Monsanto proves that corporations don’t run the government

by Jon Rappoport

March 27, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Collectivists have a favorite target. Big bad corporations. This is a complete scam. Why did Goldman Sachs turn out to be the biggest funder of Obama’s 2008 election bid? Why weren’t the corporate banksters who demanded and received those enormous bailouts, under both Bush and Obama, prosecuted for crimes?

Collectivists actually love big corporations. Collectivists just want to distract us from their real goals. And in order to enact those goals, they need banks, they need the military-industrial complex, they need Big Pharma and Big Oil.

They especially need somebody to control the world’s food supply, because that’s one of the ultimate squeeze plays on the global population. So who do they bow down to, in that arena? Monsanto, Dow, DuPont.

Washington politicians aren’t victims who can’t fight off big bad corporations. They aren’t at the mercy of those corporations. That’s a load of nonsense. That’s Politics 101 for brainwashed college students.

O poor little politicians! No power. No way to win against the big boys. No chance.

If you buy that, you’re ready to buy condos on Mars.

Politicians play the victim tune because it diverts attention away from them. It shifts the blame and responsibility.

Asking Congress to pass laws canceling corporate donations to their election campaigns, and instituting instead “public funding,” is a joke. That’s not going to happen, and even if it did, politicians would find back doors.

Bottom line: the politicians want to be in bed with corporations. To say that our elected representatives can’t resist corporate money is like saying people aren’t responsible for their own corrupt practices. It may be fashionable to assume that everyone is a pawn and a victim, but it doesn’t hold water.

So we come to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, the rider to a funding bill that just sailed through the Senate, and is awaiting Obama’s signature. This sneak measure will nullify court decisions to ban GMO crops while those crops are under review for being “potentially dangerous.”

Here, again, we hear excuses made for the politicians. They didn’t know the rider was in the bill, they didn’t read it, they didn’t understand the consequences, they were played by Monsanto and other biotech giants.

If you sit in the Senate and vote yes on a bill, and you didn’t read the bill, whose fault is that? If you allow one of these thousand-page monstrosities to pass into law, and you don’t know the full meaning of it, and you don’t make a huge stink about it in public, what good are you?

If you allow Monsanto to take over your vote, is whining and complaining after the fact of any use?

Of course Monsanto is a crime boss. Of course it’s in the process of degrading life on planet Earth. Yes, we know that. But to say it can’t be stopped because the politicians are “under its sway” is an egregious lie.

“Oh, the big corporations own America.” I’ve heard that just as you have, for decades. And it’s a true statement because the people in government who could resist the takeover don’t. They surrender. They sit there. They take money. They lie. They participate in their own corruption.

The victim mindset always blames somebody else. That’s the way it works. So the people who love big government and support a collectivist state are going to exonerate government and accuse corporations of stealing the country.

Corporations have stolen the country, side by side with the politicians who have sold their own principles and their own souls.

The theft is a team operation. It always has been.

Robert Anton Wilson once wrote: The political left hates big corporations; the political right hates big government; and they’re both correct.

But as long as the hatred is split down the middle and channeled into two separate beds of foul festering crime, the divide-and-conquer operation succeeds.

GMOs have spread across the world. Who forwarded that agenda? Presidents, legislators, and the biotech giants. Together.

Who stacked his administration with ex-Monsanto people? The current sitting president.

Again, it’s fashionable to say the juggernaut of corporations is too powerful for government to resist. That’s absurd. The government has multiple agencies that could cause lethal trouble for mega-corporations. But it doesn’t happen.

When Eisenhower left the presidency, he famously warned against the growing power of the military-industrial complex. The military is part of the government. Eisenhower wasn’t just accusing corporations.

Since its inception, the CIA, a government agency, has run interference for corporations in foreign lands, subverting and even overthrowing governments that were unfriendly to these corporations’ agendas.

Is Monsanto clever and relentless? Of course. But they don’t win alone. They have political partners in America at every level.

This latest fiasco, the Monsanto Protection Act, isn’t written in stone. It could be repealed, even after passage, by a new piece of legislation. The Congress could do it. The fact that they won’t speaks volumes about their character.

Once you realize the global Monsanto takeover is an operation deploying both corporate and government forces, the idea that the federal government is “here to help us,” a notion that has gained much currency during Obama’s reign, goes into the garbage can.

Many people can’t handle that. One way or another, through one ideological lens or another, they have to see Washington DC as a shining city on the hill. It’s a prime feature of their religion.

Washington is also a source of financial aid. Whether we’re talking about a small welfare check or massive contracts let out to companies, the federal government is in the business of buying friends.

This largesse contains its own buried rider: don’t resist what the government’s corporate allies are doing. If the federal government says or implies that Monsanto is good, it’s good.

“Well,” Clinton supporters and Bush supporters and Obama supporters say, “the government does make mistakes. They do let big corporations slide and skate and gain certain advantages. You see, politics is a gray area. It’s confusing. There are all sorts of conflicts and partnerships and deals, because that’s the way of the world. You can’t fight that. A compromise is made here in order to do something good over there…”

No, Virginia, it’s a lot worse than that. Government and corporations march and dance together to their own music, shredding the law and the Constitution as they go.

These partners have made sure that GMOs spread everywhere. These partners make sure Big Pharma is protected against prosecution for heinous crimes. It’s business as usual, and it takes two to tango.

The Monsanto Protection Act isn’t just a slimy move by a huge corporation. It’s a collaborative effort.

All those corporate lobbyists who infect Washington with their machinations and their money? Are they really imposing their will on politicians because those pols are at their mercy? In a victim’s dream, yes. But in reality, any legislator who tells himself he can’t get reelected unless he takes corporate money is really saying he won’t stand up on his two hind legs and blow the whistle on the whole stinking system.

If one, five, 10, 20 Congressmen started exposing the real government-corporate game, loudly and passionately and eloquently, we’d see a crisis that would make the fiscal cliff and sequestration look like a child’s birthday party.

Names would be named. Crimes would be detailed. Endemic corruption would float to the surface and sit there steaming, for all to see.

People who view themselves as chronic victims view the world in those terms. They see government as the victim of corporations. They forward and promote this big lie. They make endless excuses and spin endless fairy tales.

Let’s opt instead for a more stark approach: Congressional scum just passed a rider protecting Monsanto from getting the justice it deserves. It’s never too late to reverse that decision.

That’s more realistic.

How many times have legislators been “duped” by sneaky bills passing through their hands? At what point are they supposed to wake up and do something about it?

