Watch the video here.
By: Cheryl Ann
Dr. Oz exposes the brand new pesticide that's on the brink of being approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watch the video here.
Big wins can happen in small places. The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals.
The settlement was approved last year, but details were worked out only weeks ago as to how the funds were to be spent.
The settlement will require Monsanto to do the following:
MONSANTO PRODUCED TOXIC CHEMICALS IN NITROJust how were Nitro citizens exposed to dioxin? Monsanto was producing the toxic herbicide Agent Orange in Nitro, and dioxin is a chemical byproduct of the substance. It is known to cause serious health conditions. The factory which produced Agent Orange was opened in Nitro in 1948 and remained in operation until 2004, even though usage of this herbicide in the past (in Vietnam and other Asian countries) was fatal to millions of citizens and the war veterans who were exposed to it.
“There is no doubt that during and after the war, many Vietnamese absorbed this very toxic material [dioxin]. It is our belief from toxicological research and epidemiologicalstudies from many countries that this dioxin probably resulted in significant health effects in Vietnam.” – Arnold Schecter and John Constable
“It’s been a real long haul,” attorney Stuart Calwell told The Charleston Gazette. Calwell represented Nitro area residents in a class action suit that prompted Monsanto to make the settlement.
“The politics of dioxin has been bitterly debated since the Vietnam War, but … we know that there is a health issue there and hopefully people will get their houses cleaned and the risk will come to an end and those exposed in the past will have the benefit of keeping an eye on their health.”
The people of Nitro still need to fill out a register to receive the benefits outlined in the settlement. Due to the pivotal nature of this landmark settlement, Nitro citizens need to participate as fully as possible to set a precedent for other class action suits that farmers and consumers of GMO foods around the world might wage against Monsanto in the future to finally take them down. If enough of us do it at once, then even their bloated coffers will finally be depleted, and we can enjoy a world without being poisoned to death.
While this case did not involve glyphosate, another deadly toxin used in Monsanto herbicides such as RoundUp, its time will come soon.
Credits: Written by Christina Sarich of naturalsociety.com, Guest contributor.
CounterPunch – by Joyce Nelson
Finally, a little-known aspect of the crisis in Ukraine is receiving some international attention. On July 28, the California-based Oakland Institute released a report revealing that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under terms of their $17 billion loan to Ukraine, would open that country to genetically-modified (GM) crops and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. The report is entitled “Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict.” 
In late 2013, the then president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, rejected a European Union association agreement tied to the $17 billion IMF loan, whose terms are only now being revealed. Instead, Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth $15 billion plus a discount on Russian natural gas. His decision was a major factor in the ensuing deadly protests that led to his ouster from office in February 2014 and the ongoing crisis.
According to the Oakland Institute, “Whereas Ukraine does not allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, Article 404 of the EU agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed: it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of biotechnologies. There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank Piper Jaffray, ‘Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and DuPont’.” 
Ukrainian law bars farmers from growing GM crops. Long considered “the bread basket of Europe,” Ukraine’s rich black soil is ideal for growing grains, and in 2012 Ukrainian farmers harvested more than 20 million tonnes of corn.
In May 2013, Monsanto announced plans to invest $140 million in a non-GMO corn seed plant in Ukraine, with Monsanto Ukraine spokesman Vitally Fechuk confirming that ‘We will be working with conventional seeds only” because “in Ukraine only conventional seeds are allowed for production and importation.” 
But by November 2013, six large Ukrainian agriculture associations had prepared draft amendments to the law, pushing for “creating, testing, transportation and use of GMOs regarding the legalization of GM seeds.”  The president of the Ukrainian Grain Association, Volodymyr Klymenko, told a Nov. 5 press conference in Kiev that “We could mull over this issue for a long time, but we, jointly with the [agricultural] associations, have signed two letters to change the law on biosecurity, in which we proposed the legalization of the use of GM seeds, which had been tested in the United States for a long time, for our producers.” (Actually, GM seeds and GMOs have never undergone independent, long-term testing in the U.S.)
The agricultural associations’ draft amendments coincided with the terms of the EU association agreement and IMF/World Bank loan.
The website sustainablepulse.com – which tracks GMO news worldwide – immediately slammed the agricultural associations’ proposal, with director Henry Rowlands stating: “Ukraine agriculture will be seriously damaged if the Ukrainian government legally allows GM seeds in the country. Their farmers will find their export markets reduced due to consumers’ anti-GMO sentiments both in Russia and the EU.” Rowlands said that Monsanto’s investment in Ukraine “could rise to $300 million within several years. Does Ukrainian agriculture want to totally rely on the success or failure of one U.S.-based company?” 
On December 13, 2013, Monsanto’s Jesus Madrazo, Vice President of Corporate Engagement, told the U.S.-Ukraine Conference in Washington, D.C. that the company sees “the importance of creating a favorable environment [in Ukraine] that encourages innovation and fosters the continued development of agriculture. Ukraine has the opportunity to further develop the potential of conventional crops, which is where we are currently concentrating our efforts. We also hope that at some point biotechnology is a tool that will be available to Ukrainian farmers in the future.” 
Just a few days before Madrazo’s remarks in Washington, Monsanto Ukraine had launched its “social development” program for the country, called “Grain Basket of the Future.”  It provides grants to rural villagers so they can (in Monsanto’s words) “start feeling that they can improve their situation themselves as opposed to waiting for a handout.”
Actually, the real “handout” is the one going to Big U.S. Agribusiness through the terms of the IMF/World Bank loan, which besides opening the country to GM crops, will also further lift the ban on the sale of Ukraine’s rich agricultural lands to the private sector. 
As Morgan Williams, president and CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, told International Business Times in March, “Ukraine’s agriculture could be a real gold mine.”  But he added that there are “many aspects of the [Ukraine] business climate that need to be changed. The major item would center around getting the government out of business…”
The WikiLeaks Cables
In August 2011, WikiLeaks released U.S. diplomatic cables showing that the U.S. State Department has been lobbying worldwide for Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations like DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow. The U.S. non-profit Food & Water Watch, after combing through five years of these cables (2005-2009), released its report entitled “Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda” on May 14, 2013.  The report showed the U.S. State Department has “lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology, and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules – even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-engineered (GE) foods.”
According to consortiumnews.com (March 16, 2014), Morgan Williams is at the nexus of Big Ag’s alliance with U.S. foreign policy.”  Besides being president and CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Williams is Director of Government Affairs at private equity firm SigmaBleyzer, which touts Williams’ work with “various agencies of the U.S. government, members of Congress, congressional committees, the Embassy of Ukraine to the U.S., international financial institutions, think tanks and other organizations on U.S.-Ukraine business, trade, investment and economic development issues.”
The U.S.-Ukraine Business Council’s 16-member Executive Committee is packed with U.S. agribusiness companies, including representatives from Monsanto, John Deere, DuPont Pioneer, Eli Lilly, and Cargill.  The Council’s twenty “senior Advisors” include James Greene (Former Head of NATO Liason Office Ukraine); Ariel Cohen (Senior Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation); Leonid Kozachenko (President of the Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation); six former U.S. Ambassadors to Ukraine, and the former ambassador of Ukraine to the U.S., Oleh Shamshur.
Shamshur is now a senior advisor to PBN Hill + Knowlton Strategies – a unit of PR giant Hill + Knowlton Strategies (H+K). H + K is a subsidiary of the gargantuan London-based WPP Group, which owns some dozen big PR firms, including Burson-Marsteller (a long-time Monsanto advisor).
Hill + Knowlton Strategies
On April 15, 2014 Toronto’s The Globe & Mail newspaper published an op-ed piece by H+K assistant consultant Olga Radchenko,  The piece railed against Russian President Vladimir Putin and “Mr. Putin’s PR machine” and stated that “Last month [March 2014 - a month after the coup], a group of Kiev-based PR professionals formed the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, a voluntary operation aimed at helping to communicate Ukraine’s image and manage its messaging on the global stage.”
The PBN Hill + Knowlton Strategies website states that the company’s CEO Myron Wasylyk is “a Board member of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council,” and the company’s Managing Director/Ukraine, Oksana Monastyrska, “leads the firm’s work for Monsanto.” Monastyrska also formerly worked for the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation.
According to the Oakland Institute, the terms of the World Bank/IMF loan to Ukraine have already led to “an increase in foreign investment, which is likely to result in further expansion of large-scale acquisitions of agricultural land by foreign companies and further corporatization of agriculture in the country.” 
Meanwhile, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated in April: “We don’t have a goal of developing GM products here or to import them. We can feed ourselves with normal, common, not genetically modified products. If the Americans like to eat such products, let them eat them. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.” 
Hill + Knowlton, with its Kuwait “incubator babies atrocities” falsehood, was instrumental in getting the American public to back the first Gulf War on Iraq in the early 1990s. Now the company is involved in fomenting a Cold War 2 or worse, and on behalf of Monsanto – recently voted the “most evil” corporation on the planet. That’s something to recall in the midst of the extensive mainstream media demonizing of Putin.
