Category Archives: GMOwar

Scott Faber: “No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.” W-h-a-t?

Scott Faber: “No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.” W-h-a-t?

Memo to Just Label It: fire Scott Faber, and fire yourselves

by Jon Rappoport

January 2, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Scott Faber (twitter) testifies before Congress. Wobbly drum roll, sour cymbal crash.

Faber is the executive director of Just Label It (twitter), a group that wants mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group (twitter).

As the representative of all Americans who want labeling (really??), Faber recently testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, about the Pompeo Bill (“The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014” (HR4432)), which, if enacted into law, will put an end to mandatory GMO labeling everywhere in the US.

So what did Faber do? After finding 10 or 20 different ways to say the American people have a right to know what’s in their food, he figuratively went down on his knees and offered this sopping wet olive branch:

“We do not oppose… genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients… I am optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more nutritious food that will see significant yield…” (see the 2h29m05s mark here)

Boom.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlfpViqjJTE&w=480&h=360]

He thus led inquiring minds to wonder: was his stunning testimony connected in any way to the fact that he used to work as an executive for the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America (GMA) (twitter)?

After all, that was the group which poured millions of dollars into campaigns to DEFEAT mandatory GMO labeling in four states.

To put it another way: why the hell is Scott Faber now the executive director of Just Label It?

There’s more. If you read again that little piece of pro-GMO promo Faber offered to the House Committee, you’ll understand that, by implication, he seems to be giving silent assent to the highly toxic Roundup, since it goes hand in glove with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMO crops. He’s certainly not attacking it.

Think about it. What impression did Faber leave with the Committee, and by extension, the full Congress?

Representatives are scratching their heads and saying, “Why did he bother testifying at all? He doesn’t sound like he’s worried about GMO food or Roundup. He doesn’t have a problem with them. He didn’t make a sharp distinction between GMO food and conventional food. He just wants people to have the right to choose between one type of harmless food and another type of harmless food? Is this guy nuts? If we go up against Monsanto and Dow and DuPont and vote down the Pompeo Bill, HE’S the guy who has our backs? Are you kidding?”

The result of Faber’s testimony, in other words, was to sway more Congressman to pass the Pompeo Bill.

Was that staggering incompetence on his part? Or was he intentionally sending a covert signal whose message was, “We’re weak. Drive over us with a steamroller.”

I’m asking. I want to know. I think other people do, too.

It’s an honest question. Scott: who are you working for? Just Label It or the Grocery Manufacturers Association? Or is Just Label It now an offshoot of the Grocery Manufacturers Association?

power outside the matrix

To be fair, and this is important to understand, the mandatory GMO labeling groups, who’ve been trying to get those ballot initiatives passed, haven’t offered any strong, what’s the word, JUICE, as they pursue their cause. Have you seen their ads?

They look like they were made by some goofball low-rent PR firm that employs anonymous, supposedly attractive humans who list “spokesperson” on their resumes.

A young blonde, for no apparent reason, walks toward the camera and flashes a warm plastic smile and says, “Hi. You have a right to know what’s in your food.”

Viewing such major productions from their tower, Monsanto crime bosses tremble in their boots. They really do. They go up to the roof and think about jumping off. It’s sheer hell for them to be up against such a charm tsunami.

The cherry on the cake? Faber, writing an opinion piece in Roll Call (12/17) (Pompeo Bill Keeps Consumers in the Dark) about his Congressional testimony, makes this preemptory lunatic assertion:

“Finally, some inevitably say we need GMO crops to feed the world. But no one is seeking a ban on GMO crops.”

No one? Is that right?

What planet do you call home, Scott? Oh wait, I get it. That was just you trying to cut people off from the only sane solution to Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, BASF, Syngenta and their ongoing population experiment using poisonous pesticides and cross-species genes. You were sending a Christmas card to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.”

Of course not.

How silly of me to flash on Jackson and Josephine Counties in Oregon, Humboldt and Mendocino Counties in CA, Maui, Kauai, the Big Island, Burlington, Boulder, Rome, Milan, Turin, Brescia, Genoa, and for that matter Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Greece, Spain, UK, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, China, Albania, Bulgaria, Canada, Cypress, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, India, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, etc… all of whom have instituted some sort of ban on growing or importing GMOs.

“No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.”

