Why can’t churches consign Monsanto to Hell from the pulpit?

By Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

“When Pope Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires, farm advocates met with him to explain how biotechnology had ruined and changed the face of Argentine agriculture…” (David Andrews, National Catholic Reporter, October 8, 2013)

Priests and ministers spoke out against the war in Vietnam. They went after the drug-dealing Contras in Nicaragua. They are “of the people,” aren’t they?

At least that’s what they claim.

I’m talking about Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Unitarian, Shinto, Hindu priests and ministers. Men of the cloth, of all faiths, including the firebrands who bankroll sin into cash.

Sentence Monsanto to Hell.

Forget Limbo, Purgatory, and all the stops along the way.

And what about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? They don’t think the destruction of countless small farms and communities in Africa is a “good issue” for them?

Seems to me I remember reading the story of Joseph in the Old Testament. As a boy, he had dreams of sheaves of wheat dancing. Food. Clean food. Grown without poisons and injected genes.

What bubble are these churches living in?

Let me see if I understand their position: God made Nature and Nature is sacred. So if Monsanto comes along and shoots genes into food crops and the genes drift and merge with anything that grows, and the insidious effects on health spread, and it turns out that more toxic Roundup, not less, is required, and superweeds resistant to Roundup are taking over huge swathes of farm land…the churches will rise up and declare Monsanto evil…right?

No?

They don’t want to cause trouble? They don’t want to alienate their constituencies? They’re politicians?

Oh.

In that case, what right do they have to act as intermediaries or guides for their people of faith?

Under pressure from the US government and its allies, the last Pope came out in favor of GMO food. This one, Francis, has yet to make a clear declaration. With over a billion members of his church in tow, Francis could change the balance of world opinion.

One domino falls, many follow.

And while I’m at it, what about colleges? Forty years ago, American students rallied and protested and struck in great numbers, on the issue of apartheid. They pointed fingers at their own administrations and demanded dropping investments in any company doing business with South Africa.

Well, how about protesting and striking at colleges, across America, where Monsanto money fuels research? It’s a natural. Then on top of that, students can also demand their colleges sell off stock in the company.

Pressure. Exposure.

For example, in 2012 Salon.com reported that South Dakota State’s president, David Chicoine, landed a plum spot on Monsanto’s board of directors, “where he earns six figures.”

Here’s another one (Mother Jones, May 9, 2012): The University of Illinois accepted a $250,000 grant from Monsanto “to create an endowed chair for the Agriculture Communications Program…”

Then there’s this report from a PhD candidate: “When I approached professors to discuss research projects addressing organic agriculture in farmer’s markets, the first one told me that ‘no one cares about people selling food in parking lots on the other side of the train tracks,’ said a PhD student at a large land-grant university who did not wish to be identified. ‘My academic adviser told me my best bet was to write a grant for Monsanto or the Department of Homeland Security to fund my research on why farmer’s markets were stocked with “black market vegetables” that “are a bioterrorism threat waiting to happen.” It was communicated to me on more than one occasion throughout my education that I should just study something Monsanto would fund rather than ideas to which I was deeply committed. I ended up studying what I wanted, but received no financial support, and paid for my education out of pocket.” (May 2012, Salon.com, “Monsanto’s college strangehold”)

There’s a lot more. A lot.

Instead of drinking the corporate Kool-Aid (Agent Orange, Dow), it’s time these college students woke up to what a real rebellion feels like.

Instead of proudly wearing T-shirts from Target and American Eagle Outfitters, they can gather on the campus and take over research buildings and make Monsanto feel some pain.

Churches and colleges.

Trance or action?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Coexist with Monsanto or destroy it? Follow the organic money.

Oct13

Coexist with Monsanto or destroy it? Follow the organic money.

By Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Let’s stop screwing around and go to the heart of the matter. Whether the public campaign against Monsanto takes the form of GMO-labeling or putting millions of people in the street protesting against an evil corporation…

Depends on who has the money and what they’re willing to use it for.

I’m talking about the billion-dollar natural health industry.

If companies like Whole Foods, Stonyfield, Dr. Bronner’s, Lundberg, and the big-time nutritional-supplement outfits want to bankroll a popular and very visible uprising against Monsanto, they have the dollars to do it. And they have the PR people to ignite it.

If they decide they don’t really want to co-exist with Monsanto and GMOs, they could start funding something a lot hotter and more effective than GMO-labeling ballot measures.

But that’s not in their playbook. They don’t have the stomach and courage for it. They don’t want to get their hands dirty.

So they go for GMO labeling, the ballot measures, coexistence with Monsanto, the lite version of a campaign.

It’s a lot easier. It doesn’t risk everything that goes with taking on Monsanto directly.

“Hey, we’re all really nice people. Don’t get nasty. Monsanto is terribly misguided, so let the consumer know what he’s buying and let him make up his mind…”

Suppose, in the 1960s, we had this: “The Vietnam War isn’t really evil, we don’t want to promote a few million outraged Americans going out on the streets, so let’s just have a ballot measure…I buy Vietnam or I don’t buy Vietnam…and then people can decide whether to support the war…”

Last May, two million people in 436 cities across the world protested against Monsanto. So far this weekend, it’s 250,000 people in 50 countries. That’s a drop in the bucket.

Those demonstrations could expand by millions, with some major PR dollars behind them. Organic dollars.

Here’s a quick piece of personal history that gives you a parallel to what’s happening now with Monsanto.

Back in 1994, I took an active part in what was called the Health Freedom movement. The campaign was bankrolled by a few nutritional-supplement companies.

The objective, from their point of view, was passing a federal law that would protect them from the bad guy. The bad guy was the FDA. The FDA was going after supplements, threatening to close off consumers’ access to the full range of products.

My position was: okay, pass a law, but that isn’t going to stop the FDA. We have to attack it with the truth, from every possible angle, as a rogue federal agency committing major crimes. We have to put the Agency on the defensive, back on its heels. We have to make it scramble. We have to make this a very public war.