Joyce Nelson is an award-winning Canadian freelance writer/researcher and the author of five books, including Sultans of Sleaze: PR & the Media.
 Reuters, “Monsanto plans $140 ml Ukraine non-GM corn seed plant,” May 24, 2013.
Writers are often barraged with email invites to attend conferences to become better writers with promises that, in time, their efforts will produce a lucrative income. There are niche writing workshops as well, such as "food blogging." The hitch, of course, is that one must pay for tickets to enter said workshop.
In a notable flipside, however, Monsanto recently paid female bloggers $150 if they attended "an intimate and interactive panel." The goal here not being a way to a successful writing career, but rather an incentivized way to shape public opinion.
The invite target? Women ... Perhaps those of the ever-growing "Mommy Blogger" persuasion?
Reportedly, this was an invite-only three-hour brunch panel event on the last day of the BlogHer conference held in San Jose, California the weekend of July 26-27. It was to feature two female farmers and a team from Monsanto to discuss "where your food comes from" and the “impact growing food has on the environment, and how farmers are using fewer resources to feed a growing population.”
The Cornucopia Institute originally posted a link to an invite, which is now closed. The invitation specified that no social media or write-ups were expected from attendees, but attendees would have the opportunity to ask questions.
It was Anna Lappé of Foodmyths.org who made the event well known and delved deep into the PR tactics surrounding this event. She really dissects the dizzying methods that Big Food corps use to build relationships to sponsor events like these in order to mold public opinion and "dress up" advertising as news or use "panels" with the appearance of a two-way conversation.
Anna also notes:
Another invite-only event in August will bring bloggers to a Monsanto facility in Northern California for a tour of its fields and research labs. Again, while no media coverage is expected, the unspoken goal is clear.Stealth marketing techniques, such as these by Monsanto, reveal how the food industry — from biotech behemoths to fast-food peddlers — is working surreptitiously to shape public opinion about biotechnology, industrialized farming and junk food.She mentions similar events. Not that these tactics are really all too surprising, considering the vast resources of a global corporate giant, which according to one of Lappé's sources, now build in entire budget lines for such networking. That is, as soon as they started taking the blogosphere seriously.
Nestle, for instance, has a "cyber army," complete with state-of-the-art high tech headquarters ready at the helm to address criticism through social media. They also had to pay a fine for infiltrating an activist group that spoke out against them....
Speaking of which, Monsanto has taken the online social media offense before. Even going so far as to pay Blackwater (which boasts having Monsanto as a client) the truly big bucks to infiltrate the ranks of anti-Monsanto activists.
Furthermore, in one instance, Monsanto representatives were asked to speak to school children in a health classroom - they gifted each of the kiddos with a deck of playing cards - each card displaying a Big Agri tidbit. That article drew criticism from a Monsanto employee who routinely makes such comments on similar articles.
The Internet is starting to really teem with pro-GMO frontrunners trying to make it popular to paint non-GMO writers as extremists, shills, alarmists, dumb, science-illiterate and apparently killers for promoting world hunger via organic and local ag. Go figure. But now, perhaps, by holding positive sounding "educational" panels, they can convert mommy bloggers who will spread the GM gospel.
As people continue to turn away from corporate-run media, catch on to the PR industry spin jobs, and explore the world of the blogosphere, such tares among wheat are to be anticipated.
Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.
by Tom DeWeese
August 5, 2014
The attacks came fast and furious, from March through June. A coordinated attack to vilify, ostracize and neutralize efforts by local citizen activists who are standing in opposition toAgenda 21 and its policy called Sustainable Development. The terms “conspiracy theory,” “extremists,” “fear mongers,” and “far right,” are all over these obvious attempts to smear any opposition to the agenda of the Sustainablist planners that now swarm over nearly every community in America.
It started with the American Planning Association (APA) delivering yet another report in a continuing effort to understand the fierce opposition to its “innocent,” “locally- driven” programs. Apparently it is a mystery to the APA why there would be opposition to its plans to reorganize entire communities which sometimes result in turning people’s lives upside down. The APA has done a series of studies over the past few years in an attempt to find a way to silence or counter our opposition to planning. The latest report, issued in March, 2014, entitled “The Actions of Discontent,” was perhaps the most honest of the reports the APA has issued, when it said the opposition to planning is “marked by deep philosophical differences between activists and planning proponents…”. That’s certainly better than saying we’re just nuts, unlike most of the usual attacks against us.
Case in point, the next attack came in April from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), yet again. This makes at least four SPLC reports I’m aware of, to specifically focus on me as the ring leader of the opposition. This report, entitled “Agenda 21, The UN, Sustainability and Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory,” says “it’s time to call out the conspiracy theorists.” It demands that “politicians who spread falsehoods about Agenda 21 and its effects need to be shamed by other politicians, by editorial boards and other commentators and by the citizenry at large.” Those are pretty strong words. Apparently they are getting desperate to stop us.
That report was followed by another from the Natural Resources Defense Council entitled “Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theorists Threaten Cities’ Sustainability Efforts.” Next came another rant from “Treehugger.com,” calling me the “Conspiracy King.” Then came articles in two national news magazines, each relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s attack. Newsweek started it with a cover article entitled “The Plots to Destroy America.” Then came Fortunemagazine and its smear of activist Rosa Koire, head of Democrats Against Agenda 21. Rosa told me that it started out as an interview, then, just to “even the playing field,” reporter David Morris decided to bring in ICLEI and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Yep. Two against one. That’s a little fairer odds than we usually get.
What we are witnessing is the panic of a collapsing tyranny which they thought was well in hand. And for a couple of decades it was all going the Sustainablist’s way, until some of us started to expose their hidden truths. Watch and learn America. This is how tyrants react to anyone who dares to challenge them. As is always the case, their tactic is a scorched earth policy to lash out in every direction with vicious force in hopes that something will stick.
In its complete exasperation, the SPLC demands that the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, local governments and the news media “needs to stop reporting on Agenda 21 as if it were a bona fide controversy and plainly state the facts about the plan.” Further, the SPLC demands that communities “need to be encouraged to return to or start to develop such plans in tandem with responsible groups like the American Planning Association.” In other words, just as in the climate change debate, the SPLC demands that there be no debate, no discussion – just shut up and do it!
Meanwhile the tyranny of sustainable policy builds in town and after town, neighborhood after neighborhood.
In the Western states, the EPA is on a tear to control water, making it impossible to run the ranches. The Interior Department is forcing reintroductions of wolves and Grizzlies at the peril of livestock, family pets, children and natural herds of elk and deer.
In Orem, Utah, Betty Perry was arrested, handcuffed, and put in a holding tank because the grass in her front yard was dying. Violation, said the zoning enforcement officer. More recently, as the drought rages in California, a couple has been threatened with fines of $500 because their grass in their yard was dead. The reason it was dead is because they were obeying a California state government mandate that told them to preserve water or face a $500 fine. Tyrants always want it both ways.
Julie Bass, in Oak Park, Michigan, wanted to plant an organic garden in her yard. She even asked the mayor and city council if it was OK to plant and they both answered yes. But as she went to work on it, she too was arrested by the local zoning enforcement officer and faced 90 days in jail.
In Naperville, IL, two women were arrested for trying to prevent the local power company from installing smart meters that they clearly stated they did not want. The police came to the aid of the installers, cut a lock off their fences and trespassed on their property as the women tried to prevent it.
In Montgomery County, Ohio, Jennie Granato’s home was rendered basically worthless as the regional government enforced the installation of a bike highway across her front yard, bringing the lane within seven feet of her front door. To date she has not been compensated a red cent for the land they took as the regional government plays games with the legal system to deny Jennie her day in court.
Across the nation, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is swarming over producers of unprocessed milk, confiscating products and shutting down plants, arresting producers and buyers alike, even though there have been no reports of sickness or deaths. Not even a complaint. And the assault on small farms continued in Michigan where entire herds of a certain breed of pigs were destroyed, accused of being feral, even though farmers had raised them for decades.
In Fauquier County, VA, the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) has colluded with local county government to harass organic farmer Martha Boneta for hosting a children’s birthday party in her little farm store. The store was forced to close as she was threatened with fines of $5000 per day.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced last summer a decree to make American neighborhoods more “diverse.” It’s called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” calling for the federal government to gather and track data on “segregation” and “discrimination across America before deploying a wide range of social-engineering schemes to ensure more “diversity” in U.S. neighborhoods. It’s right out of the UN’s social justice plank. Bottom line, if your neighborhood lacks the government mandated diversity breakdown, you won’t be able to sell your home to anyone but the racial quota they demand.