When you’ve had the farm stolen from you a few thousand times, and you’ve done nothing about it, there’s only one conclusion possible: you like it that way.

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

Brand new GMO food can rewire your body: more evil coming

Mar26

Brand new GMO food can rewire your body: more evil coming

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s already bad. Very bad. For the past 25 years, the biotech Dr. Frankensteins have been inserting DNA into food crops.

The widespread dangers of this technique have been exposed. People all over the world, including many scientists and farmers, are up in arms about it.

Countries have banned GMO crops or insisted on labeling.

Now, though, the game is changing, and it’ll make things even more unpredictable. The threat is ominous and drastic, to say the least.

GM Watch reports the latest GMO innovation: designed food plants that make new double-stranded (ds) RNA. What does the RNA do? It can silence a gene. It can activate a gene that was silent.

If you imagine the gene structure as a board covered with light bulbs, in the course of living some genes light up (activation) and some genes go dark (silent) at different times. This new designed RNA can change that process. No one knows how.

No one knows because no safety studies have been done. If you have genes lighting up and going dark in unpredictable ways, the functions of a plant or a body can change randomly.

Genes that were doing their jobs could stop doing their jobs. Other genes that were dormant could spring into action and perform tasks that weren’t meant to be performed.

Think of this latest biotech “innovation” as a drunk playing pinball. Lights on the board go on and off, and TILT is always a distinct possibility.

As GM Watch reports, an Australian company, CSIRO, has designed wheat and barley seeds that put genes to sleep, “to change the type of starch made by the plant.”

Also on the way: next-generation biopesticide food crops that repel insect predators. In this case, the designer RNA can be injected or even sprayed. When a gene is silenced in the insect, it dies.

GM Watch states there is published evidence that the designer RNA can move from the plants into the bodies of people who eat the plants, outlasting cooking and digestion, and winding up in the bloodstream.

The RNA has changed gene-expression (activation/silencing) in mice.

Several food-safety inspectors in several countries have been interviewed. They simply rubber-stamp the new RNA technology, assuming it’s safe. No problem.

Pinball, roulette, use any metaphor you want to; this is playing with the fate of the human race. Walk around with designer-RNA in your body, and who knows what effects will follow.

There are still people, at this late date, who believe that all science is good science. They blithely accept the latest thing, and refuse to acknowledge that scientists can be crazy, stupid, or malevolent. They also fail to make the connection between junk science and the greed for profit at any human cost.

Biotech giants like Monsanto view their genetic operation from an entirely different level. Every new DNA or RNA tweak to a plant—no matter how insane—allows them to file a patent, to own that new artificially designed piece of Nature. This is their approach, and it’s obvious they intend to control the planet’s food supply.

It’s a mafia program writ large across the whole world: “buy from us or else; pay us our cut.”

Meanwhile, the damage they inflict is of no concern to them, as the spinning of the genetic roulette wheel opens up the human race to vast mutations.

The new Monsanto Protection Act, as it’s called, is a cynical piece of legislation that underlines this lack of concern; it torpedoes the ability of the court system to stop new gene-designed crops from popping up everywhere.

Source: GM Watch, 3/22/13, “New paper on dsRNA risks—briefing for non-specialists.”

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14717:new-paper-on-dsrna-risks-briefing-for-non-specialists

Jon Rappoport

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

Mar17

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The relentless Brad Friedman of TheBradBlog ran this story down and broke it. There was, indeed, a recount of the Prop 37 vote.

Prop 37, the ballot measure that would have mandated labeling of all GMO food sold in California, went down to defeat last November, under suspicious circumstances.

So a small group, headed by Tom Courbat, former senior budget analyst for LA County, decided to challenge the vote.

In California, any voter can do that, if they’re willing to pay for it. And they have to pay for the recount county by county. They pick the counties they want to start with, they contact the county registrars, and they’re told what the price is. It’s different in each county.

So the group picked Orange and Sierra Counties. They paid the fee. The votes were recounted, and there was no appreciable change in the numbers.

The group decided Fresno County should be next. That’s when trouble came and whole thing blew up. The county clerk in Fresno, in charge of all voting processes, is Brandi Orth.

As The Brad Blog reveals, Orth came up with a staggering price for a vote recount. Here are a few of the details:

Orth stated there would be an up-front fee, due before the recount even started, of $18,000.

The cost per DAY of doing the recount? $4,000. This included five vote counters who would each be paid $46 an hour—to sit and count. Then there would be a three-person executive staff, each of whom would be paid an astonishing $92 an hour.

Note: In Orange County, the Prop 37 recount didn’t cost $4,000 a day. The fee? Only $600 a day!

But here is the best part. As Tom Courbat, the leader of the Prop 37 recount group, spoke with Fresno County Clerk, Brandi Orth, he suddenly learned he was being charged for the phone conversation—and also for Orth’s staff “getting ready” for a recount!

Understand this. No recount had begun. Courbat hadn’t given the green light for a recount. But, he was informed, he was already $4000 in the hole.

Courbat estimated a vote recount in Fresno County was going to cost his group $78,000 by the end of three weeks worth of work. They didn’t have the money.

The Fresno County recount was toast. And with it went any chance (even if one assumes a recount would be honest) that Prop 37 could be fairly reviewed in California.

At this point, I ran down a few facts about Fresno County. It’s the number-one county in the US for agricultural production; in 2007, $5.3 billion. Major employers? Kraft Foods, Del Monte Foods, Foster Farms, Zacky Farms, Sun-Maid. A local outfit, David Sunflower Seeds, is owned by the giant ConAgra.

Beginning to form a picture? Fresno is Big Agriculture, and the last time I looked, Big Ag isn’t rushing to support GMO labeling. They love Monsanto, crime boss of the GMO world.

Brandi Orth, who blocked the recount, was installed as Fresno county clerk a mere 10 months before Prop 37 went up before California voters. This happened, as The Brad Blog points out, because the previous county clerk, Victor Salazar, suddenly announced his retirement with three years left on his contract.

Who picked Orth as the new county clerk? The five members of the Fresno board of supervisors. I noticed that two of them, Phil Larson and Debbie Poochigian, were members of the Fresno County Farm Bureau.

That’s quite interesting, because in the run-up to the November Prop 37 vote, the Farm Bureau was one of the organizations that signed on to a large NO on 37 print ad.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

Let’s recap. The recount on the Prop 37 vote is stopped cold in Fresno County (a major center of Big Ag), because the county clerk, Brandi Orth put up absurd, incredible, and arbitrary obstacles. Orth was selected for her job, in the first place, by a board of supervisors on which, at the very least, two of the five members were opponents of Prop 37.