The nutritional companies and their toadies said no. They were the equivalent of the GMO-labeling funders of today. They wanted a nice neat solution, after which they would withdraw their dollars and go home.

And so a bill was passed into law (DSHEA), and the FDA has continued, in various ways, to go after nutritional-supplement companies, saddling them with red tape…accusing them of marketing unreliable products…harassing them.

Meanwhile, the FDA approves medical drugs for public consumption, drugs that, by conservative estimates, kill 106,000 people in the US every year. The supplements kill no one.

Sure, pass GMO-labeling measures, but that’s not the real answer. The thing is, the people who are funding these measures are basically putting all their money into the ballot campaigns—all the money they intend to contribute.

For them, it IS an either-or situation. Pass ballot measures, or launch an all-out attack on Monsanto. They’ve made their choice.

They SAY they believe they can sell GMO labeling to the public. They SAY that’s all they can sell, because the public is too ignorant to go for anything else.

That’s a very convenient position. It automatically excludes a real rebellion against the evil corporation, Monsanto.

“Well, you see, educating people to understand why GMOs are dangerous to health and how Monsanto is destroying the sanctity of the food supply…that’s too much. We can’t achieve that.”

I don’t buy it.

Everything looks bleak until you take action. In other words, we’re looking at a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The CEOs of these natural-health companies would turn pale at the prospect of going after Monsanto directly. It’s fear.

They opt for the ballot measures. They assure us that this is the only option. They stage their own version of reality and defend it with “rational” assertions.

It’s a con.

Take on Monsanto…directly? Take out ads exposing Monsanto? Promote a million people in Washington DC Mall on a Saturday afternoon? Reveal the names of the Congressmen who are defending Monsanto? File new lawsuits against Monsanto? Put small farmers on television who are being harassed and driven out of business by Monsanto? Show the American people the faces of the men and women who spend their lives growing food for us, and listen to what they have to say? Bring the outrage to a boil? Expose (gasp) Obama as the number-one supporter of Monsanto in the nation? Name the people he’s appointed to protect Monsanto? TELL THE TRUTH?

Oh my God! Run for the hills!

No no no no!

Let’s have a ballot measure. For labeling. Let’s calm down. Let’s be nice. Let’s coexist. Let’s play together in the sandbox, even if the sandbox is polluted with GMOs. Easy does it. Relax.

Take a deep breath. The cosmic glob Goo-Goo is with us, and all will be well. He instructs us thus:

“Less energy. Less action. Less outrage. Less imagination. Less truth.”

Thank you, Goo-Goo. Thank you.

Your serene bullshit will sustain us in the days to come.

Jon Rappoport

Are GMO ballot measures just another covert op?

Oct7

Are GMO ballot measures just another covert op?

by Jon Rappoport

October 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here’s a quote in an ad Monsanto has run in the UK: “Food Labelling. It has Monsanto’s Full Backing.”

The catch? The mandatory labeling of GMO food is already widespread in the UK.

But in the US, where the whole issue is quite contentious, Monsanto has poured millions of dollars into campaigns to defeat GMO labeling on foods.

There was Prop 37 in California, and now Prop 522, coming up for a vote this November in the state of Washington.

In these campaigns, Monsanto falsely claims labeling is unnecessary, confusing to consumers, and would make food prices escalate.

So which is it? Which position does Monsanto take? Yes on labeling? No?

Both. Whatever works. The truth doesn’t matter. Never has. Never will.

The Prop 522 campaign in the state of Washington is going up against the Monsanto slime. It appears the Yes on GMO labeling forces there have split apart.

I pointed out, during the Prop 37 debacle in California, that telling voters they had a right to know what’s in their food isn’t enough. Voters have to understand the health dangers of GMOs.

They have to understand GMO farming in the US is a disaster, in terms of the amount of chemical poisons sprayed on crops, in terms of crop yields, and resistant superweeds taking over growing fields.

But that wasn’t what the Yes on 37 bosses decided in CA. They firmly ordered their foot soldiers to stick to the “right to know” issue, first, last, and always.

I had a good inside source, after Prop 37 went down in California, who said the Washington state campaign to label GMOs would be very different.

The anti-GMO forces there would educate voters on the dangers of GMOs. The campaign wouldn’t only be about consumer choice.

So…today I found a USA Today article reporting on the Washington campaign (“Washington State battles over genetically modified food”). It contained a statement from an anti-GMO spokeswoman:

“We believe that we have a right to know what’s in our food,” said Elizabeth Larter, the Seattle-based communications director for the Yes on 522 campaign. “This campaign is not about whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are good or bad; this is really just providing more information for consumers.”

Really. This is just about “providing more information.”

Good and bad are irrelevant.

If so, then why should consumers care whether the food they buy and eat is labeled?

I can’t imagine a more disastrous message from the anti-GMO forces in the State of Washington. It’s pathetic, destructive. It’s a wet noodle.

Was Elizabeth Larter, the spokeswoman, misquoted, or is she working for Monsanto?

I urge all the people in Washington campaigning for GMO labeling to ask her. These people work their guts out. They sacrifice their time, energy, and in some cases their own money and jobs for the cause—and in return they get this:

GMOs, not good or bad, just nice information for consumers to have.

Yes, by all means, let’s stick to Nice. Let’s sport a big grin and a shrug and say good or bad GMOs don’t matter at all.

Maybe the Prop 522 people in Washington think they have the election all wrapped up. Maybe they think GMO labeling is coming to WA and they can soft-pedal the campaign.

Well, Monsanto and other big biotech corporations have just injected millions of $$ into the WA scene. They’re not going to soft-pedal it between now and November.

Now, another insider has told me that the YES on 522 campaign in WA has split apart. On one side are the bosses, who insist on utilizing the same disastrous uni-message to voters: you have a right to know what’s in your food.

On the other side are some of YES ON 522 ground troops, who are determined to tell people: you have a right to know AND this is why—GMOs are dangerous to your health and dangerous to the future of agriculture.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq0HMBQfdI0&w=560&h=315]

The YES ON 522 bosses, as in California, are quite content to coexist with Monsanto and millions of their acres of of GMO crops. They’re resigned to the gene drift that will blow GMOs into American food crops from coast to coast.