That statement, Scott, would be true if you changed it to read, “Relatively few people in the USA know how powerful the ban-GMO movement is, because the American media are weak, soft, and sold out.”

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Natural health? Scott Faber? Dan Fabricant? Really?

Natural health? Scott Faber? Dan Fabricant? Really?

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

I mentioned these two men in an article I posted several days ago.

But I want to highlight them here.

They would seem to represent strong elements in the natural-health movement.

Who is Scott Faber? (twitter)

He’s the executive director of Just Label It (twitter), the pre-eminent organization dedicated to mandatory labeling of GMO foods. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group (twitter).

In recent Congressional testimony, Faber said all the right things about wanting mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

However, he also offered this stunning statement. Buckle up:

“We do not oppose… genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients… I am optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more nutritious food that will see significant yield…” (see the 2h29m05s mark here)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlfpViqjJTE&w=480&h=360]

And oh yes. In his former job, Scott Faber was, get this, the vice-president for government affairs, of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the GMA. Ring a bell? This is the organization that donated millions to DEFEAT mandatory GMO labeling in several Western states.

And now he is Executive Director of Just Label It, the core group pushing FOR mandatory GMO labeling.

W-h-a-t?

Just Label It picks this man to head up its operation? On what possible basis? Because it wants to lose the fight it says it wants to win?

But don’t worry, be happy, ho-hum, just another day on the byways and highways of “natural-health.”

So far, I haven’t heard a peep about this astounding situation from activists inside the GMO labeling movement.

Why? Because they don’t want to ask controversial questions or risk offending anyone? Because they want to pretend all is well? Because they’re zealots in the Church of GMO Labeling and, therefore, their leaders can do no wrong?

The Matrix Revealed

Let’s move on to Daniel Fabricant. (twitter)

There is an organization called the Natural Products Association (twitter). It’s the largest trade and lobbying group in North America for natural nutritional-supplement companies. You’d think this group would be squarely in the camp of the anti-GMO movement, if the word “natural” means anything at all.

Well, the executive director of the Natural Products Association is Daniel Fabricant.

Pop quiz: what federal agency gave the original blanket approval, based on no science, for GMO crops, allowing them to enter the US food supply in the 1990s? Which agency has, for decades, consistently fought to whittle down the power and scope of the natural nutritional-supplement industry?

The FDA.

What was Daniel Fabricant’s job before he became executive director of the Natural Products Association?

Fabricant was director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA.

That’s right. But again, nothing to worry about. All is well. It’s rainbows and marshmallows along the road to paradise.

Someday, if an historian claims that Joe Stalin organized the first gay parade in Moscow, people will say, “It turns out that Joe was really a nice guy.”

Because they can’t think anymore. Because assessing a massive, glaring contradiction creates “too much stress.” Better to paste smiles on their faces and say, “The Universe knows what it’s doing. I surrender to the Universe.”

Keeping things natural…

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

The supposed answer to that question is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 2:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

By inference, the individual states declare their own supremacy when local communities try to nullify or avoid state statutes.

Keep in mind that the US Constitution enumerates powers granted to the federal government, and reserves all other powers for the states or the people. But this restraint has been trampled on so many times it’s barely visible under the tonnage of federal law and regulation.

Therefore, the Supremacy Clause becomes: “We, the federal government, can do anything we want to, and the states and the people are bound by it.”

So…what happens when the people of a community decide that a medical drug or pesticide (see also this) or genetically modified organism or fracking chemical or vaccine is poisonous and must be banned?

The state preempts the community, and if the state doesn’t, the federal government will move in and assert its ultimate authority.

Take the case of Roundup, or any of the pesticides that contain the toxic glyphosate. If the EPA or the USDA or the FDA decides glyphosate is harmless, and if their “science” is a sham, and if they are merely caving in to big corporations who want to sell it, the people would have no recourse.

“It’s the law, and you have to submit to liver and kidney damage at the very least.”

That’s the absurdity.

If health and life aren’t the basis of law, if they are ignored, if they are necessary sacrifices on the altar of federal or state control, then all bets are off.

For the past 25 years, I’ve been documenting exactly this: medical and scientific fraud that leads to great harm. This fraud is not only permitted, it’s embodied in federal and state regulations.

I frequently cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

At the time, Starfield was a widely respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Her credentials and those of JAMA were impeccably mainstream.