And on the international level, smug, arrogant, well-funded, white Sustainablists have determined that it’s a proper use of government power to ensure black residence of Africa continue to live in mud huts without electricity, clean water or an infrastructure to provide jobs. As Paul Driessen (author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death) reports, some 2.5 billion people still do not have electricity or get it only sporadically, and so must burn wood and dung for heating and cooking, which leads to wide-spread lung disease. No electricity means no refrigeration, safe water or decent hospitals. All of this is just fine with the perpetrators of Agenda 21 because such a life style, in their opinion, is sustainable! In reality it’s environmental racism. And that is the real outcome of “social justice.”
All of these are examples of massive government overreach using the excuse of protecting the environment or controlling development or containing sprawl, or, in short, Sustainable Development. These, and many more outrageous government attacks on our once-free society, are the reasons why Americans are starting to show up at public meetings to demand that their elected officials protect them and their property from such out of control government sprawl. There is no justice, no reason, no compassion under sustainable policy dictates -- just the rush to raw power for power’s sake. Americans are feeling that reality first hand.
As a result, people are starting to listen to my warnings because they can clearly see the results. When they do feel that impact, and when they do ask questions, they are treated to stonewalling, lies and contempt by arrogant officials. So a growing number of Americans have stopped accepting their scare tactics and dire warnings of Environmental Armageddon. I’ve said for years that Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is built on a house of cards – on lies. And when such a foundation is finally challenged – it blows down rapidly. That is what is starting to happen across America. And that’s why the powerful Sustainablists are in such a panic over my efforts to expose these outrages.
Over the past three years pro-freedom activists have managed to convince more than 150 cities to end their memberships with ICLEI, one of the leading NGOs whose declared mission is to entrench sustainable policy into every community in the world. A close associate of mine reported that the head of ICLEI USA told him they are scared because ICLEI can’t get new American cities to join them – because we made the very name “ICLEI” political poison. ICLEI is panicked.
More and more state legislatures are seriously considering anti-Agenda 21/pro-property rights legislation. Of course, Alabama has already passed such legislation, while Oklahoma and Tennessee have passed similar attempts in at least one house of their legislatures. The Virginia legislature, after a two year battle waged by property rights activists, passed the Boneta bill to stop local harassment and over reach by local governments over small farmers. The legislation was a direct response by property owners to the enforcement of sustainable policy overreach. And it was a major defeat to the NGO’s pushing it. And it has them panicked!
Almost every day, now, I receive calls and emails from newly elected city councilmen and county commissioners from around the nation asking me what they can do to stop Agenda 21 policy in their community. I am starting to teach them new tactics to block new programs and ways to eliminate existing ones. We are especially focusing on strong language to define and defend private property rights. The fact is, Agenda 21 cannot be enforced without damaging property rights. Stand strong on that one issue and it can be stopped.
Regional governments and planning commissions are a major piece to the sustainable plans to change our government and impilment sustainable policies. With enough of these non-elected councils, sustainable policy can be enforced almost unopposed. The UN Commission on Global Governance defined the reason for the drive toward regionalism; “Regionalism must proceed globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.”
Forewarned is forearmed. So property rights activists are focusing on stopping the imposition of non-elected regional government councils that are now springing up across the nation. In just the state of Ohio, several local county and city governments have refused to join regional planning groups. Geauga County commissioners passed a resolution rejecting the Agenda 21 planning objectives put forth by the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium (NEOSCC). A month later the community of Lordstown, Ohio passed a similar resolution. The commissioners in Ohio’s Pickaway County refused to join the Central Ohio Regional Planning Commission. And of course, the outrageous destruction of Jennie Granato’s property for the sake of a bike lane exposed the near untouchable control yielded by the Miami Regional Planning Commission in Montgomery County, Ohio. The local property rights activists now understand the power they face.
Another reason for the Sustainablists to panic was the just-completed Climate Change conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute. This was a gathering of the so-called “skeptics,” the scientists and engineers who actually practice sound science in the pursuit of truth. They all have one thing in common from their research. They can’t find proof of the dire predictions of man-made Global Warming. These men and women of science have suffered greatly for their insistence on truth, no matter the cost. As a result, for years they have been black balled from science journals, denied funding for projects, and ridiculed for their opposition to the Climate Change hysteria. But they have persevered and they are beginning to turn the debate and the conference was full of a positive feeling of accomplishment. And right behind that conference, Australia became the first developed nation to repeal its Cap and Trade program, dumping the center piece of global sustainable policy. And the Sustainablists are panicked!
And finally, there is this bit of news to turn any “Green” to a gray depression. Carroll County Commissioner Richard Rothschild (the man who led his governing body to be the first in the nation to send ICLEI packing) won his primary reelection bid with 58% of the vote. Commissioner Rothschild was targeted in the Republican primary by a Democrat-turned-Republican just for the occasion. The labor unions threw all of their massive resources of manpower and money into the effort to make him an example of what will happen to officials who dare oppose them. Richard defied them, speaking clearly and precisely on the dangers of sustainable development and all the policies that go with it. He didn’t try to hide his conservative views. In fact, he put the word “conservative” along with the word “leadership,” on his yard signs. He told the truth. And he won. The battle isn’t over. He still has to win the November election. But he has proven that standing up and openly fighting sustainable development is a winning issue. And the Sustainablists are panicked!!!
To all the individuals and local activist groups who feel overwhelmed and hopeless in your fights – take heart. The Sustainablists are armed with billions of your tax dollars. They are powerful in the back rooms of your government. They have an open mike to any news outlet and they have had nearly a thirty year head start. But it is THEY who are now in a panic as their well-laid plans are starting to crumble under the weight of their own lies and arrogance and rotten policy. Obviously, for those smug, once-powerful NGO forces who thought they could crush their opposition with ridicule, there’s panic in Sustainable City!
Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email AlertsEmail Address*
The forces of freedom should gain energy from the NGO’s panic and increase our efforts to stamp out these self appointed tyrants once and for all. We certainly have a long way to go to restore our precious Republic. But it’s D-Day on Omaha Beach and, though we continue to face fierce fighting, we have established a beachhead and are moving inland. And the Sustainablists are panicked.
As you face them in battle after battle, just remember these immortal words from Rocky Balboa; “It ain’t about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit…how much you can take and keep moving. That’s how winning is done!”
© 2014 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
Share This Article
Click Here For Mass E-mailing
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.
A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report
For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911
By Jon Rappoport
July 28, 2014
The Times of San Diego reports on Hillary Clinton's keynote speech to biotech heavy hitters, at the recent BIO International Convention.
The headline is: "Hillary Clinton Cheers Biotechers, Backing GMOs and Federal Help."
Hillary professes worry that biotech companies are moving their operations out of the US. The answer? Federal subsidies, of course:
"'Maybe there's a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table' to discuss how the federal government could help biotechs with 'insurance against risk,' she said."
In other words, stay in the US, carry out as much research as you want to, and we'll knock down lawsuits, pay you for your failures, and support you when you lie and claim your results are positive and pose no risk to human health.
The Times of San Diego continued:
"She [Hillary] said the debate about GMOs might be turned toward the biotech side if the benefits were better explained, noting that the 'Frankensteinish' depictions could be fought with more positive spin."
Yes, we need more spin. And with Hillary, we can count on it. Here's the quote from her speech:
"I stand in favor of using [GMO] seeds and products that have a proven track record...There's a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are."
So true. The media/government fostered perception is that GMO crops are wonderful, whereas the fact is they're a dangerous failure. (If you need a starter course, refer to gmwatch.org and read the whole site from end to end, including archives.)
In her speech, Hillary cited drought-resistant GMO crops as an example of a breakthrough she championed as secretary of state.
However, in the Union of Concerned Scientists report, "High and Dry," we have this: "Biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have held out the promise that genetic engineering can...[create] new crop varieties that can thrive under drought conditions and reduce water demand even under normal conditions....
"Though the mid-2000's saw a surge in field trials for crop varieties with engineered drought tolerance traits, as of 2012 only one such variety-Monsanto's DroughtGard [corn], containing the engineered genecspB-had been approved by the USDA.
"The results so far paint a less than spectacular picture of DroughtGard's effectiveness: USDA analysis of data supplied by Monsanto show that DroughtGard produces only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions at that. The report estimates that cspB corn would increase the overall productivity of the U.S. corn crop by only about one percent. And DroughtGard does not improve water use efficiency."
In other words, the whole drought-resistant GMO crop promise is proving to be a dud.
Of course it is, because the strategy of injecting a genetic element that will make crops continue to live in a waterless environment is like pretending plant photosynthesis can thrive in a perpetually dark cellar. It's a straight-out con, a billion-dollar hustle.
But Hillary happens to be a willing partner in the hustle.
And her speech in San Diego sent that clear signal to the biotech community: Elect me and we'll work it out. I'll control the cash. You'll issue the fake results. We'll hit new highs.
She would uphold the tradition of Presidency as the seat of unconscionable deception.
Equally important, she'd be the first woman President whose family was teetering on the edge of applying for food stamps. Had to throw that one in there.