As as you can see from Monsanto’s reaction to mandatory labeling in the UK, Monsanto can deal with GMO labeling wherever it’s passed.

The real threat to Monsanto is a massive popular uprising against the corporation and its horrendous desecration of food. For example, when a US county passes a law against the growing of any GMO crop within its borders, that’s a dagger.

Were such a movement to spread, Monsanto would be shaking in its boots.

But these ballot initiatives on behalf of labeling GMOs are soft. Their organizations are yuppified at the top. They’re Nice.

Which has led me to suspect that the ballot initiative movements have been infiltrated.

In intelligence-agency parlance, they’re limited hangouts. They seem to solve a problem, but they barely scratch the surface of it.

They misdirect attention. They frame the wrong questions. They dampen the much-needed outrage against Monsanto, which is an evil company.

They suck up available money. They co-opt volunteers who could otherwise be taking a much tougher position.

Instead of seeing hundreds of thousands of people in the streets rallying against Monsanto, the public is seeing press releases from spokespeople like Elizabeth Larter, who, if quoted correctly by USA Today, sounds like a Girl Scout selling cookies.

One more time, the public is being treated to a cartoon of dueling PR nonsense.

The effect? A dulling of the senses and the mind.

The ultimate message? Keep sleeping.

Because, you see, to do otherwise would not be Nice.

“Yeah…ballot initiatives, that sounds good. Yes or No on GMO labeling. Two sides. We can handle that. We’ve got plenty of money for false ads. And it’s all so remote. It’s a cool op, not a hot one. Stick with cool and polite and nice. Anger is bad. Outrage is bad. We can make this whole thing seem like slightly contentious diplomats exchanging memos. No real passion. Therefore, in the long run we win. The whole country is GMO.”

It’s a mind-controlled trance.

Jon Rappoport

Do you want to eat GM maggots in your fruit?

Sep8

Do you want to eat GM maggots in your fruit?

By Jon Rappoport

September 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The reference is GM Watch (twitter), Sept. 4, “GM fruit flies to be released—contamination threat.” (click here and here).

The GM company engineering the flies? Oxitec (UK). Oxford University is an investor in Oxitec. Why is that important?

The European Food Safety Authority panel poised to allow the insect release has a serious conflict of interest, because panel scientists work at Oxford University.

You know. Business as usual.

The GM fruit flies are an effort to lower the population of the flies, which attack olives and many fruits. The theory goes this way: females babies of the GM flies are engineered to die in the larval stage.

There’s only one problem. These larvae, which are maggots, will remain in the olives and the fruit. So people who buy the fruit will be eating maggots.

Mmm. Delicious. And healthy, too. Right?

The GM flies are scheduled to be released in Spain and Brazil. The fruit, of course, will be shipped around the world, and sooner or later, dead maggots will arrive at your market.

You won’t see them. You’ll buy them. You’ll eat them.

But you see, GM scientists know best. They’re looking out for all of us. Nothing can go wrong.

Safety tests re human health? Who needs safety tests?

I’m sure if you spray enough whipped cream on your fruit, you’ll forget all about maggots.

Oxitec. Good for the environment. Good for production. Good for fruit. Good for people who like dead maggots.

Don’t zombies like maggots? I believe I heard that somewhere.

Jon Rappoport

Europe rejects GMO crops; kinder gentler America seeks labeling

Jun3

Europe rejects GMO crops; kinder gentler America seeks labeling

by Jon Rappoport

June 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s a scandal.

Monsanto has just announced it’s giving up on most of Europe: people there don’t want GMO food. In America, the struggle is for labeling GMOs.

This is some kind of “fairness doctrine.” Let the US consumer decide what kind of food to buy. Choice. It’s the American way, right?

No, actually it isn’t. The evidence gathered over the last 10 years is staggering. GMO food and the herbicides sprayed on them constitute a major health hazard, to say the least.

And this doesn’t begin to cover the lying business practices of Monsanto, who promised farmers that Roundup would kill weeds in the fields. Instead, the weeds have proliferated to the point where the farmers have to kill everything growing with stronger, more dangerous herbicides, like Paraquat.

In the US, laws exist to prosecute crimes involving endangerment of health and crimes related to false marketing practices. These laws are on the books. When it comes to Monsanto, they’re gathering dust on the shelves.

Choice and fairness apply to competitive products that are safe. The consumer picks one type of tomato over another. The consumer buys walnuts rather than pecans. The consumer chooses black olives over green olives.

Choosing non-GMO corn instead of GMO corn still leaves dangerous GMO corn in produce bins.

Should a bottle of cyanide sit on a store shelf next to a bottle of salt, just to be fair to the consumer? To give him a choice?

Three or four federal law-enforcement agencies would arrest and prosecute the store owners who sell cyanide, as well as the distributors, and the packagers.

But in the case of GMO food, the FDA and USDA, the relevant agencies, do nothing. Neither does the Dept. of Justice.

Aside from several counties in America that have banned the growing of GMO crops, the big push is for labeling of GMO food in stores. That’s it.

The theory is, when consumers have a choice, they’ll overwhelmingly reject GMOs and put a serious crimp in Monsanto’s business. That may or may not happen (if labeling is widespread), but the theory doesn’t directly address Monsanto’s crimes.

The “kinder, gentler” approach is based on two assumptions. One, American consumers need soft activism. They won’t demand legal rejection of GMO food. They will, however, choose the right food.

And two, Monsanto has made such a powerful inroad on food-crop farming, it’s too late to take it back. It’s too late to declare all the GMO crops illegal.

“You see, so many people are taking Vioxx, we can’t go to court over it. It’s a done deal, even though patients are dropping like flies.”

It wasn’t a done deal.

Neither are GMOs.

In a previous article, “Meet Monsanto’s number-one lobbyist: Barack Obama,” I detailed Obama’s horrendous record when it comes to allowing new GMO crops to enter the food chain, and his outrageous appointments of ex-Monsanto stalwarts to important and key positions in his administration.