Does the California state government and, in particular, the state attorney general’s office give this foul-smelling situation even a sniff? No.

Does the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who is in charge of all voting in the State, budge from her office and investigate, or better yet, go down to Fresno and personally install a fair and equitable and affordable recount of Prop 37? Of course not. She moves right along to other matters.

What does that tell you?

The stink from the blocked vote-recount goes all the way from Fresno up to the capital city of Sacramento and back down again.

Naturally, the major media give this story no play. They remain silent.

As I’ve detailed in other articles (under the ~/category/yeson37/ section of my blog), there are many reasons to reject the truth of the original Prop 37 vote in California, as well as any election in the State. But after these revelations, if you accept California vote-counts as real, you should check your sanity.

Source: The Brad Blog, “Forget About Fresno: How One CA County Clerk Stopped Prop 37’s Oversight ‘Recount’”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Can you trust Whole Foods?

Mar13

Can you trust Whole Foods?

By Jon Rappoport

March 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Whole Foods has announced that, by 2018, all GMO products sold in their stores will carry GMO labels, so customers know what they’re buying.

Whole Foods has also asserted they are working with their suppliers to find non-GMO raw ingredients, so that current GMO products sold in the stores can become non-GMO.

Whole Foods presents this two-pronged program as their best shot at making intelligent consumers into game changers.

More and more consumers, at Whole Foods, and hopefully other markets that follow suit, will choose non-GMO products; many markets will find and stock non-GMO products; the trend will move America’s buying public away from GMOs in a very significant way.

That’s the best-case scenario.

Mike Adams, at naturalnews, has stated in several articles that activists must a) keep a close eye on what Whole Foods does for the next five years and b) keep the pressure on to make Whole Foods’ plan a reality.

Adams has gone so far as to promise he will put up a prominent Hall of Shame at naturalnews, naming and pounding on those Whole Foods suppliers who refuse to go non-GMO.

I agree with Adams that these measures are absolutely necessary. They aren’t just a good idea. They have to happen.

Because it all comes down to this. Should we trust Whole Foods, a natural-food giant that thinks about its bottom line, money, 24/7?

I can’t pile praise on a food retailer who, for years, has posted a big sign on its stores that says NOTHING ARTIFICIAL, EVER, when the statement is such a blatant lie.

Perhaps you recall the famous undercover Organic Spies video (now banned from YouTube), secretly documenting Whole Foods employees lying about GMOs in a number of stores. The employees stated that Whole Foods sold no GMOs, when that was clearly false.

I’d like to have a look at the upcoming Whole Foods GMO label and read exactly what it says and see how it’s laid out and how specific it is. I’d like to see how large it will be displayed on products in their stores.

Warning to Whole Foods: if you somehow cheat on the label or somehow downplay its prominence, you’re going to have hell to pay.

I’d like to have a precise breakdown on this: how many GMO and how many non-GMO products is Whole Foods selling right now? Let’s have a complete list on both counts.

The current line-up of non-GMO products is available at Whole Foods’ website, on a store by store basis. I like that, except for the fact that many products on the list obviously wouldn’t contain GMOs, even if they were sold at a conventional supermarket, because Monsanto hasn’t gotten around to inserting genes in them, yet.

Okay, let’s dig much deeper now. I’m going to present extensive quotes from an article Ronnie Cummins wrote for the Huffington Post on January 28, 2011. Cummins is the director of the Organic Consumer Association. His article was headlined: “The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?”

The burning article goes to the heart of the trust issue, as far as Whole Foods is concerned. It’s exactly why I agree with Mike Adams’ strategy for dealing with Whole Foods, as they implement their five-year plan to go non-GMO.

Cummins’ article came on the heels of a disastrous Obama-adminstration decision to allow GMO alfalfa to be grown all over the US.

Cummins writes:

“In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation’s 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America’s organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it’s time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto’s controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for “coexistence” with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.”

Does that make you feel warm and cuddly about Whole Foods? Let’s continue:

“In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and ‘seed purity,’ gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the ‘conditional deregulation’ of Monsanto’s genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of ‘conditional deregulation,’ this means that WFM [Whole Foods Market] and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.”

Boom.

Before continuing to quote Cummins, I should point out that, after he published this piece, there was strong and angry reaction from Whole Foods. They suggested that Cummins was just trying to raise money for his Organic Consumer’s Association by making his wild accusations. I find this charge absurd. Cummins eventually stated that Whole Foods was not the enemy, Monsanto was. But I believe Cummins was content to have blown the whistle on Whole Foods, and he had a clue that they were about to change their behavior. In other words, his attack got way under the skin of Whole Foods and they saw the handwriting on the wall. Do the right thing, or you’ll suffer serious consequences.

Cummins continues:

“In exchange for allowing Monsanto’s premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants ‘compensation.’ In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers’ and rural residents’ risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil’s crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis [Monsanto] to agree to pay ‘compensation’ (i.e. hush money) to farmers ‘for any losses related to the [GMO] contamination of his crop.’

“In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for ‘public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry,’ even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government ‘oversight’ of Frankencrops such as Monsanto’s sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: ‘The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must.’

“According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack’s previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as ‘Governor of the Year’ in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.’s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it’s time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called ‘coexistence’ between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto’s unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.

“WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called ‘natural’ foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI’s sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.

“From their ‘business as usual’ perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs.”

To say that Cummins is going after Whole Foods is a vast understatement. He’s cutting them four or five new ones. He’s killing them. And what’s this business about “their big customers?” Wal-Mart? Target? Is Cummins saying that Whole Foods or their distributor is selling products to those outfits?

More Cummins:

“The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM’s $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called ‘natural’ processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called ‘natural’ products (no doubt WFM’s lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they’re all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.

“Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as ‘natural.’

“Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called ‘natural’ food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.

“Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as ‘natural,’ and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are ‘certified organic.’

“Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed ‘natural’ foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a ‘natural’ supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

“A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called ‘natural’ ingredients. With the exception of the ‘grass-fed and grass-finished’ meat sector, most ‘natural’ meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.

“Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to ‘natural’ imposters…

“The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called ‘Natural’ GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market[.]”

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”.

Well, Whole Foods is now promising to do truth-in-labeling, exactly as Cummins proposes. In other words, his attack on Whole Foods made a significant impact. Because of Cummins’ work, Mike Adam’s work, the exposure of Whole Foods at infowars and other sites, the pressure built to a crescendo.