She concluded that, every year, FDA-approved medical drugs killed 106,000 Americans. That adds up to over a million deaths per decade.

In the wake of her published review, and for the next nine years, as she told me in a 2009 interview, no one in the federal government approached her to help remedy this ongoing plague of destruction. Nor was she aware of any systematic remedial federal effort.

But you see, the FDA is a federal agency set up by federal law. It is tasked with approving all medical drugs as safe and effective before they are released for public use.

So if a local community decided, on its own, to ban a deadly medicine, its vote would be struck down from above.

“Suffer. Die. It’s the law.”

power outside the matrix

There are people who are happy to settle for choice. “As long as I’m free to refuse the medicine, I’m good. Let others take it if they want to.”

But we’re not talking about a choice between pears and oranges. We’re talking about poison.

And despite recalls, lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, and heavy fines, the killing continues.

Therefore, on the basis of self-protection, a community has the right to enact a ban.

Unless self-protection must surrender to the System. Then we are looking at lawless government pretending to be lawful.

These phrases come to mind:

“…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

“…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Making these goals come to fruition when communities are under toxic attack is impossible. Therefore, governments that support and enshrine such attacks are violating the very origin of laws.

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Boycott, ban, criminalize Roundup

Boycott, ban, criminalize Roundup

by Jon Rappoport

December 29, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Glyphosate is the primary active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup.

There is no official figure for the amount of glyphosate used every year in the world. One estimate? 650,000 tonnes, which works out to a staggering 1.3 billion pounds.

Manufactured by Monsanto and a number of other companies, glyphosate use spiked after the introduction of Monsanto’s GMO Roundup Ready food crops in the 1990s.

Here is a sprinkle of information about glyphosate. To say it’s sobering is a vast understatement. Keep in mind that the medical cartel, which would call a mother’s touch a disease if it could get away with it, has no name for any disease or disorder caused by glyphosate. In other words, the cartel doesn’t acknowledge its existence. Who will acknowledge its existence?

One: Scientific American, June 23, 2009, “Weed-whacking herbicide proves deadly to human cells,” by Crystal Gammon:

“Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.

“Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.

“One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call ‘astonishing.’

“‘This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,’ wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. ‘Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels’ found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.”

Two: Reuters, 4/25/13, “Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers—US study,” by Corey Gillam:

“Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.

“The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of ‘glyphosate,’ the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.

“Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“‘Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,’ the study says.

“Of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market, glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.”

Three: A study: “An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in in testis and sperm nuclear quality”; Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, v.38. Issue 1, July 2014:

“We investigated the effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide after an 8-day exposure of adult rats… These results suggest changes in androgen/estrogen balance and in sperm nuclear quality… The repetition of exposures of this herbicide could alter the mammalian reproduction.”

power outside the matrix

Four: Truthout, Oct. 6, 2014, “Monsanto’s Roundup linked to cancer,” by Jeff Ritterman, MD:

“Roundup is now heavily sprayed in what is known as the ‘Soy Republic’, an area of Latin America larger than the state of California. This region has undergone a profound transformation since genetically modified (GM) crops were first introduced in 1996. Some 125 million acres in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Paraguay are now devoted to GM soy production.

“Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician specializing in environmental health, explained his concerns:

“‘The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects, and illnesses seldom seen before. What we have complained about for years was confirmed and especially what doctors say about the sprayed towns and areas affected by industrial agriculture. Cancer cases are multiplying as never before in areas with massive use of pesticides.’

“Much the same was found in Chaco, Argentina’s poorest province. In 2012, two villages were compared, the heavily sprayed farming village of Avia Terai and the non-sprayed ranching village of Charadai. In the farming village, 31 percent of residents had a family member with cancer while only 3 percent of residents in the ranching village had one.”

Five: Rense.com, 8/5/2005, “Monsanto’s Roundup Killing Frogs, Amphibians Worldwide”:

“The most striking result from the experiments was that a chemical designed to kill plants killed 98 percent of all tadpoles within three weeks and 79 percent of all frogs within one day” — University of Pittsburgh researcher, Rick Relyea

Six: Global Research, July 5, 2014, “Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and regulators ‘with something to hide’”, by Colin Todhunter:

“Last year, Friends of the Earth (FoE) and GM Freeze commissioned a study based on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe. It found that on average 44 percent of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany,the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland. All the volunteers who provided samples lived in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests.”

