Breakthrough in explosive lawsuit against Monsanto

Breakthrough in explosive lawsuit against Monsanto

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2018

A San Francisco lawsuit against Monsanto and its weedkiller, Roundup, is moving forward. And it’s just received a new green light from the judge in the case.

Monsanto’s lawyers are bracing for a deep level of attack, which they were hoping to avoid. The judge has ruled the jury can hear testimony on this issue: Monsanto suppressed evidence that Roundup causes cancer.

Reporter Carey Gillam has the story (The Guardian, 5/22): “At the age of 46, DeWayne Johnson is not ready to die. But with cancer spread through most of his body, doctors say he probably has just months to live. Now Johnson, a husband and father of three in California, hopes to survive long enough to make Monsanto take the blame for his fate.”

“On 18 June, Johnson will become the first person to take the global seed and chemical company to trial on allegations that it has spent decades hiding the cancer-causing dangers of its popular Roundup herbicide products – and his case has just received a major boost.”

“Last week Judge Curtis Karnow issued an order clearing the way for jurors to consider not just scientific evidence related to what caused Johnson’s cancer, but allegations that Monsanto suppressed evidence of the risks of its weed killing products. Karnow ruled that the trial will proceed and a jury would be allowed to consider possible punitive damages.”

“’The internal correspondence noted by Johnson could support a jury finding that Monsanto has long been aware of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicides are carcinogenic … but has continuously sought to influence the scientific literature to prevent its internal concerns from reaching the public sphere and to bolster its defenses in products liability actions’, [Judge] Karnow wrote.” [Yes, the Judge in the case wrote that statement.]

“Johnson’s case, filed in San Francisco county superior court in California, is at the forefront of a legal fight against Monsanto. Some 4,000 plaintiffs have sued Monsanto alleging exposure to Roundup caused them, or their loved ones, to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Another case is scheduled for trial in October, in Monsanto’s home town of St Louis, Missouri.”

“How the Johnson lawsuit plays out could be a bellwether for how other plaintiffs proceed. If Johnson prevails, there could be many more years of costly litigation and hefty damage claims. If Monsanto successfully turns back the challenge, it could derail other cases and lift pressure on the firm.”

“According to the court record, Johnson had a job as a groundskeeper for the Benicia unified school district where he applied numerous treatments of Monsanto’s herbicides to school properties from 2012 until at least late 2015. He was healthy and active before he got the cancer diagnosis in August 2014. In a January deposition, Johnson’s treating physician testified that more than 80% of his body was covered by lesions, and that he probably had but a few months to live.”

How will Monsanto proceed? First, they’ll argue that Johnson’s cancer could have been caused by other factors. They’ll throw the kitchen sink at the jury. It could have been genetics. It could have been lifestyle. It could have been causes that are still unknown to researchers. It could have been starlight from a galaxy far, far away. Monsanto’s lawyers will try to bury the jury in reams of supposition.

Second, they’ll show the jury an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) finding that Roundup does not cause cancer. Like the FDA, the EPA has sided with major corporations in efforts to protect them. Monsanto will claim: “The federal government has asserted Roundup is safe, and that’s the end of our responsibility. The federal government is the final arbiter.” Which is to say: the truth isn’t the final arbiter.

Third, Monsanto will execute a series of acrobatic moves to prove they never suppressed evidence that Roundup causes cancer. They were simply “considering all relevant safety issues.” They were “posing various scenarios.” Their internal memos were “temporary work product” on the way to making a final judgment about Roundup’s safety. They were raising valid concerns about flawed studies that claimed Roundup was dangerous.

If all else fails, Monsanto might try to settle with Johnson—and then claim the $$ payout was simply a way to show compassion for his unfortunate condition—and move on—continuing to offer the public a fine and safe product (Roundup). No guilt admitted.

In the extreme—and I need to raise this question—might Monsanto, behind the scenes, secretly and illegally offer Johnson’s lawyer and his client a very large sum to present a weak case in court and let Monsanto win the case?

You decide.

If Monsanto has intentionally hidden the dire effects of Roundup for decades, while people have gotten sick and died, what wouldn’t they do?