Whole Foods execs sat down and ran numbers. They calculated their risk, in terms of dollars lost, if they continued to do their smoke-and-mirrors “natural” shtick and their outright lying to their customers.

This wasn’t just a matter of ideals. It was necessity that pushed Whole Foods over the edge.

And now they’re suddenly darlings, leading the charge toward a better world?

I don’t think so. I don’t think so at all.

They’re parolees, who’ve promised to go straight, because they believe their survival as a company depends on it. They couldn’t maintain the ruse of selling natural products that weren’t natural at all. They were exposed for all the world to see.

That’s why all their promises about what they’re going to do in the next five years are just that, promises. That’s why we all have to watch them like hawks. That’s why we have to put pressure on them to live up to their “reformed behavior.” That’s why we have to tell them: prove it; and don’t lie to us again.

Jon Rappoport

What’s behind Whole Foods’ decision to label GMOs in their stores?

Mar11

What’s behind Whole Foods’ decision to label GMOs in their stores?

By Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Whole Foods has announced that, by 2018, it will label all products in its stores that contain genetically-modified ingredients.

Mike Adams, at naturalnews.com, has written an excellent article covering this development. You should read it.

Whole Foods cites customers’ concerns as a major reason for its change in policy. One picture of the future: by overwhelming popular acclaim, non-GMO products at Whole Foods stores will squeeze out GMO products.

The other picture? At some point, customers will lose interest in the new labeling program and buy whatever they want to eat, regardless of whether it contains GMOs.

Monsanto views labeling as less than ideal, but far better than outright county-by-county bans on growing GMO crops. Several counties in California, for example, have already enacted such bans. That’s the real threat to the Monsanto crime empire.

Monsanto, with its very deep pockets, can sustain an endless propaganda campaign aimed at convincing consumers that GMO food is equivalent, in all ways, to non-GMO. So far, this PR blitz has won over most politicians, as well as a major sector of the technologically-educated class.

So what will happen, up the road, as Whole Foods customers move beyond their initial excitement at being able to tell whether they’re buying GMOs? Will they continue to care? Or will the labels evoke about as much interest as fat and carb content do now?

If Whole Foods’ buying public falls into apathy on the GMO issue, presumably the stores will continue to offer GMO products in profusion, because the cash registers keep ringing.

As Whole Foods bosses calculate their strategies, there is another obvious point that must be hammered home. Again. GMO food is nutritionally polluted, deficient, and, in the case of the Roundup Ready crops, drenched with far more toxic chemicals than would ordinarily be present.

Farmers across America, who have locked themselves into contracts with Monsanto, are now facing disaster, because superweeds that don’t fold up and die under assault from the Roundup herbicide are taking over their growing fields.

So the farmers are doing what are called burndowns. Not once, but several times a year, they’re saturating their land with chemicals stronger than Roundup, like Paraquat, which has been banned in 32 countries. The burndowns are undertaken to kill the march of the superweeds. This means more toxicity in the soil and in the food crops.

To present customers with the choice of buying GMO or non-GMO food in stores isn’t like making a distinction between red tomatoes and orange tomatoes. It’s not even an assertion that GMOs are unhealthy. It’s: “let the customer decide.”

By this logic, selling food containing, say, high levels of mercury, is acceptable because “people want it.”

The trouble, of course, begins with Monsanto and its government-agency allies, who insist, based on nothing, that GMOs are safe and non-toxic. From there, it appears that consumer choice is sane policy.

But it isn’t sane. That’s an illusion.

Yes, we can say that Whole Foods has made a step in the right direction, but that’s only true if its customers will really shun GMOs. And in the meantime, this “let the consumer decide” is a deception.

“Well, we’re in business to make money. We can’t just strip all GMO products off the shelves. We have to bow to the free market, to the customer.”

If that’s really Whole Foods’ position, then let them state it clearly. Don’t beat around the bush while you’re breaking your arm patting yourself on the back.

“Yes, like every other retailer in America, we’re selling bad products. We know they’re bad. They’re called GMOs. Nobody should be eating GMOs, but what the hell are we going to do?”

Of course, this kind of honesty would be a killer in the world of consumerism. It’s also one reason why GMO food has proliferated to this point. It’s a rare company that wants to step up to the plate and speak the unvarnished truth.

“Hey, we sell shit. Lots of it. But don’t blame us. You people want to buy it. You want it, we stock it. That’s the reality.”

Try this one on for size. Do you support the sale of ANYTHING, no matter WHAT it contains? Do you support poison in food, along with a major operation of concealment, so that the majority of the buying public isn’t informed that the poison is in their food? Is that okay? Is that LEGAL?

The answer to the last question is, of course, no. It’s not legal.

Unless corporate and government liars have been able to make it legal by passing the buck of responsibility and selling their souls to foist a clear criminal conspiracy on the citizenry. Which is exactly what happened.

Whole Foods, according to their statements, is betting on the consumer to dictate what the stores will sell. Underneath it all, Whole Foods seems to be saying, “We’re standing here watching you consumers, and we hope you make the right choice. Because a lot of that crap you’re buying now, in our stores, is no good for you. It’s bad. If you wake up and make your enlightened preferences known, we’ll follow and we’ll cheer your decision. But if not, we’ll keep selling you the food that’s bad for you and should be illegal.”

I don’t find myself applauding that position. I don’t find myself feeling warm inside about Whole Foods.

Again, yes, it’s better than nothing. But many things are better than nothing and yet don’t rise to the level of a peace prize, or a medal, or a misty response of heartfelt joy.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

For the next five years, as Whole Foods starts labeling GMO products in their stores, they should undertake a full-bore education campaign across America. They should book halls and have their execs stand up and say:

“You know that big sign we have posted on our stores? ‘Nothing artificial, ever?’ That’s bullshit. Listen, for a lot of years now, you the consumer and we the seller have been involved in a scam. It’s called GMO food. We want this to end. We also don’t want to go broke. Help us and help yourselves. Here’s the complete evidence that we’ve been selling, and you’ve been buying, food that is harmful to your health. You and we are in an embrace, in this very bad spiral. We have to get out of it.”

That would be a start, but the chances of it happening are on a par with a flea driving a Mercedes on the moon.

And it wouldn’t begin to address the fact that toxic GMO food shouldn’t, by any reasonable law, be sold at all.

You also might keep an eye on corporate mergers and acquisitions, just in case Whole Foods decides to sell itself to a larger (and more predatory) company. Anything could happen in the next five years.