Are the Republican any better on the GMO issue? Of course not. Bipartisan support for GMOs is as firm as a rock, from which both blood (decimation of human health) and money can be squeezed.
Jon RappoportThe author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.
Use this link to order Jon's Matrix Collections:
Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Roundup
by JON RAPPOPORT
Claire Robinson has written a stunning article exposing hidden proof Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is poison:
“The glyphosate toxicity studies you’re not allowed to see,” gmwatch.org, July 2, 2014.
Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Roundup, Monsanto’s product, which is used in hurricane-like proportions on GMO crops.
Robinson doesn’t baldly assert these secret studies prove the poisonous nature of Roundup, but her piece certainly leads to that conclusion.
Here are the facts:
In China, this year, the Ministry of Agriculture admitted that legalizing the import of Roundup was based on a single toxicology test done in St. Louis.
Monsanto then stated, as Robinson reports, “that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now.”
Why not? Because the study proved Roundup was safe? Are you kidding?
In Europe, two studies on Roundup toxicity are also hidden in the closet.
The European Food Safety Authority and German regulators, Robinson states, “have refused… requests to release the studies, on the grounds that they are commercially confidential information.”
In other words, the studies are owned by a corporation(s).
No problem. Nothing is riding on the results of those studies except the health of the population of Europe.
In 2011, a group called Earth Open Source issued a report: “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?”
Robinson writes: “The report found that industry’s own studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. While the industry studies themselves are held by the German government and remain secret, the Earth Open Source authors examined Germany’s summary report on the studies, which is in the public domain. This report was submitted to the EU Commission and led to glyphosate’s European approval in 2002.”
Germany’s summary report invented various “redefinitions” of birth defects that downplayed their significance, and Roundup was approved for sale.
And again, the actual studies are being held secret.
Let’s see. Studies on the toxicity of Roundup are hidden by Monsanto and government regulators. The studies are called “corporate property.” That’s the justification.
“We own this science and we’re not releasing it. But don’t worry, it’s not important, you’re safe, Roundup is safe, it’s all good.”
Here’s the bottom line. If corporate science is used to justify the safety of corporate products, then that science must be made public in every detail, so it can be examined by people who don’t owe their souls to the corporations.
Anyone who stands in the way of this happening is a rank criminal.
But in this respect, we live in a lawless society. Government protects the corporations and itself.
The US Justice Department wouldn’t arrest and prosecute Monsanto executives who hide toxicity data in a million years.
But poisoning Americans? No problem.
This post originally appeared at www.nomorefakenews.com
MONSANTO TRIES TO PATENT & CONTROL NATURAL, NON-GMO TOMATOES Monsanto manipulated documents to make the plant look ‘invented’..
by CHRISTINA SARICH | INFOWARS.COM
In an appalling attempt to patent yet another seed, Monsanto has resorted to fraud to try to gain rights to a tomato which contains a naturally occurring resistance to a fungal disease called botrytis. The tomato is not genetically modified, but Monsanto manipulated documents to make the plant look ‘invented’ by biotech when the plant’s true maker is Mother Nature, herself.Representatives of No Patents on Seeds! have called attention to this shady play of the biotech industry to try to outrun their failing genetic experiments. The original tomatoes used for this patent came from the international gene bank in Gatersleben, Germany, and they have shown this resistance for ages, well before biotech started monkeying with our food supply.
“Because crossing tomatoes is not patentable, Monsanto deliberately rephrased the patent during the period of examination to make it appear as if genetic engineering was involved. However, careful reading of the patent shows that this is simply fraudulent. These tomatoes were not produced by transferring isolated DNA. The European Patent Office should have picked up on this,” says Christoph Then for No Patents on Seeds!. “This patent shows just how easy it is for companies like Monsanto to avoid existing prohibitions in patent law.”
Current patent law states that “essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals” are excluded from patentability.
Read: Organic Tomatoes Contain more Nutrients than Conventional
Many plants have a natural resistance to disease. For example, ‘super cukes’ are an heirloom variety of cucumber that are naturally tolerant to anthracnose, powdery and downy mildew, angular leaf spot, and scab. Should Monsanto get to patent those too?
Similarly (almost), biotech would like you to believe that their new purple GMO tomato is some kind of ‘cure’ all for cancer (even though several, non-patented natural plants already do this job) even though nothing of the sort has been proven. What’s worse, the scientific community is recruiting sick individuals to test their new poison food.
Organic gardeners are well versed in picking plants that are naturally resistant to pests and even weather in their location. They also use companion planting and organic pesticides to avoid the use of harsh, carcinogenic chemicals like RoundUp. If Monsanto thinks it can patent farming practices that go back 10,000 years, then something is absurdly wrong with our legislative system.
This article first appeared at NaturalSociety.com.
Despite preaching “transparency” in its corporate policy, Monsanto is so secretive it has worked overtime behind the scenes to block GMO labeling, influence politicians and intimidate free speech – even outside its own headquarters.
Monsanto – often dubbed “The World’s Most Evil Corporation” is a $15 billion U.S.-based multinational agrochemical and genetically modified seed company. Despite the fact that millions all over the world consume Monsanto’s GM seeds hidden in unlabeled food products every day – primarily in the form of GMO corn, soy, oil and beet sugar – the people of the United States and other parts of the globe are not allowed to know what they are eating. This is to the outrageous point that the company’s lobbying firm is suing the State of Vermont for trying to mandate GMO labeling (after voters demanded it).
Yet, one of Monsanto’s own official tenets in its company “pledge” is transparency.
But Truthstream Media.com reporters found out the hard way that the company is very protective of its image, of public information about its operations and of its political clout.
THIS VIDEO shows what happens when you try to film on a public sidewalk outside Monsanto’s world headquarters in Creve Couer, Missouri (a suburb of St. Louis) – where no parking signs and restrictive city ordinances have already attempted to intimidate and shutter public demonstrations and news reporters.
City passes ordinance to protect Monsanto world headquarters from protesters
Aaron Dykes is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com, where this first appeared. As a writer, researcher and video producer who has worked on numerous documentaries and investigative reports, he uses history as a guide to decode current events, uncover obscure agendas and contrast them with the dignity afforded individuals as recognized in documents like the Bill of Rights.
A growing body of research indicates that Roundup herbicide and its metabolite, AMPA, are vastly more toxic than the public is being told. Activist sentiment aside, the scientific research itself increasingly points to banning this herbicide as the only logical solution.
A concerning new study published in Chemosphere shows that the classical toxicology model, based on the testing of individual molecules, is incapable of accurately estimating the global environmental and health risks of mixtures of agrochemicals like glyphosate (aka Roundup) and its degradation byproduct AMPA, which are now ubiquitous environmental and food contaminants and much more harmful than previously believed.
Following closely on the heels of a study showing that Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation, the new study adds to an increasingly damning body of evidence that reveals agrochemicals used in GMO food production are vastly more harmful than their manufacturers, regulators and proponents will admit.
The study, titled, "Genotoxicity of mixtures of glyphosate and atrazine and their environmental transformation products before and after photoactivation,"evaluated the light-induced cell-damaging toxicity (i.e. photo-inducible cytogenetic toxicity) of glyphosate, atrazine, aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), desethyl-atrazine (DEA), and their various mixtures.
Glyphosate (aka Roundup) is the world's most popular pesticide, used primarily in GMO farming as a systemic herbicide. When glyphosate is metabolized within plants or within the liver of animals, it produces AMPA, a substance that while classified as inert and/or harmless by regulators, has been known for some time to be at least as toxic as glyphosate, the latter of which has been linked to over 30 adverse health effects. Atrazine is used to control weeds in crops such as corn and surgarcane, and is used widely in residential lawns and golf courses. It was identified as the most commonly detected pesticide contaminating drinking water in the United States, and is believed to a potent endocrine disrupter affecting animal hormonal systems.-
Herbicide Mixtures And/Or Metabolites 20-1,000 Times More Toxic Than Regulators Believe
The new study demonstrated that the cell-damaging (cytogenetic) potentials of pesticides greatly depended on their physicochemical environment. Also, it was found that the mixture made with the four pesticides was not only 20-fold more toxic to tested cells than those of the most active compound AMPA, but that the toxicity increased 100-fold after light-irradiation, which would be a common reaction given that these chemicals persist and accumulate in the environment.
Additionally, researchers discovered that, "AMPA displayed a direct cytogenetic toxicity which was 1000 fold higher than that of its parent compound [glyphosate]." Since AMPA – the breakdown product of glyphosate -- is a ubiquitous toxicant, found in all glyphosate exposed plant food, and is known to persist for prolonged durations in the environment (76–240 days in soil), and is even produced in the mammalian liver following consumption of glyphosate contaminated food, the significance of this finding can not be underestimated.
When you consider that glyphosate is presently allowed in human food at levels up to six orders of magnitude higher than research has revealed may be harmful to the human body, AMPA's potential for being 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate implies that present day 'acceptable levels' may be up to 9 orders of magnitude -- 1,000,000,000 times -- too lax than required to protect exposed populations from significant bodily harm.