“In Mississippi, 75 percent of air and rain sample contained levels of glyphosate that could have serious physiological consequences for humans.”

“Claire Robinson from GM Watch notes that earlier this year a group of Chinese food safety volunteers submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to disclose the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto’s Roundup. Writing on the GM Watch website, she says:

“‘The Ministry replied that Roundup was registered in China in 1988 based on a toxicology test report issued by a testing company called Younger Laboratories in St Louis, Missouri. The test was an acute exposure toxicity test (such tests last a maximum of a few days), with Roundup being given to rats by mouth and applied to the skin of rabbits. It claimed to find no effect on the eyes or skin, and no allergy. The volunteers asked the Ministry to release the study, and the Ministry in turn asked Monsanto. Monsanto replied that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now. The volunteers are appealing against the decision.’”

One of the implications of these six citations: Glyphosate, as an ingredient of Roundup and other herbicides, drifts on the wind, and its dangerous effects are felt far from agriculture centers.

As long as Monsanto is permitted to produce GMO seeds that are engineered to be immune to Roundup, the tonnage of glyphosate loosed on the world population will continue to escalate.

Properly thought of, glyphosate is a chemical-warfare agent.

The labeling of GMOs, as a response to the threat, is too little, too late. It would be akin to requiring enemy planes, loaded with bombs, to display an insignia of the country’s air force as it invades.

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The secret GMO war: double agents, betrayal, greed?

The secret GMO war: double agents, betrayal, greed?

by Jon Rappoport

December 26, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

I’ll start at an odd place, a seemingly innocuous place. Bear with me:

We need to understand the distinction between two kinds of labeling.

Voluntary labeling=“I own this health-food store, and I’m doing my best to sell you non-GMO products. All such products will carry a seal that says ‘Non-GMO’.”

Mandatory labeling=“Vermont has decided that all food products sold in the state which contain GMOs must be labeled as such—‘this product contains GMOs’.”

Two very different types of labels. They contain different information.

Also, one type is voluntary, and the other becomes mandatory after passage of a vote, in a legislature or through a ballot measure.

So what?

Well, let me put it to you this way. What would happen to Whole Foods’ program of voluntary GMO labeling if there were mandatory labeling across America, or in any state where Whole Foods does business?

Can you guess?

I’ll break it down. Whole Foods has pledged to put “non-GMO” labels on their products by 2018. They’ll do everything they can to sell as many non-GMO products as possible. The products that don’t carry the non-GMO seal will obviously be GMO, and customers can avoid them if they want to.

On the other hand, if suddenly, out of the blue, mandatory labeling became law, the whole voluntary non-GMO label enterprise would be obsolete. Why voluntarily put that label on products when mandatory labeling handles the whole issue?

“We put non-GMO labels on our food. Aren’t we wonderful?”

“Not really. The mandatory labels tell me everything that’s GMO. All the other products are non-GMO. Thanks, but no thanks.”

Does that show you something? Does it suggest that Whole Foods doesn’t really want mandatory labeling?

In fact, if mandatory labeling never passes anywhere in the US, this is a boon for Whole Foods, because they become the only big food chain that allows customers to know they’re choosing lots and lots of non-GMO food products.

There’s more.

Think about an outfit called the Non-GMO Project. They do certifications of food products, and allow their now-famous butterfly seal to be applied:

“Yes, sir, your energy bar has passed our rigid standards of testing, and it is non-GMO. Congratulations.”

Whole Foods is spending millions of dollars at the Non-GMO Project to get their products lab-tested and certified as “non-GMO.”

If there were mandatory labeling, that would all go away, too. Poof. The Non-GMO Project would shrink to the size of a button, and the testing labs the Project uses would take huge hits.

For example, a lab called Genetic ID in Iowa would suffer enormous consequences.

We’re not done yet.

There is a bill in the US Congress presently wending its through Committee. It was introduced by Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo. It’s called “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014” (HR4432).

If it passes, mandatory labeling of GMO foods will be outlawed at both state and federal levels. No more ballot initiatives. No more state bills.

So…in this topsy-turvy scene where things aren’t what they seem to be, who would want to see the Pompeo bill enacted into law? Who would look forward to a permanent ban on mandatory GMO labeling? Who would make a great deal of money if that bill passes—despite any public statements they might make to the contrary?

