity for themselves to implement their plan of control. Anyone who researches the documentation behind 9/11, can see the truth. It isn't difficult. You just have to care enough to be still and read.

Sadly, many Americans are so distracted by sports, TV shows, movies, and countless other irrelevant things, they don't take the time to do research.

An example of that kind of American is the one who typed out the following message to me:

"I'm surprised the government doesn't have you on Prozac or stronger to keep you silenced and pegged as crazy...."

As with the previous comment, the author of the comment doesn't leave their name or e-mail address. I have no way of responding other than to do so publicly.

I want to ask this reader what, specifically, do they find "crazy"? Is it the idea that evil people in high places have the power to understand the science of weather manipulation and cause natural disasters to take place?

Weather is a science. If you experiment with the science of weather long enough, you can learn how to manipulate the weather.

If you think I'm crazy for believing weather manipulation is possible, then you have to read the words of former U.S. defense secretary, William Cohen. At a Department of Defense press briefing, on April 28, 1997, Cohen said:

"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important."

Don't believe me! Go read the transcript. That's why I linked to it.

Anyone willing to take time and do the research is welcome to call me crazy. I don't mind being challenged on my research. If the research isn't sound, I'm correctable. I want to be proven wrong, if I'm wrong.

But don't call me "crazy" or "hateful" without taking the time to do your own research. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of ignorance and laziness. It is precisely that type of idiotic mentality that is the reason America is on its last thread of survival as a country.

By Darren Weeks

I see that the Philippines have suffered a major mudslide, triggered by heavy rains. The United States military has been dispatched into the "region" to aid in the search for victims.

What a "wonderful" opportunity for the United States global military! It's another "great" excuse for the globalists to stick the U.S./U.N. noses into the business of yet another sovereign country.

So how did this opportunity come to fruition? Is it really a "natural" disaster — a fit of the angry earth goddess, Gaia, furious that we evil human beings have been driving gas-guzzling SUVs which belch too much CO2 into the atmosphere?

Or have the aircraft been working overtime in the central Philippino "region", spraying silver iodide and seeding the clouds to make it rain?

How many more World Heritage sites does the United Nations intend to designate in the mudslide-devastated region?

The Committee shall establish, keep up to date and publish, whenever circumstances shall so require, under the title "List of World Heritage in Danger" a list of the property appearing in the World Heritage for the conservation of which major operations are necessary and for which assistance has been requested under this convention. This list shall contain an estimate of the cost of such operations. The list may include only such property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage as is threatened by serious and specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land; major alterations due to unknown causes; abandonment for any reason whatsoever; the outbreak or the threat of an armed conflict; calamities and cataclysms; serious fires, earthquakes, landslides; volcanic eruptions; changes in water level, floods and tidal waves. The Committee may at any time, in case of urgent need, make a new entry in the List of World Heritage in Danger and publicize such entry immediately.

- World Heritage Treaty, Article 11 Section 4, December 17, 1975

Meanwhile, here in southern Michigan yesterday we experienced a major thunderstorm, accompanied by a tornado watch with 60 MPH winds. Even now, as I type, I can hear the winds howling outside my study.

Yesterday, a local business had its roof ripped off. A couple of short hours later, it was snowing again, as it normally does in February.

We had the weather of four seasons in a single day!

I commented to a news producer on just how odd it was to have a tornado watch in February. His response illustrates very well the conditioning of the average American mind when it comes to the weather: "Global warming!"

Just what is global warming, anyway? It is a meaningless cliche' about which humans can do nothing! It implies that we are the cause of the weather problems around the world.

Nevermind, that there is no real scientific evidence or proof of this. When it comes to the UN agenda, it's "damn the science, full speed ahead!"

I'm sorry that there are thousands of Philippinos buried in mud. Since our military is there, I hope they find every single last one of the victims alive, and then promptly get the hell out.

I also hope to God that Americans will smarten up about climate manipulation and weather tampering. Mudslides are easily created when you know how to make it rain.

By Darren Weeks

I've been following with interest the story of Vice-Puppet Dick Cheney's shooting of a fellow hunter this past weekend.

I have to confess, upon first hearing of the story, I immediately thought this is no accident. I figured that more than likely, the victim, a 78 year-old lawyer by the name of Harry M. Whittington, probably said something that made the powermad V.P. angry, and he suddenly blasted his attorney-companion in the face. After all, he's the vice-president. Who's going to hold him accountable?