But Obama is “a good man.” He must be doing the right thing. He’s popular, so it wouldn’t be wise to attack him on the issue. Better to lay back, paste a smile on our faces, and try to secure labeling for GMOs.

Of course, that’s exactly the wrong strategy. But as in all campaigns, the longer people wait and do nothing and remain timid, the less likely it is they can succeed, if and when they decide to move.

That’s why Monsanto now has so many acres of GMO food growing in the United States. That’s why Monsanto has been able to push its unconscionable propaganda down the throat of the American consumer.

That’s why Whole Foods and other major health-food companies decided to surrender the real battles and opt for co-existence with Monsanto.

When there is continuing crime in a community, the people, the citizens have to go after and expose the public officials who are doing nothing about it, who are indeed profiting from it. In the case of Monsanto, the officials are, among others, President Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack, head of the USDA, and Michael Taylor, food czar at the FDA.

But health-food companies, who should be leading the battle, are either friendly or neutral toward these bad actors. They’re hedging their bets. They’re saying, “We’ll inform consumers so they can make good choices, we’ll do labeling, but don’t expect us to be more aggressive than that. Don’t expect us to get mad.”

Neutrality is apparently the American way. First and foremost, the business of America is business. And the idea of consumers staging a full-bore boycott against Whole Foods? Out of the question. No, consumers are too busy loading up bags with groceries.

Monsanto relies on that. Monsanto knows Americans are tuned up to buy, buy, and consume, and then buy more. Americans consider it their right not to be distracted from that obsession.

Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, are silent on the GMO issue. They all pretend it doesn’t exist. They sell out the people at the drop of a hat, and they don’t lose any sleep over it. Conscience? Never heard of it.

Ditto for major mainstream news outlets. “We don’t cover the Monsanto story in depth because it’s a he-said he-said thing. The scientific issues are complex. People on both sides make interesting points. But there’s no traction…”

That’s a bunch of crap. Make me the managing editor of the Washington Post for a year and I’ll send sales of the paper through the roof. I’ll let the hounds loose on Monsanto 24/7 and pound on the story day after day. The bottom line of the Post will look healthier than it has since Watergate, a minor topic compared to GMOs.

But the Post doesn’t really care about their bottom line. They would go bankrupt before they’d venture into these waters. They’re sold out from the top down. They’re part of the cover-up.

I’ve written about this before, but here it is again. In the early 1990s, when the US health freedom movement was at a fever pitch, when people were going after the FDA for raiding natural practitioners’ offices and trying to limit access to nutritional supplements in stores, I sat in on several significant meetings of activists.

People who controlled those meetings, who were connected to supplement companies, wanted a bill in Congress to protect the consumer. To give the consumer choice and access to supplements. That’s all they wanted.

I told them, in no uncertain terms, that this wouldn’t work over the long term. We had to go after the FDA. We had to attack.

I had a dossier on the FDA. I, like others, knew a lot about their crimes going back a long way.

I was told this was the wrong strategy. “First,” they said, “let’s get a good bill passed in Congress. Then we can attack the FDA.”

They had no such intention, and I told them so. They were never going to support going after the FDA and exposing it down to the ground as a criminal agency.

They had no stomach for it, and they were sold out themselves. They had a confined agenda, which had to do with helping to guard supplement companies’ profits.

They were slick operators. They knew how to present themselves as neutral and rational. They could spout New Age garble at appropriate moments. “Anger can be self-defeating.” “You achieve your aims when you come from a place of doing service.”

The same thing is happening now. “Give people the right to know, the right to choose what’s in their food.” It plays well, because it caters to the wholly absorbed self-interest of the health-food consumer with discretionary income.

It doesn’t work in the long run. It papers over the fact that corporate criminals, in partnership with the highest government officials, are committing RICO crimes against the health of the American people.

The appropriate emotion is outrage.

In case you hadn’t noticed, for the past 40 years there has been a major psyop in progress against righteous outrage and on behalf of Nice. Be nice. Be friendly. Be happy. Be self-contained. Don’t make waves. Anger is a sign of a mental disorder. Outrage isn’t Spiritual. You’ll injure your Karma.

Karma was invented to prop up a caste system. It was used to promote passivity.

Silence is not golden. Profits are.

Labeling food that isn’t poisonous, while permitting the sale of poison, is let’s-pretend virtual reality.

I’ve met so-called health entrepreneurs who’ve adopted squeaky clean New Age cover-personalities to obscure their sleazebag cynical motives. They’re very slippery characters. They do their real work in conference rooms where they look at spread sheets.

The chance of them going after GMO criminals is zero.

Once in a while, if you wait for it, or if you push them a little, you’ll see something come into their eyes. A dead cold nothing. It’s a sign of the personal Arctic region where they really live.

They don’t till, they don’t plant, they don’t harvest. They sell. They’re very much like the Sunday television preachers who are there to hustle dollars.

Only they take a kinder, gentler approach. They’re all about “consciousness” and saving the planet.

If the planet were alive in the way they claim it is, the planet would have long ago consigned them to a desert island under a blazing sun.

Jon Rappoport

Biotech’s next big disaster

May14

Biotech’s next big disaster: seeds that emit multiple pesticides

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Tom Laskawy (twitter), writing at Grist, points out how the next generation of GMOs is following in the track of present disasters:

“…the growing pest and weed problems for GMOs have caused farmers to turn to seeds that are coated with a different pesticide—a neonicotinoid. If that name rings a bell, it’s because these pesticides… have been implicated in the increasing epidemic of bee deaths.

“And that’s aside from the evidence that biotech’s ‘next big thing’ —seeds that emit multiple pesticides—may be doomed to fail. An international team of researchers, including USDA and biotech scientists, found what they termed ‘cross-resistance’ to these pesticides in [predatory] bugs exposed to the next-generation GMO seeds. Evidence, in other words, that GMO seeds are hitting a bug-covered wall.” The seeds don’t knock out the plant pests.