Two weeks ago, a Congressional Committee hearing was held on the pending Pompeo bill. A man named Scott Faber testified.

Who is Scott Faber? (twitter)

He’s the executive director of Just Label It, the pre-eminent organization dedicated to mandatory labeling of GMO foods. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group.

In his testimony, Faber said all the right things about wanting mandatory labeling of GMO foods. Therefore, he opposes passage of the Pompeo bill, right?

However, Faber also offered this stunning statement to the Committee. Buckle up:

“We do not oppose… genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients… I am optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more nutritious food that will see significant yield…” (see the 2h29m05s mark here)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlfpViqjJTE&w=480&h=360]

And oh yes. In his former job, Scott Faber was, get this, the vice-president for government affairs, of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the GMA. Ring a bell? This is the organization that donated millions to DEFEAT mandatory GMO labeling in several Western states.

And now he is Executive Director of Just Label It, the core group pushing FOR mandatory GMO labeling.

How far down the rabbit hole does all this go? Does Just Label It really want mandatory labeling? Was it created as some kind of distraction? A distraction from the far more serious business of trying to BAN GMOs? Was it a way to guide millions of well-meaning people down a false trail to a dead-end, where there is no mandatory labeling and no banning, and the expansion of GMOs and toxic herbicides continues unabated? Where the only stop-gap against Monsanto is a voluntary system of labeling, controlled by a relatively small number of retailers who profit enormously from inventing a tier of elite food products bearing the “non-GMO” seal?

Gary Hirshberg (twitter) was a founding partner of Just Label It. He is the CEO of Stonyfield Farms, the famous yogurt company.

Of all the leaders in the labeling movement, Hirshberg is the most overtly political. Let’s look at his strange track record:

During the 2008 presidential campaign season, his home in New Hampshire was a mandatory stop for candidates. Hirshberg’s first choice for the Democratic nomination was the execrable Tom Vilsack until he dropped out of the race.

Hirshberg hosted gatherings for John Edwards and Barack Obama, and eventually decided to support Obama.

Obama, despite his nods and winks, was, from the beginning, Monsanto’s man in Washington, allowing an unprecedented parade of new GMO crops to enter growing fields and the marketplace, and appointing staunch biotech allies to key posts in his administration.

Vilsack, Gary Hirshberg’s first choice for President, became the Secretary of Agriculture under Obama. Vilsack is an avid supporter of GMO food. During his term as governor of Iowa, Vilsack was given a Governor of the Year award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Hirshberg serves as a co-chairman of an organization called AGree (twitter). Its objective is to “build consensus around solutions” to “critical issues facing the food and agriculture system.” As researcher Nick Brannigan (twitter) has pointed out, AGree includes, among its foundation partners: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

It would be hard to find foundations more friendly to, and supportive of, big corporate agriculture and GMOs.

Hirshberg is the author of Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World. He advocates revolution-by-the-consumer as an exceedingly powerful force.

It may be pretty to think so, but giving American consumers a clear choice about whether to buy GMO or non-GMO food, through labeling, isn’t going to push Monsanto up against the wall.

It isn’t going to stop Monsanto gene drift into non-GMO crops. It isn’t going to stop the aerial attack of toxic Roundup all over the planet.

But if mandatory labeling of GMOs fails, and all that’s left is voluntary labeling, Hirshberg could help launch Stonyfield Farms and other commercial ventures into new realms of profitability, by applying that “non-GMO” seal.

power outside the matrix

Let’s widen our inquiry. There is an organization called the Natural Products Association. It’s the largest trade and lobbying group in North America for natural nutritional-supplement companies. You’d think this group would be squarely in the camp of the anti-GMO movement, if the word “natural” means anything at all.

Well, the executive director of the Natural Products Association is Daniel Fabricant. (twitter)

Pop quiz: what federal agency gave the original blanket approval, based on no science, for GMO crops, allowing them to enter the US food supply in the 1990s? Which agency has, for decades, consistently fought to whittle down the power and scope of the natural nutritional-supplement industry?

The FDA.

What was Daniel Fabricant’s job before he became executive director of the Natural Products Association?

Fabricant was director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA.

In December of this year, the Natural Products Association held a webinar. As reported in the Food Navigator (12/19), “5 GMO myths dispelled,” one of its speakers was Greg Jaffe.