Among the myriad scandals and crimes of Monsanto, here is one that sheds light on the mindset of the company. Axisoflogic.com reports (3/22/12): “In 2001, 3,600 inhabitants of the city of Anniston, Alabama, attacked Monsanto for PCB [a chlorine chemical] contamination. According to a report, declassified by the U.S. Agency of Environmental Protection (EPA), Monsanto for almost forty years dumped thousands of tons of contaminated waste in a stream and an open garbage dump in the heart of a black neighborhood in the city.”

“The way The Washington Post reported the story is instructive: ‘Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as ‘CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy’ — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew. In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one.”

“Monsanto was finally convicted in 2002 of having polluted ‘the territory of Anniston and the blood of its people with the PCB’. The firm was ordered to pay $ 700 million in damages and to guarantee the cleaning-up of the city. No legal action was brought against the company officials.”


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The next huge GMO crime is here

The next huge GMO crime is here

by Jon Rappoport

April 2, 2018

It’s “genome-editing” of food crops.

The official propaganda could go several ways. One version: “We won’t be inserting foreign genes from other species into food plants anymore, as we do now in GMO crops. Instead, we’ll be tweaking and editing the genes that are already in the plants. It’s wonderful.”

Of course, this “new and improved process” can produce unintended and unpredictable effects that ripple through plant DNA. Oops.

Here is a cautionary statement from Jennifer Doudna, the co-discoverer of the latest and greatest method of gene-surgery, called CRISPR: “I guess I worry about a couple of things. I think there’s sort of the potential for unintended consequences of gene editing in people for clinical use. How would you ever do the kinds of experiments that you might want to do to ensure safety?”

The same worries would apply to gene-editing food plants—especially if no one intends to do long-term studies on the health effects of eating this food.

We’re on the cusp of a new level of GMO crime-business, and the man in charge of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Sonny Perdue, is cheerleading from the sidelines.

Perdue says the newest gene-edited plants won’t be any different from those developed by traditional non-GMO breeding methods.

Which is like saying a missile fired from a tank is identical to an arrow shot from a bow.

Here is the brand new policy from the USDA: “Under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques…This includes a set of new [gene-editing] techniques that are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods.”

Yes, indistinguishable, if you’re wearing a blindfold and wandering around in a pitch-black lab.

In other words, the bureaucrats are at it again, subverting facts and viewing corporate interests as prime, while people’s interests are of no importance.

No regulation, no studies on genome-edited crops to determine health effects on humans, just open the door wide.

Claire Robinson, the relentless and sharp publisher of gmwatch.org, goes for the throat:

“If by some miracle the USDA should turn out to be correct when it claims that genome-edited plants are indistinguishable from naturally bred plants, then the whole genome-editing commercial venture is over. That’s because the driving force behind all genetic engineering of plants, including genome editing, is patents. And to get a patent on a genome-edited plant you have to show that it is a man-made invention that is completely different from anything that you might find in nature.”

“Therefore the GMO industry is telling the public and regulators that genome-edited plants are indistinguishable from naturally bred plants, and yet at the same time it is telling patent offices that genome-edited plants are completely different from naturally bred plants.”

“Both claims cannot be true. So one is a lie. There are no prizes for guessing which one.”

Boom. Bang.

To grasp this situation at ground level, imagine a bevy of food police came into your house and said: “We’re going to take all the food out of your refrigerator, we’re going to fool around with the genes, not really knowing what changes are occurring as we cut and paste, having no idea how this will affect your health, and then we’ll come back and put the gene-edited food in the fridge. Don’t worry, be happy.”

If this new generation of edited food is accepted by a sleeping public, there is yet another step coming on the road to full food control. We’ve seen hints of it already. The companies doing the gene-editing will claim they’ve got varieties of food crops that don’t need pesticides, because the DNA-editing protects the plants from pests and weeds. With blasts of PR, the companies will say these crops should have the status and label, ORGANIC.

There will eventually be a big push in that direction. An organic apple grown in an orchard where the farmer has taken years to clean up the soil and institute natural pest/weed control—that organic apple will be considered identical to an apple whose genes were tweaked and re-tweaked with gene-editing.

The USDA will call these two apples “indistinguishable” from each other.

How do you like them apples?