Yet the venerable journal Nature recently urged patience, because just over the next hill, the biotech giants will surely succeed in bringing us better GMO crops.

This reveals an underlying assumption about technology: when scientists discover a new way of doing things, it can never be retracted; it will eventually work well; improvements will come.

That false assumption sustains a tremendous amount of false science, as well as profits, of course, for the companies involved.

“Wait, better developments are being made.”

If scientists can shoot genes into plants, that’s a step that can never be taken back. It’s automatically a sign of progress. To admit defeat would be equivalent to admitting science can be wrong.

This is the insanity we are dealing with.

We’ve seen it in the field of psychiatric drugs, all of which carry heavy toxicity. If you push a researcher up against the wall, where he has to admit problems with the drugs, he’ll say, “But we’re working on next-generation chemicals. It’ll be different. We’re just starting to understand how the brain really works. Be patient. Help is on the way.”

In recent days, we’ve seen the US National Institute of Mental Health and its British counterpart defect from orthodox psychiatry in the interpretation of what a mental disorder is. Some people have taken this as a positive development. But that’s not the case.

The defectors intend to push brain research to new dangerous heights. Even though they have no baseline for “normal brain activity,” they are racing along the track of discovering “abnormal chemical imbalances.” In other words, their better science is no science at all.

They will invent new names for mental disorders, and there will be more drugs to treat patients, and the whole edifice will be founded on lies.

In the field of gene research, scientists are advancing on a road of manipulation of the human genome. This, they say, is yielding one breakthrough after another. New humans, better humans, more talented and healthy and intelligent humans will be the result.

But really, this translates into: we can shift genes around, we can substitute new genes for old genes, we can silence genes and provoke dormant genes to express themselves—therefore, we have to keep doing it. It’s science. We have to expand our work.

No they don’t. In the same way they don’t have to build even more destructive H-bombs, they don’t have to play roulette with the human body and brain.

Just because medical researchers can come up with new chemo drugs that kill cells and destroy immune systems, it doesn’t mean they have to.

Despite failures along every front of GMO-crop production, despite the fact that predictions of higher crop yields and reduced use of pesticides and herbicides have failed to materialize, Monsanto pushes on.

Monsanto lies and pretends their work is an enormous success. Their researchers, many of whom know the catastrophic failure they are dealing with, nevertheless keep going, keep telling themselves that this is science, and therefore it will ultimately succeed.

Translation: The seven billion people of earth are the guinea pigs in a vast corporate experiment.

Technocrats who envision trans-humans, a combine of brain and computerized brain, pin faith on the idea that, since brains can be hooked up to machines, they should be. It’s “scientific progress,” and therefore it has to happen.

All this used to be called scientism, a massive overreach of misplaced faith, but now the word is largely defunct. It was too accurate. It nailed the obsession and showed how crazy it was.

Years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to an atheist group in Los Angeles. The topic was HIV research, because I had written a book about it, AIDS INC.

I described the line of HIV research, and made a detailed case for the fact that researchers had never proved HIV caused a condition that was being called AIDS.

My analysis was met with strong opposition. The group was unhappy.

No problem. But it turned out their unhappiness was based on the notion that I was attacking science itself. And since they believed that’s what I was doing, they were angry because, get this, if I was against science, I must be for God. And they were atheists.

Therefore, I had to be wrong.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is the complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

Their reaction mirrored 19^th century attitudes about the rise of science. Its proponents felt they’d finally found an antidote to religion, and therefore, anyone who criticized science on any terms (e.g, flawed reasoning, bad data, bogus experiments) must be demanding a return to the Church, the Inquisition, and burning at the stake.

In the second half of the 20^th century, a new class of people came into being. Amateurs who wanted to pretend they were scientific thinkers. Even though they knew nothing about what really went on in laboratories, they could spout a few pseudo-scientific truths and win friends and influence people at cocktail parties and academic confabs. They were “up on the latest developments.”

More and more, this also became the m.o. in media. Reporters, broadcasters, anchors, government spokespeople, and pundits issued proclamations about science, without in fact having a clue about the truth or falsity of what they were saying.

We saw this (and still do), for example, in the area of so-called climate science. Everyone is now an expert on global warming and its imminent threat to the planet. The evidence is “settled.” Well, that’s what the president said, so it must be right.

After all, he personally knows all there is to know about methods of compiling historical temperature records, about alternate periods of cooling and warming, about computer modeling, about the mathematics of climate prediction.

Through cutouts, the White House has recently launched a campaign to defame anyone who doubts or questions or criticizes the manmade warming hypothesis. This is science by PR and intimidation.

The very best medical researchers assured us that Swine Flu was an emerging pandemic. In the spring of 2009, on the basis of 20 cases of Swine Flu, and after changing the very definition of “pandemic,” so it no longer needed to include “widespread death and devastation,” the World Health Association declared Swine Flu a level 6 pandemic, the most dangerous threat level.

Eventually, it turned out that Swine Flu was far less significant than ordinary seasonal flu. But no mea culpas emerged. No one admitted the hoax. No one stepped up and confessed.

It was science, and science (and profits) had to be protected, even and especially if it was wrong.

Many of these science projects are designed, at the highest level, as ops. The lies are told from the top, the deceptions are arranged. But much, much support is given, at lower levels, by people who swallow generalities about science.

They entertain delusions about science as a continuous march of progress which shouldn’t be interrupted. They will swear up and down they’re defending rational thought, logic, and the experimental method, when in fact they’re merely mouthing sentiment and propaganda.

Monsanto, like a stage magician working a cheap club in Vegas, says, “Look! We can insert genes in plants! Isn’t that incredible?”

And the rubes in the audience, enchanted by the trick, applaud, ready to support all the coming variations. For their part, these yokels only want to be able to say they’re on the cutting edge of science.

Lower, not higher crop yields? Nutritionally deficient food? Increased, not decreased use of pesticides and herbicides? Superweeds that don’t die under the assault of Roundup, as advertised, but instead thrive and spread? Health problems for people consuming GMO food? Who cares? It’s the magic trick that counts.