A lawyer, Jaffe (bio here) has logged stints with the EPA, FDA, DOJ, and World Bank—all groups that, in one way or another, have vigorously supported GMOs.

Jaffe proceeded to make a case for GMOs, “dispelling the myths” prevalent in the anti-GMO community.

So you have the leading trade group for the natural products industry giving a heavy wink and nod to GMO foods.

According to the Food Navigator article, Jaffe explained that the process of using bacteria to carry foreign genes into a food plant is really quite natural. Which is like saying that a glass eye is natural.

Then Jaffe presents the tired generality: “Evidence is overwhelming that there is no harm from foods made from current GE [genetic engineered] foods.” As “evidence,” he cites the FDA approval of biotech crops. The FDA—which has basically stated that Monsanto, Dow, and the other mega-giants are basically responsible for assuring the safety of GMOs.

All this cover for GMOs is being presented in a trade magazine vis-a-vis a trade group for the natural food products industry.

Is the war against Monsanto and GMOs and toxic herbicides rigged to fail?

Citing betrayal within the anti-GMO anti-Monsanto movement, an astute observer with large knowledge of the scene recently gave me his appraisal of what amounts to a covert op against the millions of people who want a healthier non-GMO future. Here’s how he succinctly described the men taking us down the wrong road:

“Gary Hirshberg is the pied piper, John Mackey [CEO of Whole Foods] is the money man, and Daniel Fabricant is the enforcer.”

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Whole Foods sued for false non-GMO labeling

Whole Foods sued for false non-GMO labeling

by Jon Rappoport

December 23, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

The case is Michelle Richard v. Whole Foods, as reported by the Food Navigator (12/5/14) and other press outlets.

The plaintiff’s claim? Whole Foods advertised and sold Blue Diamond Almond Breeze Almond Milk and Vanilla Almond Milk with non-GMO labels, when these products hadn’t been verified as such by the Non-GMO Project (twitter).

The Non-GMO Project is, by far, the largest North American group that tests and verifies food products as non-GMO, and grants the use of its “Verified” seal.

Concerning the lawsuit, Whole Foods declined to comment. The Non-GMO Project declined to comment. Blue Diamond declined to comment.

“Ongoing litigation…we weren’t involved…confidentiality of clients…”

Other Blue Diamond almond products bearing the non-GMO seal have been approved by the Non-GMO Project. So is this simply a case of a clerical error?

The plaintiff certainly doesn’t think her lawsuit is trivial. This is a class-action suit, so there are other plaintiffs.

The big question is, are there other products on the shelves at Whole Foods which claim to be non-GMO, but aren’t verified?

In 2013, Whole Foods announced a plan to label every product in its stores, so customers could tell whether or not they contain GMOs. The deadline is 2018.

Meanwhile, Whole Foods states they are working with their suppliers to vastly increase the number of non-GMO food products available to customers.

As reported by topclassactions.com (11/10/15), plaintiff Richard claims she “purchased the Almond Breeze products at one to two times per week between January and June [at Whole Foods].” Is she asserting that the unverified and illegitimate non-GMO label has been present on those products for six months?

If the case moves forward, and is not dismissed by a judge, we’ll find out more.

On its website, Blue Diamond states that it uses no GMOs in its almond products.

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

GMOs: the “natural foods” industry is not your friend

GMOs: the “natural foods” industry is not your friend

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

If Monsanto, its allies, and dupes have their way, this is what is going to happen:

A federal law will be passed, canceling the right of individual states and counties to ban or label GMOs. Companies and retailers will be permitted to voluntarily label their food products “non-GMO,” if they use approved labs for testing.

The obvious consequence? We will eternally co-exist with Monsanto and the other biotech giants. More GMO foods, more toxic pesticides.

The not-so obvious consequence? Paying several thousand dollars per product for testing and certification, some large companies in the natural-food industry will label their products “non-GMO,” thus creating an elite sanctuary for those consumers who can afford to shop at high prices.

And by the way, many of those non-GMO products won’t be organic.

For centuries, the poorest peasants ate non-GMO non-pesticide food. Now that will become a privilege for the relatively few.

Are there certain players in the natural-food industry who look forward to such an arrangement?

See The Food Navigator, 19 December, 2014, “5 GMO myths dispelled.” This magazine is the number-one staple for people in the natural-foods biz.

The article reports on a Natural Products Association webinar. The NPA is a huge trade group for the natural products industry.