Here are a few of the largest shareholders in Whole Foods. They’re investment funds: JP Morgan Large Cap Growth Select; Wells Fargo Advantage Growth Inv; Fidelity Growth Company; JNL/Mellon Cap Management; T Rowe Price Growth Stock. Given this array of stock owners, it might be easier to step out into the spotlight and promote GMO labeling than to say, “Look, we’re eliminating GMO products from our stores, they’ll all be gone in a few years, no matter what.”

And what will Whole Foods do if, as they gradually place GMO labels on their products, those products continue to sell about as well as they’re selling now with no labels? Will the company keep pushing its pure agenda, or will it simply acquiesce, and end up with a half-GMO and half-non-GMO inventory, to “accommodate all tastes?”

An analogous question, to put this all into perspective: should drug companies manufacture vaccines with half the vials containing the neurotoxin mercury and half without mercury, so people can choose?

Finally, as food prices escalate (seemingly every week), who are these theoretically enlightened customers who’ll ultimately determine Whole Foods’ GMO policy? Are they, on balance, tough-mindedly dedicated to better health and even activism, or are they are merely following and then abandoning trends: from the $1000 bicycle and the grasshopper helmet and shiny Spandex, to the raw cashew vegan non-dairy ice cream, to the quinoa and kale and chia salad, to the Google Glass, to the gluten-free baby stroller…

Are these the people into whose hands Whole Foods is dropping its destiny? Is this the cutting edge of the non-GMO movement?

Jon Rappoport

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

Mar1

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.

The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.

Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let’s get down to the core of the crime.

Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.

It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks or months.

Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.

Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who has moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.

“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”

Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25^th,2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”

Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting the Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find just the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.

This isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.

These psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Globalists play for keeps.

Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is the technocratic arm of that plan.

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.

The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of the Monsanto story alone. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.

Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

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

Part of every new reporter’s training, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

“The people involved won’t talk to you.”

And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access for other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. He’s a neutral entity. Wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

But no one will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Stand closer to the urinal. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you pissed on your shoes and walked into the boss’s office, he’d look at you and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. That’s disgusting. Get out of here. You’re fired.”

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds

Feb25

US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds

by Jon Rappoport

February 25, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

You’re a farmer. Season after season, you watch your fields being taken over by Monsanto superweeds, which are resistant to the herbicide Roundup.

What are you going to do? You’re locked in. You’re buying your GMO seeds from Monsanto, and the food crops that grow from those seeds are supposed to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup, so that’s what you spray on your crops.

But the weeds aren’t resistant. They spread and they grow taller. They’re taking over.

So you, along with many, many other US farmers, go to a strategy called “burndown,” which is just as bad as it sounds. You use something a lot stronger than Roundup to kill those weeds: Paraquat, for example, which has been banned in 32 countries.

You drench your fields with it in the fall. You kill anything growing. And you drench the fields again in the spring, before you plant. Then, just as you’re going to plant, you hit the fields a third time with the poison.

This is in addition to all the sprayings with Roundup, which is toxic, too.

Then you harvest the crops and you sell them. And consumers eat the food along with all the poison.

Tom Philpot, writing in Mother Jones (Feb.6), reports the alarming stats on the superweed takeover of US farmland. As of 2012, almost 50% of US farms had superweeds. In 2011, it was 34%. In Georgia, it’s now 92%.

The total acreage of US farmland with resistant superweeds jumped by 51% in 2012. In 2011, it was a 25% increase. That upward- percentage escalation is called a nightmare.

Well, so farmers are poisoning the hell out of their food and their fields. But with Monsanto’s super-duper GMO technology, the crop yields are still much bigger than they would be without the GMO seeds, right?

The Institute for Responsible Technology cites and quotes three reports on that score.

An International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development study, signed on to by 58 governments and 400 scientists, states that GMO crop production is “highly variable,” and in some cases it has “declined.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report, “Failure to Yield,” emphatically stated: “Commercial GE [genetically engineered] crops have made no inroads so far into raising the intrinsic or potential yields of any crop.”

A US Dept. of Agriculture report: “GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential. In fact, yield may even decrease…”

Let’s summarize. Using Monsanto GMO technology to grow food crops results in massive poisoning of the farm land and the food. And increased crops yields are a fiction.

Nothing to see here, move along. Don’t worry, be happy. Stand back, technology at work. Progress is our most important product. Better living through chemistry. Ignorance is strength.

What would a president and his administration do to make sure the truth is overrun and squashed?

In addition to silencing the media, they would appoint a host of GMO insiders to key government posts, and they would bring to market as many new GMO crops as possible, to construct a fait accompli.

So let’s go to the scorecard and review the actions of Obama in his first term.

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 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 preciously 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.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s detail the extraordinary parade of GMO crops that have skated 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 perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

That’s how you control and squash the truth.

Jon Rappoport

Yes on Prop 37’s biggest supporter was…Monsanto

Dec11

YES ON 37’S BIGGEST SUPPORTER WAS…
MONSANTO: How Political Elites Win In The Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

December 10, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

We’ve all heard about hidden agendas, divide and conquer, controlling the narrative, and problem-reaction-solution. These are certainly time-honored and effective strategies for political elites.

To get simpler, we could just say lie-cheat-steal-kill.

But let’s approach all this from a somewhat different angle.

A powerful elite group first forms a goal, an objective. It clarifies that goal. For example: domination of the global food supply.

With that goal in mind, and with the technology to genetically modify food crops, huge corporations like Monsanto, along with their politicians firmly in their pockets, decide to patent every kind of food seed possible.

Soon, they own food. They license/sell food seeds. They expand the number of GMO food crops.

But they also realize they have to deal with opposition.

There are many people who oppose GMO food. These people expose this food as nutrient-deficient and dangerous to human health. They expose the fact that much more toxic pesticide is sprayed on this new Roundup Ready food. They expose the fact that actual ownership of the food supply is passing into the hands of these elite corporations. They expose the fact that the inserted genes drift from crop to crop, field to field, and contaminate non-GMO crops.

What to do?

Monsanto and its allies have a time table. They believe they can accomplish, in a relatively short time, a fait accompli. There will be so many licensed GMO food crops and so many drifting genes, the very idea of ridding the world of GMO crops will be seen as impossible.

In the meantime, they need to stall. They need to divert attention away from the one action that could torpedo all their efforts: BANNING GMO CROPS.

This is the one thing that must not happen.