They can insert genes in plants. No one could do that before. It’s got to be a good thing. You want proof? Now they can make the plant exude more than one pesticide. What a feat.

Let’s eat.

The heart and soul of THE MATRIX REVEALED are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together. One of those Matrix-insiders is ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

For those who continue to parrot the company/government line that there is no difference between GMO and conventional crops, and claim “that’s good science,” here are smoking gun data from Mosanto’s own researchers.

The data were uncovered by science writer Barbara Keeler in 2000. Keeler published pieces in the Whole Life Times and the LA Times. The Whole Life Times piece was titled: “Buried Data in Monsanto’s Study on Roundup Ready Beans.”

Keeler discovered that, in 1994, when Monsanto submitted studies to the FDA, to win approval for GMO soybeans, highly significant data were hidden.

Roundup Ready (RR) Monsanto beans contained 29% less choline than conventional non-GMO beans.

RR beans contained “27% more trypsin inhibitor, an allergen that inhibits protein digestion, can retard growth in animals fed raw soybeans, and has been connected to enlarged cells in rat pancreases.”

In data Monsanto failed to submit to the FDA, from its Puerto Rico field trials, RR beans “were significantly lower in protein and the amino acid phenylalanine.”

In retoasted RR soy meal, “levels of allergens called lectins…almost doubled the levels [found] in controls [non-GMO meal].”

In other words, there was quite enough evidence, in 1994, to halt the whole FDA approval process of Monsanto soy. It was there in Monsanto’s own studies. And it was ignored and buried.

Now new biotech masterpieces are on the way. Plants that emit multiple pesticides. We’re supposed to believe this is good science that will do no harm.

We’re in the technological age, and it’s all wonderful, and because we’re rational people, we should jump on the bandwagon.

Jon Rappoport

Why didn’t the US just attack Afghanistan with Monsanto GMOs?

May1

By Jon Rappoport

May 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

It would have been so simple. Flood Afghanistan with Monsanto GMOs. Truckloads of seeds. Tanks full of Roundup herbicide. Result? Nutritionally deficient food crops, chronic disease, poisoning with Roundup. Perfect.

And we know how to do it, because we’ve been doing it to ourselves for almost 20 years. We’ve got it down.

GMO ballot labeling initiatives in Afghanistan? Are you kidding?

Plus…and this is a big winner, Monsanto scientists could have developed a GMO poppy seed. Throw those babies in the growing fields and you’d have gotten some Franken-opium variety. Wildly unpredictable effects. And sprayed with Roundup? Junkies all over the world would rather go cold turkey than shoot that stuff.

Actually, I had a comprehensive plan for closing out the war. It would have worked like a charm. Somehow, the Pentagon wasn’t interested. Now it’s just an historical oddity, a could-have-been. Some day, scholars might cite it in their assessments of US efforts in that far-flung region.

For posterity’s sake, read it. And weep, you Pentagon fools.

Pull all the troops out. Everybody knows we’d have to stay there forever. Kill Taliban, they hide, we leave, they come back. Why go up against that? Just vacate the country.

Then…put a winner of a plan into effect. Something that actually makes sense.

Start easy. From hundreds of planes, drop fast food all over Afghanistan. Burgers. Fishsticks. McMuffins. Legs, breasts, wings. It’s a good intro. Lightens everybody up a little. Two weeks of chicken done right.

Then, from those same planes—candy. Fifty thousand tons of gum drops, jelly beans, Almond Joy, Reese. Hell, Reese all by itself is unstoppable.

Sugar! You’re telling me people can resist sugar? They’ll be scooping that stuff up off the frozen ground. In high mountain areas, tribes live on lichen cooked over yak turds. All of a sudden, here come 20 colors of jelly beans out of the sky!

Give them enough sugar, and they’ll be running in circles one minute and lying back and napping the next. It’s a law of biology.

A month of heavenly candy.

Then next, a million cases of various diet sodas dumped out of our planes. Aspartame! Weird those dudes out. Three months of diet-everything. They won’t be able to find their way back to their yurts. They’ll be bumping into rocks and trees, howling at the moon.

Now comes the heavy action. Carpet bomb the whole country with little TV sets. And beam in soaps, Judge Judy, Rachel Ray, Dave and Jay, Oprah, Little House on the Prairie reruns, Law and Order, CSI, and wait for it—sports! Soccer, and, you guessed it, women’s beach volleyball! Amazons wearing almost nothing running on sand, hour after hour!

“Hey, Ahmed, it’s time for the Friday night tribe meeting.”

“Shh! Beach volleyball! Then Victoria and Billy just adopted a baby. She can’t have kids. Billy paid two million for a little girl. But it’s actually Daisy’s baby. Nobody knows it!”

The fabric of Afghan society comes apart at the seams.

US planes fly over with a few million cases of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Ritalin. Open the bomb-bay doors. Drop those suckers right down the slot. And tranqs! Valium! Old stocks of Librium.

On the ground, pills and capsules everywhere. You can’t walk by without picking a few up and swallowing them. It’s another law of nature.

So after a few more months, you’ve got the whole country hooked on meds. They’re weaving and wobbling and gnashing their teeth, when they aren’t completely zoned. A suicide problem begins to develop.

And finally, out of those blessed US planes comes the coup de grace. A few million computers. Wireless. Afghanistan is online, which means—that’s right—porn! Porn and gambling!

This, in a matter of, oh, six months, will totally destroy the Afghan culture, such as it is. You see, my friends, we’ve got weapons we didn’t know we had. Real weapons!

So we let all this simmer for a while. We let things take their natural course. We’re out of there. Not a single US casualty is being sustained.

And then, just to make sure we have the entire country enveloped and warped beyond repair, the CIA begins to broadcast, through all those TV sets and computers—take a deep breath—ready?—the AFGHAN HOME SHOPPING NETWORK!

Boom!