Given the growing body of evidence suggesting that glyphosate and its metabolite, AMPA, are extremely toxic, the precautionary principle should be implemented and unnecessary exposure should be avoided. If Roundup herbicide use is not restricted or banned until undergoing review, at the very least, consumers deserve the right of informed consent. The choice to avoid non-GMO and non-Roundup laden foods must be made available through truthful labeling of food products. Failing to make this choice possible, or worse, levying massive financial and political resources against such a right through industry front groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association, amounts to forced chemical poisoning, an egregious crime against humanity.
 GreenMedInfo.com, Glyphosate Adverse Health Effects
 A Valuable Reputation: Tyrone Hayes said that a chemical was harmful, its maker pursued him" by Rachel Aviv, The New Yorker, 10 February 2014
 Atrazine: Chemical Summary. Toxicity and Exposure Assessment for Children's Health(Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 4/24/2007.
 Hayes, Tyrone B.; Anderson, Lloyd L.; Beasley, Val R.; de Solla, Shane R.; Iguchi, Taisen; et al. (2011). "Demasculinization and feminization of male gonads by atrazine: Consistent effects across vertebrate classes". The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 127 (1–2): 64–73. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.03.015. PMID 21419222.
 Greenmedinfo.com, Roundup May Be Carcinogenic in the Parts-Per-Trillion Range, 2013
This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
The global March Against Monsanto will take place this coming Saturday, May 24th!
If you haven't RSVP'd to your local event yet, you can find a location near you on this event list. If there isn't a march in your area, you can still start one! Here's how: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/2014/02/directions-to-organize-march-against.html Whether you are physically marching or not, please join our social media hashtag storm that will be coinciding with the march on Saturday. The details and hashtags will be released through the event page and our Facebook page. You can RSVP to the event here. Please invite your friends lists to your local events and to the social media storm. Here's an easy plugin for Firefox users to automatically invite all of their Facebook friends: http://mzl.la/1eIy3Ct To view March Against Monsanto's press release, go here. Please forward this press release to any and all of your press contacts. Hope to see everyone out there! Here are our links to stay up to date and get involved: Website www.March-Against-Monsanto.com Global event list: www.march-against-monsanto.com/p/blog-page_5.html Twitter: https://twitter.com/MarchAgainstM Facebook: www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto - See more at: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/2014/05/are-you-ready-to-march-on-saturday.html#sthash.bPQmUxsC.dpuf
(FEDERALJACK) On this edition of DTRH Popeye welcomes back to the broadcast friend, researcher, and writer Heather Callaghan. The two of them get into food freedom; Medical cannabis; The educational system; Good parenting, and more. Make sure to tune into this broadcast.
YOU CAN ALSO LISTEN ON YOUTUBE
LINKS TO THE ARCHIVE PAGES, LISTEN LIVE PAGE, FACEBOOK & TWITTER
DTRH W/ POPEYE FULL DOWNLOADABLE ARCHIVES
DTRH w/ POPEYE FULL ARCHIVE PAGE
DTRH LISTEN LIVE PAGE
THE TRUTH FREQUENCY RADIO NETWORK
DTRH W/ POPEYE
March 12, 2014
A top scientist and “risk engineering” expert is now publicly warning that GMOs pose a dire, genuine threat to the continuation of life on Earth. Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness, says that GMOs have the potential to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.”
His full explanation is presented in this public paper which describes how even a small risk per crop species can still result in global ecocide if pursued with abandon. As Taleb explains, “The risk of ruin is not sustainable, like a resource that gets
depleted in the long term (even in the short term). By the ruin theorems, if you incur a tiny probability of ruin, as a “one-off” risk, survive it, then repeat the exposure, you will eventually
go bust with probability 1.” (Where “probability 1″ means a 100% chance.)
Rational thinking automatically leads to skepticism of GMO safety
This sober, scientific conclusion is of course entirely rational and founded in clear thinking. Self-deluded GMO zealots and paid Monsanto trolls predictably try to gloss over these risks in their quest for profits and power, but that does not mean such risks do not exist.
In fact, as Taleb convincingly argues, genetically engineered crops are specifically designed to have a survival advantage over conventional crops, allowing them to better resist droughts or infestations of pests or weeds. This survival advantage — if it’s as real as seed manipulators claim — means genetically engineered plants can out-compete non-GMO crops in open fields. The genetic pollution which is already underway across North America will only get worse, therefore, and there’s no reversing it because all living systems — even genetically engineered ones — have a natural drive to spread, multiply and survive.
The result is that GMO crops will out-compete and thereby displace non-GMO crops over time. Why does this matter? Because the rise of GMOs is nearly synonymous with the collapse of genetic diversity in seeds and food crops. You don’t have to go back very far in history to find examples of mono-cultured food crops failing due to lack of genetic diversity, either:
- The Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1852 was caused by over-reliance on a genetically narrow food crop. Shockingly, one-third of the Irish population relied on a single crop, and when potato blight (a fungal microorganism) successfully attacked the crop, over one million people died from starvation.
- The current crisis in world banana production is caused because nearly all commercial banana trees are genetically identical clones.
- The near-collapse of Florida citrus due to disease is also caused by a striking lack of genetic diversity across citrus orchards.
A loss of genetic diversity is a pathway to global disease and starvation
Any legitimate scientist in the fields of anthropology, genetics or agriculture will warn you that low genetic diversity is the first step toward crisis and collapse of any given population. When genetic diversity is lost, the entire species becomes vulnerable to being wiped out by epidemic disease.
This principle is irrefutable and widely recognized as truth among nearly all scientifically-literate thinkers… except those pushing GMOs, of course. Those denialists selectively edit “scientific truth” to exclude any concerns that might question the wisdom of displacing the world’s treasure of seed diversity with corporate-patented seeds. The Precautionary Principle is gladly thrown out the window when corporate profits are to be realized from doing so.
Transgenic GMOs could cause catastrophic ecocide
Beyond the loss of genetic diversity, Taleb is also concerned about the possibility of catastrophic transgenic effects which could somehow weaken the world’s food crops in ways human scientists never intended or anticipated. Murphy’s Law — which states that if something can go wrong, it will — is widely recognized as a frustrating truth across physics, medicine, computer science and space exploration. Yet it is magically and irrationally declared null and void only for GMOs, where the roll of the dice quite literally threatens the sustainability of future life on our planet.
As Taleb explains, even if the chance of any single genetically engineered crop going wild and unleashing global crop failures is very small, the fact that companies like Monsanto and DuPont seek to dominate the global seed supply by perpetually releasing more and more genetically engineered crops means that sooner or later, a genetic catastrophe is all but inevitable.
If you play Russian Roulette every weekend, in other words, and there really is a live round in one of the gun’s chambers, sooner or later you are bound to blow your brains out. This is true even if the revolver has 1000 chambers (with 999 of them empty) so that the odds of losing seem incredibly small each time you play. (Interestingly, Taleb uses this exact same illustration in his paper…)
As Taleb also explains in his paper, the cost of losing is so great that even tiny odds of failure may not be acceptable. After all, we’re talking about the entire future of life on our planet.
GMOs may unleash mass global crop failures followed by starvation and disease
I warned about precisely this issue two years ago in my “Murdered by Science” series of articles which discussed how careless applications of science are putting the very existence of the human race at risk. (And for the record, I am not anti-science. I am 100% pro-science when the Precautionary Principle is honored.)
Those articles, widely derided by prostitute scientists paid by corporations to troll the web and attack reason, are in fact even more urgent to read today, in 2014. In those articles, I pointed out that GMOs are in the most extreme class of pollutants because they are self-replicating. While chemical spills can eventually be cleaned up, and even heavy metals can be remediated over time, genetically engineered DNA that escapes into the wild can never be put back into a box.
Self-replicating pollution is the worst class of pollution, far exceeding even the risk of nuclear accidents wiping out humankind. “As humans, we are ill equipped to understand the mathematics behind such risks,” writes Taleb. And he’s correct: human brains are not hard-wired to fully grasp the long-term implications of self-replicating pollution. In the same way, most people are utterly incapable of accurately imagining the long-term outcomes of compounded interest – a phenomenon which eerily reflects the spread of self-replicating pollution.
How dishonest science fools the uneducated masses
Because humans are not hard-wired to grasp the long-term risks of self-replicating pollution (as posed by genetically engineered crops), it is all too easy for paid prostitute-scientists to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and falsely claim GMOs present no risks whatsoever. This is why every single scientist who is currently promoting GMOs is, in fact, a threat to the continuation of human life on our planet. By deceiving the public and glossing over the very real threats to life posed by GMOs, they directly contribute to the spread of GMO genetic pollution which may end in genuine catastrophe and massive loss of life.