So…Monsanto covertly develops a plan: channel its opposition into lesser goals.

For example: labeling of GMO crops.

This is acceptable.

Monsanto “develops” two levels of labeling. There is voluntary labeling (preferred) and mandatory labeling (less preferred).

It plants agents into large organizations who are directed to debate the labeling issue. Debate it for a long time.

One such organization is the notorious Codex Alimentarius. Created by the UN in 1961, with the mandate of guarding the health of consumers, Codex eventually became a go-to group for the World Trade Organization, whenever disputes between trading nations arose that impacted health issues. Codex is also friendly with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

So for the past 20 years, the issue of labeling GMO foods has been debated at Codex. This in itself has been a remarkable victory for Monsanto.

Finally, in the summer of 2011, Codex decided that labeling was acceptable if it was voluntary. This grossly diluted standard was, of course, hailed as a victory by some anti-GMO activists.

With serious reservations, a huge non-profit called Consumers International, whose goal, like Codex, is “protection of consumer rights” weighed in: yes, this Codex victory was important, but not enough.

The labeling debate was going according to Monsanto’s plan:

Endless talking, exceedingly minor achievements. And NO MAJOR BANS on GMO crops.

Both sides in the debate were operating as Monsanto wanted them to operate. Labeling was the diversion. It was the distraction sucking up huge amounts of time, energy, effort, and money…all along the wrong path.

The press was framing the whole GMO question in terms of labeling, reporting on the Codex debates, reporting on statements from Consumers International, reporting on activists and scientists who wanted labeling or claimed that labeling wasn’t necessary.

Then came a major effort to make GMO labeling mandatory in California. It was called Prop 37. Should all GMO food sold in California be labeled or not?

The world was focused on this battle. Activists were focused on it.

Monsanto, quite satisfied, stood off to the side and poured major dollars to their PR people, who in turn campaigned against labeling.

But the victory was already in hand for Monsanto, before a single vote was cast. One way or another, labeling was going to continue to be the only real issue under debate.

If Monsanto lost the Prop 37 election, they would acknowledge the defeat “graciously,” as they did in England, and support labeling. Meanwhile, they would continue to spend millions of dollars, or even billions, convincing Californians that buying (labeled) GMO food was an easy decision: buy it; it’s healthy; there are no problems; who cares.

Another aspect of Monsanto’s master plan needs to be understood. Monsanto encouraged the labeling debate at Codex and almost certainly threw covert support behind Consumers International because those organizations are ostensibly about CONSUMERS.

Monsanto wanted to make the whole GMO issue about people who buy products. It wanted to frame the issue around that.

Why? Because that trivializes the whole situation. It isn’t about destruction of the natural food supply, it isn’t about the tonnage of poisonous pesticide sprayed on Roundup Ready GMO crops. It isn’t about nutrient-deficient GMO food. It isn’t about owning patents on the world’s food crops. It isn’t about the health dangers of eating GMO food. It isn’t about destroying the small farmer. It isn’t about all that. It’s really, you see, about the consumer’s right to know what’s in his food.

It’s about the buyer, the person who spends money at the check-out counter. It’s about consumers, and aren’t we all consumers? Aren’t we just people into whom are funneled all sorts of products? Isn’t that who we are? Aren’t we just the little creatures who buy stuff?

Prop 37 played right into that plan, because the leaders of YES ON 37 decided that the “right to know what’s in your food” was the prime message they would sell. That would be the essence of the whole campaign. A consumerist message.

Label GMO food? Don’t label it? That’s Monsanto territory. That’s the territory they can live in. They like that territory. It doesn’t raise the specter of a BAN on GMO crops.

In circles of political power, in Washington DC, for example, there are people who are known as consultants, “go-to guys” who can tell you “how the real game is played.” They are brought in to educate amateurs who want to win victories.

These consultants are mostly bent from the beginning. They have their their own agendas and allegiances. They are bent and crooked and smart, and they sell their advice.

They could, for instance, show the YES ON 37 people that there was only one way to win a ballot initiative in California. That way would be: talk non-stop about “the consumer’s right to know” what’s in his food. Marginalize every other kind of talk.

Of course, this fits perfectly with Monsanto’s plan.

The more talk there is about the right to know, the less talk there is about banning GMO crops…until the day comes when an outright ban seems so far away it’s viewed as rather ludicrous.

This remoteness and ludicrousness is, you must understand, an artifact created by decades of talk about labeling. Labeling was front and center for so long that it became the only visible opposition to Monsanto.

Which, again, is precisely what Monsanto wanted.

Monsanto is a criminal, but it isn’t stupid. Those people are smart. They know how to invent a debate on their terms and hide the real debate. They know how to suck in people who otherwise would be pushing hard for an outright ban on GMO crops.

They know how to use proxies to advise anti-GMO forces, so those forces stay in the framework of labeling.

There are similarities here to the old FBI COINTELPRO program, in which the FBI planted agents inside anti-government groups, in the 1960s. In that case, the FBI’s objective was to stir up those groups to commit violent acts, thereby discrediting their political positions. It was an Operation Chaos.

In the case of GMO food, the objective has been to move in the opposite direction: dilute the message. Make it weaker. Make it more “sensible” and “pragmatic.”

“Listen, kid. Let me tell you how the real game is played. You’re in the big leagues now. You can’t go off half-cocked and insist on a goal that nobody will support. Forget attacking Monsanto. You can do a little of that, just to keep your adrenaline flowing. But you have to frame this whole thing around what Americans ARE. Do you know what that is? Americans are, first and foremost, consumers. That’s how you reach them. You tell them they have a right to know what’s in their food. Then you have a chance of winning. You pound on ‘right-to-know’ day and night. That’s where I can help you. That’s where you can find allies. That’s how you raise money.”

And so it was, and so it is.

In the big-picture, YES ON 37’s most powerful ally has been…Monsanto.

And now here is where we are: we don’t really know where some of the most important anti-GMO activists are, in their thinking and action. We thought we did. But now we aren’t sure.

So we need them to step up to the plate and tell us, right now, whether they really want a ban on GMO crops or just labeling.

I’m talking about people who have done a great deal to educate us and show us the way: for example, Joe Mercola, who was the biggest funder of Prop 37, who has written extensively abut GMOs; Jeffrey Smith, who has written a major book about GMOs; and Vendana Shiva, who has done heroic work to keep small farmers alive and expose the Monsanto agenda.

Reiterate your positions now. Tell us where you stand.

Let’s put everything on the table.