Oh yes, my friends, where there’s a will, there’s a way. Don’t bother bringing up the fact that the Afghan people don’t have money. They’ll find money! They’ll sell each other if they have to! They’ll pawn their yaks and rifles and take out second mortgages on their shacks and huts and yurts.

The Afghan Home Shopping Network won’t be denied. Shampoos, soap on a string, Kleenex, shower caps, earrings, toe rings, rugs, couches, square-dance instruction CDs, kitchen knives, scarves, fans, belts, undies, shoes, pet food, bird houses, pot holders, battery operated hair dryers, perfume, books on tape, storage containers, stockings, lipstick, eye shadow, bathrobes, self-improvement tapes, bracelets…

Victory.

Absolute conquest.

And not a shot fired.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

And when the population begins to develop all sorts of serious symptoms from this campaign, as they surely will, we send in the doctors and the shrinks, and they diagnose! They diagnose diseases and illnesses and disorders from here to Sunday, and they prescribe more (toxic) drugs.

It’s a party.

We do to the Afghans what has been done to us.

Because you see, that’s the pattern. We know it intimately, because we’ve bought into it ourselves.

We’re already that kind of society. Who better to impose it on another population?

And when the people of Afghanistan are softened up, poisoned, and wrecked, we bring in the US public education system and install it. That way we pick up the few remaining holdouts, the kids who have this crazy idea that they want to think for themselves, and we bury them under social programming.

We get those kids collecting aluminum cans and cheering for the 50 or 60 vaccines they’re getting pumped into their already-weakened immune systems. At age six, we teach them the 206 sexual positions described in various ancient texts. We teach them everything equals everything and they must tolerate and respect and celebrate every conceivable point of view.

It’s a blast.

We fly planes over the country dumping chemtrails, and we put fluorides into every water system, to reduce IQ, increase compliance, and promote bone loss.

Now we’re ready for major media outlets. You know, newspapers and TV news networks that do 24/7 he-said he-said and quotes from experts. Beautiful.

And then we can have free elections with candidates from the two major parties. They grin and lie and run for office and people argue and vote and it doesn’t make any difference.

The war is over, no US troops died, no bullets were fired, no bombs were dropped, and everybody’s happy—depending on your definition of happy.

Every once in a while, when the Afghan people start to come out of their trance, the CIA stages a local massacre and the media go crazy. A demand for greater surveillance is invented.

From the high mountain ranges to the lowlands, we’ve got 100 or 200 million video cameras recording everybody, all phone conversations and emails are monitored, and thousands of drones overhead blanket the country with electronic eyeballs.

The government takes away guns. US guns, black-market guns, old Soviet guns, muskets, and stingers, scooped up and shipped to drug cartels for a handsome profit.

All food crops, all trees, all bushes, all weeds, all grass in the country are GMO. The city of Kabul is renamed Monsanto.

It works, it really does.

Pacification, modern style.

Then, back here at home, the Pentagon can take those assets they no longer need for foreign wars…add them to the present considerable DHS arsenal, and deploy them on the domestic front against the restive population, when necessary.

I hereby give the Smithsonian Institute the right to publish, store, and display my Afghanistan war plan along side other military memorabilia.

Sanity deserves a place in history.

Jon Rappoport

The 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 29^th District 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

How did Barack Obama become Monsanto’s man in Washington?

Apr29

By Jon Rappoport

April 29, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

And when are anti-GMO activist groups going to stop saying they’re “shocked and disappointed” by the president?

Shocked and disappointed is polite-speak and politically correct reaction. It’s baloney.

Don’t you get it? Obama has never been on your side. He never deserved your trust.

Disappointment implies he was your buddy and then unaccountably walked away.

The man is a politician. He’s a liar. Different pols have different styles of lying. Some pretend they’re your friend before they screw you over and leave you in the dust.

I’ve previously published Obama’s track record as Monsanto’s number-one political supporter in America.

Meet Monsanto’s prime lobbyist, Barack Obama:

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade.

Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

He didn’t make that many key political appointments and allow that many new GMO crops to enter the food chain through a lack of oversight.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Records don’t show Monsanto or other biotech giants pouring a landslide of (visible) campaign cash down on Obama, relative to other large donors.

Goldman Sachs was Obama’s number-one $$ donor, and Goldman touts GM-crop commodity contracts, for both buys and sells; but Goldman has its fingers in every significant money pot from Nome to Tierra Del Fuego.

The “Obama riddle” is as plain as the nose on the face of Globalism. Monsanto’s agenda, to monopolize the world’s food supply, is essential to the Globalist blueprint. That blueprint ultimately aims for redistribution of food to the world from a point of Central Planning

As president, Obama has a sworn obligation to Globalism. His oath isn’t to protect the Constitution. Are you kidding?

Every recent president has had an overriding loyalty to Globalism.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9EtKC1GUJU&w=560&h=315]

Obama’s signing of the Monsanto Protection Act, making that corporation senior in power to the US court system, wasn’t an accident. It was taken in keen awareness of his duty to his Globalist betters.

You won’t, of course, see this disclosed on the evening news.

Here is a president who, like Bush, has no plans for a better world. Obama’s notion of “better” is tied up in the Globalist agenda:

An elite-run bureaucracy, promoting equality and justice, reduces all populations to a lowest common denominator, squashing freedom and prosperity.

Obama’s supporters will never learn the truth, because they’re blinded by the light, which they project on to the persona of the president.

Obama is aware of the con, since he triggered it, and he leverages it.

He’s all nudge-and-wink. “Yes, we’ll help you and you and you. Of course we will.”

He might help you if you make a declaration of dependence. Sacrifice yourself on an altar of despair and then you might earn the right to be fed.

Obama, while on the campaign trail in 2008, was promising transparency in government, was claiming that every person has the right to know what’s in his food (GMO labeling). But clearly, that was all cover and fluff. He was lying through his teeth and he knew it. He’d been vetted for the presidency, and he knew the job entailed joining Monsanto and the larger Globalist agenda as a front man.

He hasn’t changed over the past four years. He’s been a covert agent since the beginning.