Imagine the global collapse of all GM corn crops. Or imagine the collapse of global soy production. Every crop which is GMO has some risk of being wiped out in a catastrophic manner caused by the un-natural manipulation of the crop’s genetic code.
The history of scientific advancement, of course, is rife with huge failures to foresee unintended consequences. Perhaps the most important example of that is found in the current rise of superbugs across modern hospitals. Utterly unforeseen by the world’s top scientists and pharmacological researchers, superbugs have now risen to such prominence in our health care system that even the CDC has warned that the age of antibiotics is over.
Superbugs, in fact, were a product of antibiotics. As drug companies churned out the drugs to “beat disease” — and doctors prescribed those drugs to hundreds of millions of patients worldwide — the perfect environment was created for the nurture and spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs, many of which are fatal to patients.
I personally knew three people who were killed in U.S. hospitals by superbug infections. Superbugs are the new death pandemic in America, and they are currently killing 48,000 Americans each year. They were unleashed by scientists who had no intention of causing death and destruction. Rather, those scientists working on antibiotics genuinely believed they were saving lives with no downside. At first, it all seemed true — antibiotics inarguably saved many lives early on. But now, antibiotics are in fact the reason why deadly superbugs have escaped the reach of modern medicine and genuinely threaten the human race with incurable infections.
Scientists are not immune to making catastrophic mistakes that cause massive death
The superbugs lesson desperately needs to be understood by the self-deluded prostitute-scientists currently pushing GMOs. Importantly, they need to swallow their arrogance for just long enough to understand that your INTENTION does not control the long-term effects of your ACTIONS.
Just because you wish for GMOs to “feed the world” does not mean they will. In fact, positive intentions can and do frequently blind scientists to the downsides of their own innovations. In example after example, scientists who believed they were pursuing technology for the betterment of humankind ended up inadvertently contributing to mass death and destruction.
The Manhattan Project, anyone?
But at least the dropping of atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan was a catastrophe that could be contained. The damage, although immense, was limited and could not mysteriously multiply itself over time. GMOs, on the other hand, are like seeds of mass destruction because they can replicate, spread and conquer.
So controlling them may not be possible once they are unleashed. And they have already been unleashed. Genetic pollution is now widespread across our agricultural landscape, and the vast majority of organic farms in the USA have experienced some level of contamination from genetically engineered crops.
Why so few people are capable of rationally discussing the ecological risks of GMOs
In a very real sense, most human beings are cognitively incapable of participating in any rational discussion of these issues. This includes most scientists, by the way, who are themselves just as vulnerable to peer influences and false mythologies as anyone else. In the name of “science,” far too many scientists today merely embarrass themselves by pushing obscenely silly arguments in defense of GMOs, claiming utterly stupid things like, “humans have tinkered with the genetic code of plants for thousands of years. Genetic engineering is no different.”
Although this is the most frequently-invoked argument by GMO denialists, it is blatantly idiotic and grossly deceptive from the start. Selective breeding of various phenotypes within the genetic pool of a given species in no way equates to cross-species DNA manipulation which combines insect or soil genes with plant genes. Any person who even attempts to equate these two concepts does nothing more than affix a giant “DUNCE” sticker to their own foreheads. (And yes, numerous scientists invoke this silly argument every single day, across the mainstream media.)
Taleb also addresses this same issue head-on in his public paper, explaining:
Top-down modifications to the system (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom up ones (regular farming, progressive tinkering with crops, etc.) There is no comparison between the tinkering of selective breeding and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another. Saying that such a product is natural misses the statistical process by which things become “natural.”
The abandonment of caution in the quest for profits
The next idiotic argument put forth by desperate prostitute-scientists is that GMOs aren’t dangerous because there’s no evidence they are dangerous. As stupid as this sounds, it is also the faith-based argument of the chemical industry which insists “all chemicals are safe until such time as they are proven dangerous.”
If this bass-awkwards logic sounds familiar, it’s because it is also invoked by the processed food industry in claiming that all food additives, preservatives and chemicals are inherently safe unless and until they are proven dangerous.
What all this non-logic has in common is an illogical presumption of safety. This has always been the argument of the mass poisoners of our world. Regardless of the poison being discussed — BPA, mercury fillings, pesticide chemicals, DDT, toxic heavy metals, triclosan, MSG and more — its corporate backers have consistently and predictably hired swaths of prostitute-scientists to declare the substance to be “safe until proven otherwise.”
The tragic lesson of lead arsenate pesticides
This presumption of safety sooner or later ends very badly. For over a hundred years, the heavy metals pesticide lead arsenate was “presumed safe.” Made primarily of lead and arsenic, it was indeed very effective at killing pests that threatened food crops. So farmers across North America and around the world sprayed it on their food crops, producing amazing quantities of food… at first, anyway.
Before long, the lead and arsenic bio-accumulated in agricultural soils, poisoning the trees that produced the food as well as the customers who ate it. To this day, soils across the world remain heavily poisoned by these deadly heavy metals, which is one of the reasons why so many superfood products sold today contain such high levels of heavy metals (see the Natural News Forensic Food Lab results for examples).
Lead arsenate — just like GMOs — was “presumed safe” because it didn’t cause immediate death to anyone. According to corporate-sponsored prostitute-scientists, anything that doesn’t kill you within seconds is automatically presumed to be safe. All long-term implications of the chemical or technology are willfully swept under the rug and ignored. Corporations lean on government regulators until the cover-up becomes policy. At that point, both government and industry become active collaborators in the mass poisoning of the human race.
And that’s the whole point of my breakthrough article, The Battle For Humanity is Nearly Lost which covers this collusion in more detail.
In conclusion: No self-replicating technology can be presumed safe if we hope to survive
I am of the opinion, by the way, that human civilization will not survive the next 100 years. Our species is too shortsighted, too driven by greed and too easily manipulated to survive its own corporate-led destruction. The quest for short-term profits blinds nearly everyone to long-term implications. The fact that the masses are already heavily poisoned by this very process makes it nearly impossible for the public consciousness to achieve sufficient lucidity to halt the quickening pace of self-destruction.
So in one sense, I only write this out of a fondness for galactic amusement, not out of any real hope that humanity can save itself from destruction via heavy metals, synthetic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and GMOs. But on the off chance that I am wrong in my prediction of humanity’s demise, if we are to survive as a species, such survival will necessitate the global embracing of the Precautionary Principle across all realms of science and technology.
Because even if we halt Monsanto and agree to have all the criminal biotechnology scientists halted from committing ecocide, we are all very likely going to be overrun by artificial intelligence before the year 2050, regardless of what else happens in agriculture or synthetic chemicals. Just as with GMOs, today’s most brilliant computer scientists are wholly incapable of understanding the long-term implications of the race for conscious machines and advanced AI tech. The result will almost certainly be that humans will invent the technologies that destroy humanity, and we will all go down in history as the race of sentient beings who were smart enough to invent amazing technologies but too stupid to restrain them.
I recently read an article stating that GMO pusher Monsanto is now pushing for the passing of UN Agenda 21. The source is not a 100% always reputable site so I thought I would dig deeper to verify if this was true or not.
Monsanto recently put out a press release announcing ’Monsanto Company joins WBCSD (The World Business Council for Sustainable Development)’
“We are excited to join the WBCSD and connect with a global coalition of more than 200 companies that advocate for progress on sustainable development.” said Jerry Steiner, Executive Vice President, Sustainability and Corporate Affairs at Monsanto
So I went to WBCSD’s website and started looking around, I couldn’t find anything mentioning ‘UN Agenda 21′ so I went to Google and used an advanced search query to find all the mentions of ‘UN Agenda 21′ on wbcsd.org. The results? Well see for yourselves:
‘UN Agenda 21′ is mentioned on 56 pages on wbcsd.org giving it praise at all times.
This is frightening. So once again you need to ask yourself, do you want to see ‘UN Agenda 21′ brought into our world? Do you want more GMO food consumed by your children? Monsanto wants both of these situations to come true.
Here is a full list of WBCSD’s members, all financially supporting the push for Agenda 21 through their membership:
I think everyone wants more sustainability in all areas of our lives but Agenda 21 is something we want to see in a scifi movie, not in real life. I am no longer going to support the above companies if I have an alternative choice. You, well can make your own decision.
Once again Monsanto is positioning itself as a company focusing on profits over anything and everything (nothing wrong with profits but as a business owner myself I wouldn’t ever get into pushing GMO’s or Agenda 21). While doing research for this article I found something quite ironic, Monsanto and most anti-Monsanto groups both support Agenda 21.
Here is the original article http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14409-gmo-giant-monsanto-joins-big-business-coalition-for-un-agenda-21
FDA “Visits” Celebrated Organic Produce Farmer
By Alliance for Natural Health
This is not good news.
Jim Crawford started New Morning Farm in Maryland many decades ago. He was young and idealistic. He had little or no money and had to start small. He believed in sustainable agriculture and wanted to produce fresh and healthy produce to sell in farmers’ markets to the urban public. He succeeded and became increasingly well known both for his ideals and his produce.