Let’s pause and reassess. Let’s consider how labeling is viewed by Monsanto in their master plan.

Let’s open up the vault on YES ON 37 and hear from their leaders, too.

Who is calling the shots over there? Joe Sandler, Andy Kimbrell, Gary Hirshberg, David Bronner, Grant Lundberg?

Give us your best thinking. Tell us what you’re doing and why.

There’s no reason this has to be a guessing game.

That’s old politics. Let’s open all the windows and let in the light.

Or do those of us who have inquiring minds form too small a demographic to interest you?

Jon Rappoport

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by accepting Jon’s Amazon cookie by clicking on Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Breaking…Food Democracy Now calls Prop 37 election vote fraud!

Dec9

BREAKING…FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW IS FINDING EVIDENCE OF VOTE FRAUD IN PROP 37!

by Jon Rappoport

December 9, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The cat is jumping out of the bag.

Food Democracy Now is weighing in on Prop 37 vote fraud, having discovered that the California Secretary of State, in charge of all elections in CA, has stopped posting updates on the ongoing vote count.

From November 6 all the way to up to December 4, these updates were posted daily on the Secretary of State’s website. Then…blackout. No more updates.

Maybe it has something to do with this: On December 4, YES ON 37 votes climbed over the six-million mark: 6,004,628. Food Democracy Now reported it. Suddenly, the YES ON 37 votes reversed!

That’s right. They went back to the previously reported number: 5,986,652.

This is apparently a new wrinkle in vote counting. You can not only add votes, you can go backwards. You can lose 18,000 votes with the flick of a wrist or the blink of a digital operation.

Here’s a screen shot:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/fooddemocracynow/images/sos_prop_37_6million_deleted.jpg

Now you see 18,000 Yes votes, now you don’t.

Here’s the latest Food Democracy Now article on vote fraud:

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/prop_37_demand_transparency/

Note that mention is made of a team of independent statisticians, who have found “statistical anomalies” in the largest voting precincts of nine CA counties, including LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Alameda, and Orange.

So far, I haven’t found out who this team is. We’ll see what they come up with. They’re still working.

To anyone who has followed this debacle of an election, it’s clear that Prop 37 suffered a stunning setback in the early vote reports, on election night. No on 37 jumped out to a huge lead, shortly after the polls closed. Then, Yes on 37 began making up ground.

So it’s likely fraud occurred in that early period.

Also worth noting: I previously wrote about the Secretary of State’s “top-to-bottom” review (2007) of all electronic voting systems then in use in CA. This review discovered fatal flaws in all four systems…and then three of those systems were re-approved for use, after being disqualified.

In the review, it was mentioned that Alameda County (one of the counties the team of statisticians is now studying for fraud) had purchased voting machines that turned out to be counterfeits. They had been advertised as legitimate, but they weren’t.

I’m told the Yes on 37 campaign is alert to Food Democracy Now’s charges of fraud, and they are considering a petition for a recount. We’ll see.

Of course, no recount will expose electronic fraud unless very talented experts can examine the full range of electronic systems now in use in CA.

Jon Rappoport

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Yes on Prop 37 was classic “controlled opposition”

Dec6

Bottom line: Prop 37 was classic “controlled opposition” led by comfortable businessmen

by Jon Rappoport

December 6, 2012

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

“Agricultural co-existence?” Huh? What does that mean? It’s an elite strategy. It means we accept different ways of growing food in America. It’s the big ag-corp message these days.

Co-existence is an idea that’s being sold. “Let’s be tolerant…” “Let’s have the free market decide what food is sold and isn’t sold.” On another level, it’s a yuppy fetish.

“We have organic food over here, and then we have GMO food there, and then over here we have conventionally grown food with pesticides but no GMOs.”

And that is exactly and precisely what Prop 37 said. We can co-exist as long as we know what kind of food we’re buying. As long as it’s labeled GMO if it’s GMO.

Okay? Keep all this in mind, because the punchline will be big.

Researching the whole Prop 37 debacle has proved to me, one more time, that Web journalists are miles ahead of the mainstream press.

In particular, I call your attention to an explosive piece written by Nick Brannigan. It just arrived by email. The title: “Is ‘Just Label It’ Controlled Opposition?” Read it here.

Brannigan reveals the approach of Gary Hirshberg, the renowned CEO of Stoneyfield. Hirshberg, like several major players in the YES ON 37 campaign, opts for co-existence.

In other words, it’s assumed that GMO food is here to stay, and we need to inform consumers they have a choice, and then the free market will decide our future. GMO? Organic? Conventional with pesticides but no GMOs? The consumer will pick the winning horse in the race.

The labeling campaigns, like YES ON 37, aim at just that. “You have a right to know what’s in your food, and when you do, you can make a choice.”

I revealed, in past articles, that this was the whole message to voters in California during the run-up to Election Day. YES ON 37 wasn’t about spelling out the health dangers of GMOs. It wasn’t about showing how Monsanto, through patents, is going after control of the world’s food supply. It wasn’t about demonstrably false Monsanto science or government collusion to allow GMO crops into the US food supply.

Brannigan presents some very vital information, in his article, about an organization called AGree. Gary Hirshberg of Stoneyfield is a co-chair. Partners in this organization include, Brannigan states, the omnipresent Bill and Melinda Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.

You should visit the AGree site and read through their literature.

http://foodandagpolicy.org/

To me, it resembles a man talking with his mouth full of marbles. The language is dense, but you’ll find proposals for multi-faceted types of agriculture to fit different areas and needs—including GMOs.

In other words, AGee is talking about co-existence. They’re spreading that message, and their co-chair, Gary Hirshberg, who also supported YES ON 37, is fine with the message.

And if co-existence can be sold, then Monsanto wins. They absolutely win. They spread their genes through the food supply, from one end to the other.

Well, you say, how can we have anything but co-existence? How is that possible? How can we get GMO crops out of America? They’re everywhere.

Well, not quite everywhere.

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops

South Australia has banned them. So has Switzerland. Ditto for Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Medeira.

Germany has banned the growing or sale of GMO maize. Three counties in California have banned GMO crops: Mendocino, Trinity, and Marin.

And this is the whole point. Monsanto and its allies want to stop the ban from happening in the US. That’s their bottom-line. Above all, there must not be a ban on GMO crops in America.

A ballot proposition that mandates labeling of foods? Not the best thing, Monsanto says, but it’s tolerable. If the Prop loses, then that sets back the anti-GMO forces, and they have to re-group and try again elsewhere.