Obviously, there is no proof for this theory, but knowing this administration the way I've gotten to know them, from endless hours of study, it is apparent to me that they believe they are above the law and have a disposition about them that would make such a psychotic display of rage and violence possible. Naturally, they'd try to spin it as an accident.

Now, there is talk of a Grand Jury investigation of Cheney if Whittington dies.

Does anyone think that Despot Dick is going to be prosecuted for the murder of Mr. Whittington? The administration routinely murders people every day! Why should one lowly lawyer be enough to elicit a Grand Jury's indictment, when Cheney, Bush and the other evil would-be despots planned and orchestrated 9/11 and the war on terror? They've killed thousands!

I remember the days of the Clinton administration when the neocons circulated a list of the Clinton Body Count. It was a list of Clinton bodyguards and other people who had had close ties with Bill and Hillary that died mysterious deaths.

I am quite certain that, if published, the Bush Body Count would be much longer than Clinton's. But you'll never hear about it from the Rush Limbaughs of today. They're too busy advocating a policy of torture at Gitmo, or defending the administration's policy of spying on Americans. They have their collective heads so far up the presidential posterior they can't see anything but the darkness of their own souls.

As much as I would like to see these tyrants of doom locked up with the key thrown into the darkest, deepest sewer recess, I predict that even if Mr. Whittington's life expires, and even if a Grand Jury is called to review it all, ultimately, it will accomplish nothing. It will only serve to further distract the masses from concentrating on what really matters — placing the pressure on your local representatives to pass measures to safeguard our land, our privacy, and our honor.

Perhaps, the real lesson for the legions is how dangerous guns can be. If the vice-president — seemingly one of the most responsible men in America — cannot handle guns safely, can we expect the average American to do so? Perhaps, the next initiative is to remove the danger to everyone and place further restrictions upon the use and ownership of firearms.

To be certain, this would be a violation of our Constitutional rights, namely the second amendment. But at what point has this administration ever given a single consideration to Constitutional protections? They write their own code of ethics to fit the situation, at a given moment, and anyone who objects must be a "terrorist".

Such profound arrogance has much company throughout history. But even despots have limitations in their power.

Regardless of the ultimate fate of Mr. Whittington, rest assured that Despot Dick will remain as free as the quail at which he points his barrels. He'll still be on the loose, helping Babbling Bush, take aim at our freedoms, our privacy, our national neighbors, and our Bill of Rights.

The question is, will Americans care enough to fend off the attacks of the tyrants?

By Darren Weeks

Alan Watt will be sitting in for me tonight on the broadcast. I have a special function to attend tonight, associated with Valentine's Day.

Alan has been a frequent guest with Jackie Patru on Sweet Liberty and is very popular with the listeners. His knowledge of ancient history is remarkable and extensive.

I'll be back on Monday night of next week.

By Darren Weeks

I have officially dropped Google as my site's search engine. It has been replaced with a proxy engine which still uses Google to search, but prevents Google from tracking people's movements on the web.

If anyone wishes to have Google's results, without ending up in Google's Big Brother data base, you can use the search engine on this site. There are no cookies, no advertisements, and IP addresses are deleted after 7 days.

Whether Google Inc. is sincere in its court fight against government snooping or not, the fact still remains that there would be nothing over which to fight, if they didn't save everything you do in their data bases. If the company deleted the information, there would be nothing the government spooks could do. There would be no information to seek.

Another really troubling aspect to the entire Google controversy is the reality that the search engine is presently helping communist China to censor the web. How can we believe that Google has good intentions in America, fighting government snooping, when it is helping a communist regime oppress it's people abroad?

I have long wanted to do this, and today I finally found a solution that would provide results that are equal to Google's, without helping to support Google's business model and invasion of their users' privacy.

For more information about problems with Google privacy, go to Google-Watch.org.

By Steven Milloy
Fox News

Last year's reported sighting in eastern Arkansas of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, long thought to be extinct, raised the hopes of bird-watchers everywhere.

But now a prominent bird expert has cast serious doubt on the report, characterizing it as "faith-based" ornithology and "a disservice to science."