Imposter. Charlatan. These words fit Obama. He’s pretended, like Clinton, to care, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t care that GMO food is taking over the country and the world. He wants it to happen. He’s always wanted it to happen.

The sitting president of the United States, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, among others, are prepared to do whatever is necessary to make GMO food dominate America.

They intend, through Monsanto-gene drift among millions of plants in ag fields, through increased planting of GMO crops, and through introduction of still more GMO crops, to wrap up the USA in genetically engineered food.

Obama is on board. He’s always been on board.

He is the GMO president.

If tomorrow, the Globalist Rockefellers of this world decided that all food grown in the US should be injected with Prozac, Obama would find a way to help.

Stop making excuses for the man. He’s not a victim of evil forces surrounding his presidency. He signed up for this trip with eyes wide open.

Sources:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/

http://news.yahoo.com/not-altruistic-truth-behind-obamas-global-food-security-174700462.html

Jon Rappoport

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

Apr10

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

by Jon Rappoport

April 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood.

I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.

For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.

But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this:

“Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”

As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.

Bittman explains: “…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”

As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically: “In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”

Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.

“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.

Just as the weeds developed resistance and immunity to the herbicide, insects that were supposed to be killed by the toxin engineered into Monsanto’s BT crops are also surviving.

Five years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the NY Times would print such a complete rejection of GMO plant technology. Now, it’s “well, everybody knows.”

The Times sees no point in holding back any longer.

Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.

Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.

The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators.

And once the story unravels far enough, the human health hazards and destruction wreaked by GMOs will take center stage. All the bland pronouncements about “nobody has gotten sick from GMOs” will evaporate in the wind.

It won’t simply be, “Well, we never tested health dangers adequately,” it’ll be, “We knew there was trouble from the get-go.”

Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.

And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet.

Centralizing the food supply in a few hands means the population of the world, in the near future, will eat or not eat according to the dictates of a few unelected men. Redistribution of basic resources to the people of Earth, from such a control point, is what Globalism is all about:

“Naturally, we love you all, but decisions must be made. You people over here will live well, you people over there will live not so well, and you people back there will live not at all.

“This is our best judgment. Don’t worry, be happy.”

Jon Rappoport

Top 10 excuses for Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act

Mar28

Top 10 excuses for Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yes, he signed HR 993. It was a bill funding the federal government. There was a rider in it. A Monsanto and biotech rider.

The gist of the rider is: a dangerous ghoulish GMO food crop can’t be stopped by a court order. That crop can still be grown, harvested, and sold in the US.

Isn’t that wonderful? Isn’t it grand?

250,000 people signed an emergency letter to Obama, telling him to send HR 993 back to Congress so the rider could be removed. He didn’t.

Of course, there must be some mistake here, because we all know Obama is the radiant messiah. Right? He’s constantly assuring us “we’re all in this together.”

He would never allow such a rider to pass through his hands and become law, because GMO food IS, in fact, dangerous to human health and is part of an overall plan to put the planet’s food supply into the hands of Monsanto.

Therefore, Obama has excuses. He surely does.

I propose the following ten. You can take your pick and thereby sustain your belief in his mission of bringing peace and love to the world. He’s not just another arch conman who scuttled into the White House. Of course not.

He would never support Monsanto in its drive to patent life forms, own the food supply, drench the world in more pesticides, engineer RNA so it silences and activates genes in the body in random fashion, leading to incalculable consequences for the human race.

He would never come down on the wrong side of the issue that could supersede all others in shaping the future of the human race.

So pick your favorite excuse:

Obama didn’t know what he was signing. He was too busy with other matters. He was on vacation. He was checking his brackets on March Madness. He thought that letter of protest, signed by 250,000 people, was about some new TV show called Monsanto Rider, a Western.

He’ll tell us that, just like the NDAA, which allows him to unilaterally assassinate Americans, this Monsanto rider will never be enforced. It’s just for show. It’s, well, an IDEA, not really a law. It doesn’t set a precedent destroying the power of the judicial system. No. We’re getting our knickers in a twist over nothing. Relax.

He and Michelle are secretly planning, along with Chief Chef Bloomberg, an organic food revolution in America that will sweep aside all resistance.

Obama has inside information we aren’t privy to. It exonerates Monsanto. Astonishingly, Monsanto turns out to be an agent of hope and change.

Obama is Obama. Because his character is basically other-worldly (in a good sense), he would never do harm. Therefore, a priori, the Monsanto rider is all right. We need not worry. Be happy.

All great prophets must undergo tests and survive crises. This is one of those tests. Sooner or later, Obama will reverse course and expose Monsanto for the diabolical son of Satan it is. Just wait. Be patient.

Obama knows full well how hideous Monsanto is on the world scene, how it is gobbling up seed companies and destroying farmers and putting Frankensteinian genetic distortions into our very bodies. He’s just giving Monsanto enough rope to hang itself. He’s allowing Monsanto to operate freely so it can reveal, to humanity, its Grinning Skull—and thence be overthrown by popular revolution. Again, wait. Be patient. “We’re all in this together.”

Obama was drugged by Monsanto operatives. When he wakes up, he won’t remember he signed the bill, nor will he ever know he signed it. This drug can selectively inhibit his mind on that single item. If he ever reads that he signed it, he’ll think he’s reading about Harry Reid buying three casinos in Vegas and having plastic surgery to look like James Bond.

Obama never signed the bill. A lookalike double was brought in to do the deed. Obama is now living under heavy guard, along with Piers Morgan, in a Texas compound run by a bevy of full-auto maximum-clip country women.

Joe Biden, who only pretends to be off his rocker and minus a few dozen light bulbs, is actually running the country. He is Obama’s Cheney. Joe gave the order to sign the bill.

There are your ten. Pick your fave.

Just in case you still think Obama is only peripherally involved with Monsanto, here is the evidence that you’re sadly mistaken. I compiled it some months ago and published it:

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for gardens and clean, organic, nutritious food is nothing more than a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

Sources:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/

http://news.yahoo.com/not-altruistic-truth-behind-obamas-global-food-security-174700462.html

Jon Rappoport