This may be why the FDA picked him out for a site visit. An inspector appeared without warning and told him that his operation would have to change, according to the Los Angeles Times: “This is my badge. These are the fines. This is what is hanging over your head, and we want you to know that.” It didn’t matter that no health problem had ever been associated with Crawford’s impeccably run operation.
The Food Safety Modernization Act for the first time gave the FDA direct authority over our farms. We thought this was a very bad idea. We weren’t able to stop it, although we were able to eliminate crippling fees for small farms that were in the original bill and also to exempt some of the smallest farmers. Unfortunately this didn’t help Jim Crawford since he is no longer operating on a tiny scale as he was when he started.
It should have been obvious to everyone that putting the FDA in direct charge of farms was a terrible idea.
Much of the FDA’s budget is paid for by Big Pharma instead of the taxpayers, which creates a serious conflict of interest. Despite this funding from industry, the FDA publicly stated that it lacked both the funds and the expertise to do its job, even before farming was piled on. It continues to state that because of lack of funds it cannot do what it is required by statute to do—therefore it is operating lawlessly.
Most importantly, the FDA knows little or nothing about farming. This is already painfully obvious in some of the voluminous and detailed farm regulations it is writing.
The agency also has a well-established track record of issuing regulations that favor big business over small producers, regulations that overwhelm small producers with compliance costs and can put them out of business.
The FDA itself estimates that new produce regulations will cost $4,700 for very small farms, $13,000 for small farms, and $30,500 for large farms. If accurate, these estimates would drive many growers out of business and prevent new ones from starting up. But they are not likely to be accurate.
It appears that, among many other requirements, repeated outside audits will be required, and each one will cost $5,000. Bessemer Farms, located in Ohio, which is closing its produce production and switching to soybeans, estimates that complying with the new rules would cost $130,000, including the required outside inspections.
Produce operations selling less than $25,000 a year will be exempt, as will farms that sell directly to the public via a roadside stand or the like. This exemption will discourage small produce operations from growing bigger, and will thus make the US even more reliant not only on giant farms, but also on imported foreign produce whose safety is even more uncertain.
This pattern of driving smaller operations out of business or keeping them small isn’t unique to the FDA. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has previously been on the farm but not quite in charge of it, does the same. Why is it necessary for many farmers to drive four or more hours to find a plant where they can process their livestock? Because the USDA has forced many small plants out of business with all their requirements, which include having a government inspector present.
In this case, the interests of big business and big government coincide. The big businesses get a government enforced monopoly for their area. The big government bureaucracies get a more manageable regulatory situation. It is hard enough for them to supervise the big businesses. They feel it’s too hard to regulate thousands of small businesses. And when they leave the government, they expect their next employer will be one of the big businesses.
Unfortunately, the result is that it is harder and harder for small, artisanal, and organic food producers to survive. We get more and more industrial agriculture, and as an unintended but direct consequence, less and less food safety. After all, the record could not be more clear: it is not the small food producers who are causing the contaminated food problem. It is the large, industrial farms that are doing so.
We don’t know yet how the new FDA regulations on produce and on farms in general will end up. There are plenty of worries, but the process will take years.
With your help, we will monitor and try to make the new regulations more reasonable, but with FDA inspectors already sending an intimidating inspector out to New Morning Farm, despite repeated pleas that they lack the staff and funding to do their real work, at the moment it doesn’t look good.
Read the full article here: http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-visits-celebrated-organic-produce-farmer/
By: Andrew Mastrocola
"If we win this war a lot of things will change." from the movie 'The Patriot'
We would not even have the chance to be fighting for farmers, consumers, and food freedom if the pacifist non-aggression policy had held front and center stage during the Revolutionary War for Independence from England.
There is a war on for your food, but what will you do? Defend the family farm? Would you allow your homestead to be overrun and destroyed by a totalitarian regime? Do you realize that we would not have ever won independence from England if America was a land of only peaceful farmers? Why the push in this day in age for farmers to be pacifists, Quaker like, and resist verbally, but not to defend their property from these modern day domestic terrorists of the alphabet soup agencies of a dictatorial government? Why is it that pacifists detest and dislike patriots?
George Orwell said it best:
“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.”
Watch 'The Patriot' and hopefully you will understand what America's original farmers had to go through to gain our independence and create this great Republic.
The Quaker settlers who founded Pennsylvania were pacifists, bound by their faith not to engage in violence or take up arms. These are the same things we presently hear from many in the food freedom movement who are afraid of angering their global masters. Courage is lost and they do not even realize that they are being relegated to slave status. What would have become of this nation if our founders only practiced peaceful non-compliance? What if our founding farmers refused to take up arms?
Be like a little lamb if you want, wolves find them to be an easy and most delicious meal. Are you going to let your farm go to the wolves? What would Thomas Jefferson have done if he was in peaceful Pennsylvania farmer, Dan Allgyer's shoes? Would Jefferson have just hung up a 'Going Out of Business' sign? I don't think so. Our founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to ordain and establish our Republic and the Constitution. Are there any great men left that would be as bold and brave as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in todays totalitarian police state?
The American Revolution forced the Society of Friends to do some serious soul-searching. Once a year all the Pennsylvania Quakers gathered at the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting to conduct business and address questions of faith.
In 1776, the meeting, operating by Quaker consensus, (sound familiar?) expelled Quaker men who chose to fight in the war for independence. Outraged by their neutrality, and suspicious that many Quakers hid behind their pacifism to make money and disguise their loyalty to the Crown, the Pennsylvania assembly instituted a loyalty oath that prevented Quakers and other pacifists from voting (in 1779). As the war dragged on, patriots became increasingly suspicious and angry at their Quaker neighbors. How many foodie activists today are hiding behind their pacifism, and the non-aggression principle to make money and disguise their filial loyalty to the powers that be?
During the American Revolution, people had to decide which side to support. Colonists for independence from England were usually called revolutionaries or whigs. But some Americans thought that to break away from the British government would not be right; they usually were called loyalists or tories. (Whig and tory were the names of rival political parties in Britain, so they were familiar nicknames in the colonies.) Americans today call the revolutionaries patriots, a word meaning “those who love their country.” Because we cherish our country’s independence, we value the revolutionaries as heroes.
Because of your pacifism America is now a nation that is run by Monsanto. All the while your fellow man is being soft-killed by the GMO foods, you fear being to brave or bold in defense of your farm. Why do you fear standing up to the Fascist Agricultural Industrial Complex? Are you happy living in a Fascist, Socialist, Communist, nation? Thank your fellow pacifist if you do.
Today it is easy for use to see why people wanted independence for the American colonies. We can even imagine ourselves joining in the fight against British rule. It is not so easy to understand why people who had lived in America for all or most of their lives would be opposed to the Revolution. Sometimes colonists were forced to make a choice for one side or the other, and they made choices they later regretted. Some people changed their minds and switched sides during the war, sometimes more than once.
As the war for your food escalates and the jackboots continue their oppression of raw milk, heritage breed hogs, local food clubs, hemp, backyard chickens, front yard gardens, and medical marijuana; all these things that were lawful and necessary in our infant Republic; will you be like the Quakers? Pacifists? Or will you be the brave and heroic farmers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were?
If you are looking for peaceful warm and fuzzy rainbows and unicorns you won't find them here. This is America land of the free and home of the brave; not the utopian new order of conquered pacifists.
Another excellent film from the maker of "Farmageddon" Kristin Canty
I adore Joel Salatin and love the fact that he has been such an outspoken advocate for farmers and farmers’ rights. There is, however, a completely unsung hero living on the same farm and with the same last name: Joel’s son, Daniel. I met so many farmers doing very interesting things while I was filming and screening Farmageddon, and I vowed to go back and film as many of them as I could. Warning: This film may not be for people that love bunnies. I think that what Daniel Salatin has done at Polyface with the Rackin’ House is a great model for a beginning farmer who may not have a lot of space. As you will see in the film, the Rackin’ House can produce rabbits and eggs, as well as nutrient dense soil, and one could even layer plants on top of the bunnies. This model could be used in the city also, which is why I thought it was so cool. I also love the Salatin mantra: Use nature to solve nature’s problems.
Dr. Rima Laibow, Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
The genocidal maniacs are at it again. The usual suspects (WHO, UN, IMF, World Bank, US, Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, etc.) have concocted a new scheme which is, quite literally, nothing short of Agenda 21 at the end of a gun, for your own good, of course. It has lovely, soothing and safe-sounding name: the Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI).
Reading about this monstrous intrusion on our life and health, I channeled the new verse that I am sure they are singing soulfully when they give throat to theKill The Useless Eaters Rag hit(man) tune (perhaps at Bohemian Grove?). This may be the most ingenious genocidal ploy so far – it certainly had the potential to become easily the deadliest!