Writing in the ornithology journal The Auk (January 2006), Florida Gulf Coast University ornithologist Jerome A. Jackson criticized the "evidence" put forth to support the conclusion that the Woodpecker wasn't extinct after all—including a four-second video of an alleged sighting which garnered widespread media attention; several other anecdotal sightings; and acoustic signals purported to be vocalization and raps from the Woodpecker.

News of the alleged Woodpecker sighting caught on video was first released in late-April 2005 in ScienceExpress, an online component of Science magazine. The full report subsequently appeared in the June 3 issue of Science.

"While the world rejoiced, my elation turned to disbelief," wrote Jackson. "I had seen the 'confirming' video in the news releases and recognized its poor quality, but I had believed [anyway]," he continued.

"Then I saw [a still image] and seriously doubted that this evidence was confirmation of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Even a cursory comparison of this figure with [photographs and illustrations of real Ivory-billed Woodpeckers] shows that the white on the wing of the bird... is too extensive to be that of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker," Jackson wrote.

Jackson dismissed the other unverified sightings with, "I do not question the sincerity, integrity or passion of these observers [but] we simply cannot know what they saw." The researchers who claimed to video the Ivory-billed Woodpecker later admitted that the acoustic information "while interesting, does not reach the level we require for proof."

Jackson went on to conclude that, "My opinion is that the bird in the [video] is a normal Pileated Woodpecker... Others have independently come to the same conclusion, and publication of independent analyses may be forthcoming."

Jackson isn't some inveterate or knee-jerk skeptic with respect to the possibility of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's existence. In fact, in 1986 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service convened a panel to "officially" declare the Woodpecker extinct, Jackson argued that "it was unreasonable to declare the species extinct without making a serious effort to find it."

Only time will tell whether the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is, in fact, extinct, but one thing is certain—the fanfare announcing these now-suspect sightings was way overblown. And it's worth noting that the beneficiaries of all this hoopla were also the ones behind it.

The search to "find" the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was organized, supported and launched by the Nature Conservancy. The subsequent "find" was announced and widely publicized by the Nature Conservancy. Now, according to Jackson's article, it seems the Nature Conservancy also stands to benefit substantially from its own "discovery," possibly to the tune of $10.2 million federal dollars and hundreds of thousands of acres in Arkansas.

To Jackson’s dismay, this money, which had originally been designated for other ongoing endangered species projects, has now been diverted into a "recovery" effort for the apparently-still-extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker—involving none other than the Nature Conservancy, a private "nonprofit" group that uses land acquisition to advance its self-proclaimed "conservation" agenda.

But a series of Washington Post articles in May 2003 exposed the Nature Conservancy, the world's richest environmental group with $3 billion in assets, as more than just a "land bank." In the past it has also acted as a broker of too-sweet-to-be-true land and business deals for wealthy insiders and corporate supporters, often at taxpayer expense.

In one scheme reported by the Post, "...the Conservancy bought raw land, attached development restrictions and then resold the land to state trustees and other supporters at greatly reduced prices. Buyers then voluntarily gave the Conservancy charitable contributions roughly equivalent to the discounts, sums that were written off from the buyers' federal income taxes. The deals generally allowed the buyers to build homes on the land."

What's all this got to do with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker?

The Nature Conservancy says on its web site that it "has helped protect more than 120,000 acres of [eastern Arkansas forests], and is now aiming to conserve and restore an additional 200,000 acres of forest -– vital habitat for the ivory-billed woodpecker..."

Given that the land acquisition is made possible with taxpayer dollars and tax breaks—for who knows what ultimate purposes -- you can almost hear the Nature Conservancy laughing like that other fictional woodpecker, Woody Woodpecker, all the way to the bank.

A final note on this saga concerns the reported sightings that were rushed to publication by the journal Science—the same journal that rushed to publication last year's faked South Korean stem cell studies, and a faked 1997 Tulane University study on environmental chemicals.

While there's no evidence that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker study was faked, Jackson's characterization of the report as wishful-thinking certainly doesn't say much for Science's peer review process—intended as a safeguard against the publication of unsubstantiated scientific claims and junk science.

Science has enjoyed the reputation of a preeminent journal. But over the last decade, it seems to have developed the print-first-ask-questions-later tendencies usually associated with tabloid publications.

It would be terrific if the Ivory-billed Woodpecker weren't extinct—but we'll need better evidence than just four seconds of blurry video hawked by special interests.