The article states that, during the webinar, the NPA made room for a speaker, Greg Jaffe, from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

A lawyer, Jaffe (bio here) has logged stints with the EPA, FDA, DOJ, and World Bank—all groups that, in one way or another, have vigorously supported GMOs.

Jaffe proceeded to make a case for GMOs, “dispelling the myths” prevalent in the anti-GMO community.

This fact alone is highly significant. You have the leading magazine and the leading trade group for the natural products industry giving a heavy wink and nod to GMO foods.

According to the article, Jaffe explained that the process of using bacteria to carry foreign genes into a food plant is really quite natural. Which is like saying that a glass eye is natural.

Then Jaffe presents the tired generality: “Evidence is overwhelming that there is no harm from foods made from current GE [genetic engineered] foods.” As “evidence,” he cites the FDA approval of biotech crops. The FDA— which has basically stated that Monsanto, Dow, and the other mega-giants are responsible for assuring the safety of GMOs.

Notice again, all this cover for GMOs is being presented in a trade magazine vis-a-vis a trade group for the natural food products industry.

So yes, there are certainly players in the natural-foods business who would welcome a) co-existing with Monsanto, b) letting a law pass that would eradicate the possibility of GMO bans or required labels anywhere in the US, and c) use that situation to establish their own voluntary labeling programs (“this product is non-GMO”).

That last step would allow them to create a whole raft of elite food products for affluent customers, thus inflating their $$ bottom lines.

power outside the matrix

And in the process, with their bright shiny “non GMO” labels, they would essentially downgrade and partially obscure the organic food producers, which is to say the people who grow crops as they were grown for thousands of years, before the pesticide and GMO industries came into being.

Monsanto would win, the natural-food sellers would win, and we would lose.

The final coup de grace? Up the line, a federal regulation stating that the presence of GMOs in food is no deterrent to labeling that food product Organic.

End-game; especially since power players in the natural foods industry would have no objection.

With enemies like these, who needs more enemies?

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Monsanto: science and fraud are the same thing

Especially when the media agree and offer their seal of approval

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

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.

No real science. No deep investigation. No convincing evidence of safety. 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.

Reporters and their editors let the story die. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait, 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 as never before, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were 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 approval scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks.

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 had 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.

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 25th, 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 [GMO] 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 [USDA]. 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 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.

It 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.

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 a technocratic arm of that plan.

power outside the matrix

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto/FDA 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.

Monsanto’s 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 Monsanto stories. 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.

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 3? 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.

Part of every reporter’s training in how the real world works, 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 to 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. But wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

However, no one at NBC in the executive offices 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 I was in the game, I looked at the news as a big public restroom. My one guiding principle was: don’t piss on your shoes. That meant covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If I talked to the boss about one of those stories, he’d look me up and down and say, ‘Hey, you pissed on your shoes. Get out of here.’”

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

GMO wars: the right of the people to nullify fascism

GMO wars: the right of people to nullify fascism

by Jon Rappoport

December 13, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Consider the two counties in Oregon (Jackson and Josephine) that banned GMO crops.

Consider the measures in Maui, Kauai, and the Big Island of Hawaii that blocked further development of GMOs and the spraying of toxic pesticides.

They all won.

Then the state government of Oregon, in order to stop the trend, passed a law forbidding counties from unilaterally banning GMOs.

In Hawaii, a federal magistrate struck down the victories in Kauai and the Big Island, on the basis that such matters are controlled by state law. If he has his way, he’ll render the same opinion re Maui.

In each case, the determination is the same: state law takes precedence over county law.

Translation: the state can decide what its own powers are, and then enforce them. The courts and judges will fall into line.

This was exactly, on a higher level, what the US Constitution was framed to avoid. That document ceded enumerated powers to the federal government; all other powers were reserved for the individual states or the people.

Therefore, the individual states could nullify federal laws or mandates that exceeded those enumerated powers. Nullify; strike down.

By analogy, the individual states can’t arbitrarily take on powers and bend counties to their will. Counties can nullify actions of state governments.

The people (e.g., voters) aren’t supposed to be androids who, having ceded a certain amount of power, simply stand back and watch the passing show, as governments gather more and more force to themselves. The people can intercede.