Here’s the chorus (which, oddly enough, seems to work equally well in just about every language):
We need ‘em dead
Don’t want ‘em fed
Useless eaters’ human forces
Consume OUR non-renewable natural resources!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!
And the newest verse:
People are sources of infection,
Vectors of disease in every direction.
Making sure that they are dead
Mean’s there’s nothing they can spread
They cannot reproduce:
So diseases are reduced.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!
The Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI) is an audacious new plan to “control” infectious disease and antibiotic resistance  which, in 9 dryly worded, reasonable sounding points, neatly wipes out your freedom, your movement, your health choice including your right to refuse vaccines or other “treatment” and, in fact, you very right to be alive. In other words, Agenda 21 arrives in a white coat with an army of enforcers enabled, transnationally, to do whatever it takes to protect you, including relocation, deportation, and termination.
They are confronting a serious security problem, though: If you are alive, after all, you are a potential site of, and source for, infection. But their pet scientists-on-a-leash solved that one rather neatly:
Make sure you are dead. Then, you can’t provide the protectors with the problems of infection, transmission, and you have no descendants who can become infected and transmit disease. Knowing that, don’t you feel safer already?
The UN Secretary General has a couple of red-hot protégés, who have come up with this devastatingly crazy solution to the problem: Reducing population means fewer people to get infections and to spread it. It also means they cannot reproduce so their children will not be born, meaning THEY cannot get or spread infection., VOILA! Abracadabra! Shazam! The world just became safer because there are now fewer infected people and their progeny!
But that’s not enough! The GHSI has set its site on eliminating antibiotic resistance, too. Never mind that captive, corporatist regulators created the problem of antibiotic resistance, which, according to the CDC sickens and kills huge numbers of people per year, created the problem by allowing inhumane and unwholesome factory farm practices using antibiotics to keep stressed and sick animals alive, and permitting genetic markers of antibiotic resistant genes to be used, and spread in a totally uncontrolled fashion, in patented GMO life and “food” forms.,, These genes create antibiotic resistance in the environment, the food chain and – in us.
Such industry-friendly, consumer-dangerous practices were long predicted to create the antibiotic resistance problem which we have now, but regulators have their salaries paid by the government but their futures assured by the industries that they supposedly regulate. The lure to deep corruption and betrayal of the public trust is irresistible for most. The cost is life and health for all, to say nothing of the total loss of regulatory authority and responsibility.
By the way, about 90% of the world’s antibiotic trade is in factory farms. The highly profitable business model is to make sick animals sicker, get us to eat them and then make us even sicker so we use drugs (or, better yet, use drugs and then die).
Of course, if the initiators of GHSI actually wanted to solve these problems, they would abandon the ineffective and dangerous vaccine route, give up on antibiotics which are expensive, toxic and not particularly good for long-term solutions, as we have seen, and concentrate on safe, inexpensive, deployable and available natural solutions to the global health problems.
Unless, of course, the global health problems are the solution to another problem! Such as alleged over-population, perhaps?
If the agenda were really to eliminate and control infectious disease, not population and freedom, GSHI would be vigorously developing and recommending the deployment of Nano silver, which is effective against every known disease-causing organism and which has zero toxicity for any person in any condition. They would be building up stocks of IV Vitamin C, Zinc, selenium and other powerful immune boosting nutrients.
They would also be using their immense resources for the deployment of the technologies which have been shown over and over to eliminate infectious disease: clean and abundant food and water, clean air, improved hygiene. These are the strategies that reduced diseases in the 20th century, not dangerous vaccines or even antibiotics.
Of course, there is another way to halt the global infectious disease threat: stop creating it.
Laboratories of private companies like Monsanto create monstrosities and then skip free of any consequences. For example, it appears that MSRA was created in a laboratory in France and flushed down the drain by lab personnel. MSRA kills hundreds of thousands of people or more each year.
New genetic monstrosities like the avian flu (H1N1) apparently intentionally re-crafted with the genetic sequence that made the 1918 flu so deadly woven into it and, evidence suggests, SARS,, and Swine Flu (H5N1), may well all be lab creations: all gifts that keep on giving, via the vaccines that are so strongly correlated with their spread,,.
The hybrid Avian Flu came out of a Mount Sinai School of Medicine 6 year project sponsored not by Osama Bin Laden, but by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Swine Flu appears to have originated in a WHO lab.,
To stop the spread of infection, the globalist “health” community could stop producing deadly organisms. That would help a lot, it seems to me.
But GHSI has another idea. Instead, they propose to centralize the dangerous organisms for both research and storage. Hmmmm. Good idea. Make the facilities, which are inherently vulnerable, fewer in number so they can be penetrated, seized, used by the already demonstrably insane genocidalists or other terrorists.
“Mistakes” like the one that Baxter made (when it had an exclusive contract with 18 European countries to supply vaccines in the event of a flu pandemic) when it sent vast amounts of vaccine contaminated with live, infective H1N1 virus to those 18 countries won’t happen again, right?
The vial of similarly infective H1N1 viruses which “mysteriously” exploded in a passenger compartment on a crowded train in Switzerland would never happen again, right? What a great plan.
Clearly, the lunatic and lethal Global Health Security Initiative must be halted. You can help make that happen. Visit http://TinyURL.com/EndGHSI NOW to tell your legislators and decision makers not to fund or support GHSI immediately. Then send the link to everyone you can reach.
Don’t forget to LIKE, Share and Tweet the Action Item, http://TinyURL.com/EndGHSI .
Friend us at FB: /NaturalSolutionsFoundation. Friend us in Spanish at FB: /NaturalSolutionsChile
Act as if your life depends upon it. It does.
Sources and Notes:
 Bonds, M.H. & Rohani, P., Reducing Fertility More Effective than Vaccinating for Global Health and Economic Development; A Simple Ecological Framework. J.Roy. Soc.Interface 7:541-547.
 Bonds, M.H. 2006. “Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with
Implications for Human Ecology,” Ph.D. Dissertation (Ecology), University of Georgia, Athens, GA
 At least sickening hundreds of thousands and killing at least 23,000 annually in the US alone.http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/
 Levy, Stuart B. (March 1998). "The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance". Scientific American: 46–53.
 Wegener, H. C. (2003). "Antibiotics in animal feed and their role in resistance development". Current Opinion in Microbiology 6 (5): 439–445.doi:10.1016/j.mib.2003.09.009
 There is a significant difference between colloidal silver, which I do not recommend unless there is no other option, and nano silver which I do recommend. To enhance its effectiveness further, nano silver should be frequency enhanced like Silver Sol, www.DrRimaKnows.com, but whatever nano silver is accessed, it should be stored in reasonable quantity since it has a long shelf life and may become unavailable.
 Alexander Batalin (29 April 2003). "SARS Pneumonia Virus, Synthetic Manmade, according to Russian Scientist". Centre for Research on Globalisation. Retrieved 2007-08-16. (reporting on a news conference in Irkutsk (Siberia) on 10 April 2003)
 "SARS could be biological weapon: experts". ABC News. April 12, 2003.
 "Sars biological weapon?". www.news24.com. 11 April 2003
 Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine; Clinical Infectious Diseases; Benjamin J. Cowling, Vicky J. Fang, Hiroshi Nishiura,
Kwok-Hung Chan, Sophia Ng, Dennis K. M.lp, Susan S. Chiu, Gabriel M. Leung} and J. S. Malik Peir; DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis307
Rima E. Laibow, MD, who is licensed to practice medicine in 3 states, has practiced drug free medicine and psychiatry for nearly 45 years. She is the Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, www.DrRimaTruthReports.com, the world's largest Health Freedom organization. Her email is DrRima@GlobalHealthFreedom.org.
Infowars Nightly News talks to Mark Baker of Baker's Green Acres, a family farmer who has been under attack for almost 3 years from factory farms using their political clout to shut down their competition from small family farms that raise a premium product.
In December 2011, the State of Michigan declared heritage pig breeds that had been raised by farmers for decades to be 'feral' pigs. The designation was based simply upon physical description, not upon the behavior of the pigs or health issues with the meat. In fact, Mark Baker raises his pigs in a way where they can free range on his farm getting exercise and sunshine just like grass fed beef or free range chickens.
Follow Alex on TWITTER:
'Like' Alex on FACEBOOK -https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEme...
Mark Baker received an email from a friend on January 17. This friend has a co-worker that had a conversation with a USDA official (at their work place) where this USDA official was asked his opinion about the Mark Baker case. This person apparently became very unsettled and replied "there is no way in hell that I am going to his [Baker's] place, nor any other person from the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development. We have been briefed by our chain of command that the only people allowed to go to his (Baker's Green Acres) place are armed DNR agents". He continued, "We were also told that he [Mark Baker] is a gun waiving lunatic". Nothing could be further from the truth!
Farmer Threatened with Ruby Ridge Like Raid pt 1
Farmer Threatened with Ruby Ridge Like Raid pt 2
Support Food Freedom
Help End the War on Family Farms