That gives Monsanto more time to spread more GMO crops across America. If Prop 37 wins, Monsanto can live with that. They’ll come up with a Plan B to deal with the loss.

Monsanto already did that in the UK, after the European Union ruled that labeling of GMO foods was mandatory, in 1997. Monsanto supported labeling. They could do that now in American states that pass ballot measures.

“Well, we were against labeling, sure. We thought it was unnecessary. But now that it’s passed, the people have spoken. We will do everything we can to support this decision, and we’re confident that our food meets the highest standards…” Blah-blah.

But Monsanto doesn’t want a ban on GMO crops. No. And they certainly don’t want a strong movement in America to insist on a ban.

Solution? Promote the idea of agricultural coexistence, just as AGree is doing. Divert anti-GMO forces into campaigns for labeling. Let those folks spend all their time, money, and energy trying to get labeling. Make sure the movement doesn’t turn into a powerful force demanding a ban.

Look at it this way. “Agricultural coexistence” is a soft stance. It covertly claims that choice is always a good thing, as if we’re debating which lamp to buy or which flashlight.

What’s left out of that equation? One of the flashlights happens to emit a powerful and invisible toxic cloud every time you turn it on.

But let’s not discuss that. No. Let’s just “let the market decide.”

Get it? It’s all based on the notion that GMO foods are here to stay in America, and therefore we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. We should just insist that we have the right to know whether there are GMOs in the food we buy. That’s all.

It’s a smokescreen. And it’s promoted to keep us from flat-out saying, “Hey, wait a minute. GMO food is toxic. Monsanto has committed multiple crimes and they should be prosecuted. We should BAN GMO food.”

I know what the proponents of Prop 37 are going to say, and I want to take up their argument. They’re going to say, “No. If we gain the right to know what’s in our food, millions of people in California are going to stop buying GMO food, and this refusal is going to spread, and then we’ll win. We’ll starve Monsanto. The free market will win. From state to state, new ballot measures will win for labeling, and the resistance to GMO food will grow…”

However, that argument depends on consumers caring. Will consumers really give a damn that they’re buying GMO food?

Monsanto will continue to introduce new GMO crops into the American landscape, like apples and salmon. Monsanto will put more and more GMOs into food products. They’ll fight a war of attrition, and in the end, they stand a very good chance of winning…because most consumers won’t care, any more than they care when they enter a public building and see some ridiculous sign on the wall about carcinogenic compounds being present in the building.

Monsanto will bet that, after a time, GMO labels on food products won’t bother most people. Monsanto will spend untold millions of dollars claiming that GMO food is identical to non-GMO.

And again, the most important thing for Monsanto is: there won’t be a ban on GMO crops in America.

Monsanto won’t be prosecuted for crimes by the US Dept. of Justice.

And even if, say, in the state of Washington, where the next Prop 37-type ballot measure is about to be mounted, the campaign involves educating people about GMOs, will that really make a difference? Will there be an all-out attack on GMOs and Monsanto? Or will it be a soft attack?

I ask this because I believe the leaders of Prop 37 don’t want to make serious waves. They are dedicated to “the right to know what’s in your food” proposition, above all. They are satisfied with that. They have no intention of really going after the people who make that flashlight that exudes clouds of poison when it’s turned on. And those leaders of Prop 37 are pulling along, behind them, many, many people who might otherwise back a real campaign to have GMO crops banned in America.

A civilization does not survive when elites can commit grave and ongoing crimes with impunity. And that’s exactly the situation we have. Monsanto is the chief criminal.

Am I saying the YES ON 37 campaign was entirely useless? No, it educated some people. But in the long run (and Monsanto is in this for the long run), it functioned as a diversion away from the main event: BANNING GMO CROPS.

There is no powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops and prosecute Monsanto for heavy crimes.

Instead, we have groups led by businessmen who want the free market to decide, and who want labeling. In the long run, that’s a loser.

Monsanto knows this.

Look at the legal adviser for the California Right to Know Campaign, Joe Sandler. Sandler has been very active, over the years, working at high levels for the Democratic Party. He’s a beltway attorney. He takes a hand in steering the GMO-labeling ship. There is no way he is going to step out front and say, “Let’s ban the whole mess. Let’s turn this into a war against Monsanto and ban all GMO crops in America.” You could wait for several hells to freeze over before that happens.

Look at Gary Hirshberg or Grant Lundberg or another lawyer in the YES ON 37 mix, Andy Kimbrell. No way they’re going to go all the way. They’re going to demand labeling and that’s it.

And Monsanto can live with that. Obama can live with that.

Monsanto can sit back and say, “It’s a very good thing there is no powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops. We like that. We like that a lot.”

Which is exactly what they’re doing and saying right now.

Did Monsanto fight against YES ON 37? Did they employ dirty tricks? Of course they did. But that was on the minor stage. That wasn’t the big time.

On the big stage, they’re already winning.

They’re winning, in part, because a handful of natural-food entrepreneurs and their lawyers are in charge of the anti-GMO movement in America, and are selling the idea that mandatory labeling is going to grow into a tsunami against GMOs. That’s their mindset and that’s their bet.

They’re “realists.” They don’t take a clue from those countries that have, in fact, banned GMOs. They work from the premise that, in America, we need to co-exist. We need to bow to the free market and let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah, well, many of those chips are going to be GMO.

Most of the growing land in America is going to be GMO.

And the Monsanto genes are going to drift and drift into the whole food supply, and the huge tonnage of toxic pesticide sprayed on GMO crops is going to drift and settle into the soil…as we coexist.

So let’s not bullshit each other, okay?

Let’s not wave a few flags and claim we’re winning against Monsanto, when the fact is we don’t have a powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops.

Don’t label the bastards. Ban them.

My advice to the ground troops who are fighting to get mandatory GMO labeling in various states around the country? Talk to your leaders. Tell them that, instead, you want an all-out fight against Monsanto and GMOs. You want a ban. And if they refuse, get rid of those leaders. Start your own organization.

Stay in it for the long haul. Don’t go for the partial solution. Yes, it makes the battle harder, but it’s the only battle that counts.

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.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: GMOwar

Monsanto proves that corporations don’t run the government

Brand new GMO food can rewire your body: more evil coming

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

Can you trust Whole Foods?

What’s behind Whole Foods’ decision to label GMOs in their stores?

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds

Yes on Prop 37’s biggest supporter was…Monsanto

Breaking…Food Democracy Now calls Prop 37 election vote fraud!

Yes on Prop 37 was classic “controlled opposition”