Nullification may seem like a long shot—but consider that other legal efforts have, so far, in Hawaii and Oregon, failed to sustain the ongoing right to ban GMOs. Failed.

power outside the matrix

Shifting the argument to the more fundamental issues I’m raising here challenges all parties, all laws, all crimes, all criminals.

Otherwise, I assure you, the states and feds will simply continue to assert they have the power to side with Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, BASF, Syngenta.

They’ll say, “Counties can’t ban GMOs. It’s a matter for state law.”

And again, what is state law? The state declaring it has the power to do what it wants to.

Most lawyers, if consulted about nullification, will says it’s useless and/or illegal.

They don’t realize that the big picture dictates asymmetrical battles—-smart court filings, frivolous court filings, and “awakening” filings such as nullification.

ALL legal battles on this GMO issue should form the background and the occasion for relentless publicity, exposure, scandal, pressure, and so on.

Victory isn’t found inside the system, but it can be found using the system.

Unless you’re devoted, move by move, to playing a game that’s already rigged against you. Then you lose.

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Breaking: Vote fraud in Oregon sinks GMO labeling measure

Breaking: vote fraud in Oregon sinks GMO labeling

by Jon Rappoport

December 12, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

As my readers know, I’m not a fan of GMO labeling. The real route to victory has always been banning GMOs.

Ban, not label.

But I’m also not a fan of vote fraud. Which is what just happened in Oregon, where a recount of a very close election turned into a criminal act.

In November, Prop 92, which would have mandated labeling GMO food products in the state, went down to defeat by 800 votes.

That razor-thin margin triggered an automatic recount, by law.

During the recount, 4600 ballots were thrown out, because the signatures on those ballots didn’t match the signatures on the voters’ registration cards.

Oregon does elections by mail, so matching signatures is the way to prevent cheating.

When the 4600 ballots were rejected, lawyers for Prop 92 went to court to protest. They stated that some of these rejected voters never received notification that they had to provide new signatures. Other voters might have been out of town and never knew what was going on. And in general, voters were never informed that their signatures had to match.

Judge Kantor denied the assertions and allowed the recount to continue, minus the 4600 ballots.

The Prop 92 people just conceded the election.

The key, and the basis of the fraud is: Oregon voters, all of them, have never been warned, in uncompromising terms, that the signature on their ballot must match the signature on their voter-registration cards. The fact is, many people don’t always execute their signatures in the same way. If they knew, in this case, they had to, they would.

There is more than fraud at work here, however. Lawyers for Prop 92 can still challenge the election, in which case there is a significant opportunity to set that election aside and hold a new one, from scratch.

So why did the lawyers back down and fold up their tents? Why didn’t they keep up the fight?

Why won’t they file new motions and blow this up into a national and international story for the next year, as the case gains new legs?

Isn’t whole objective of these labeling measures the launching of a PR campaign about GMOs? Here’s the perfect chance.

But once again, “nice” wins the day, and, therefore, so does Monsanto. Yes, let’s be polite. Let’s not shock anyone. Let’s not make waves. Let’s not scare off the moms shopping at Whole Foods, for whom a no-holds-barred public battle is “unseemly.” Those moms do want GMO labeling; they just want it to happen in an orderly fashion.

Rainbows and marshmallows all the way.

Into doom.

power outside the matrix

There was once a day when a few lawyers, like Gerry Spence and Bill Kunstler, larger than life, could stride like lions into town and into a case, open their mouths to roar, and see a phalanx of reporters eager to quote their thunderous proclamations. They could also argue a case from sixteen different angles in court.

Now it appears, the lawyers are technicians.

They don’t see or care about the joined-at-the-hip connection between the law and publicity. They don’t see how media exposure and controversy and public outrage and raising hell can influence a case, when it’s done right.

They’re afraid to offend judges.

The Oregon case should just be getting started. What’s happened so far was phase one. Fraud won. Monsanto won. Criminals won. So be it.

Now, a new phase should begin. And in the process, there would be ample opportunity to highlight the chemical-warfare poison called Roundup and the insane unpredictable GMO technology that threatens the human race.

You have to know how to turn losses into victories. You can’t be a goody-good who thinks a decision by the authorities is the end of the battle. It’s fuel for the fire. You make hay out of it. You use it to arouse the public. The people who own the people who make laws don’t care about justice or fairness. So why should you, when you’re up against them? Many good causes have sunk below the waves because the ‘warriors’ were living in a fantasy world.

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 29th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.