The current director of the USDA, Sonny Perdue, as Claire Robinson points out, “…is a fitting candidate to utter unscientific talking points that only benefit the GMO industry. The former governor of Georgia, he was named 2009 Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization and counts Monsanto and Coca-Cola among his corporate campaign donors. His nomination [to the USDA] was praised by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), that multi-billion-dollar lobbying group that represents Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Coca-Cola, General Mills and that fought against transparent GMO labelling.”

“Perdue helped the giant chicken-producing factory farm business expand its Georgia operations by $155 million. A former fertilizer salesman, Perdue at one time owned Houston Fertilizer and Grain, which morphed into AGrowStar, a grain business with operations across Georgia and South Carolina. His supporters cite his business operations as proof that he’s qualified to lead the USDA.”

The business of America is business.

I have a suggestion for Sonny Perdue. When people start getting sick from eating the new gene-edited food, he can say: “Look, there are always unintended effects in science. But I’ve been assured we can solve this problem. We’ll adjust the genes of PEOPLE so they can eat the new food without harm. I was talking to execs at Monsanto the other day, and they told me it’ll be a slam dunk. A snip here, a snip there, and everything will be fine.”

A final note for now. The new gene-editing technology features a method called CRISPR. It is very cheap and very available to anyone with a simple lab. Many small start-up companies are getting in on the action. As we speak, someone could already be trying out this UNPREDICTABLE gene-surgery in, say, a small experimental grape vineyard or an orange grove or an artisan beer manufacturing operation. It’s the Wild West of genetic manipulation.

If the USDA keeps looking the other way, pretty soon food growing will morph into untold numbers of Frankenstein variations that make today’s GMO crops seem like the purest of the pure.

Genie out of the bottle, lid of Pandora’s Box wide open.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

John Galt, Ayn Rand, mega-corporations, mega-government

John Galt, Ayn Rand, mega-corporations, mega-government

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2018

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.” (John Galt, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand)

Ayn Rand, the most hated and adored novelist of the 20th century.

Her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, proposes a radical effort by inventor John Galt, and his assembled creative colleagues, to withdraw from society and take their inventions with them.

Civilization is already crumbling, owing to the federal government and its cronies installing a socialism based on top-down domination and the theft of material and intellectual private property.

Galt decides that a head-on struggle with the government would be futile. Instead, he wants to apply the coup de grace: remove the authentic creators from the scene and let the system implode.

Here are key Galt quotes from the novel:

“You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you’re incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others—that you’re unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler…”

“Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?”

“The doctrine that ‘human rights’ are superior to ‘property rights’ simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others…”

“You called it selfish and cruel that men should trade value for value—you have now established an unselfish society where they trade extortion for extortion. Your system is a legal civil war, where men gang up on one another and struggle for possession of the law, which they use as a club over rivals, till another gang wrests it from their clutch and clubs them with it in their turn, all of them clamoring protestations of service to an unnamed public’s unspecified good…”

Galt is the inventor of a revolutionary engine that can provide energy to the whole planet. He created the engine. He owns it. The government, on the verge of an economic collapse, wants to take Galt’s engine from him and use it for “the greater good.”

Galt refuses.

The engine is his. He knows, of course, that the government could do unpredictable things with that engine—they could, in fact, put it in a vault and bury it.

On the other hand, he could maintain control over his invention and sell the abundant energy—not with the objective of becoming a king or an oligarch—at a price he sets. And eventually, the world would be swimming in energy.

Agents of the government (who resemble CIA types) kidnap him and prepare to torture him, MKULTRA style, to get their hands on his engine—but at the last minute his friends rescue him, and they vanish to Galt Gulch, a hidden valley, where they wait for the government to cave in, collapse, thereby ushering in, by necessity, a truly free market.

Rand focuses on the creative individual and his private property, his own inventions.

This is one reason why leaders of collectivism and their addled followers hate her and her work. They scream that every good thing in this world must be given away, which means that every good thing will be taken over by men who hate life and freedom and the individual, while pretending to be messianic altruists.

Among the addled followers of collectivism are people who believe they themselves are unable to earn a living, and therefore insist that “everything should be free.”

For decades now, an operation has been underway to convince more and more people (especially the young) to see themselves as dependent. As if that status were righteous, as if that status were a badge of honor.

This is an intense rejection of the free and independent individual.

“You didn’t build that” and “we’re all in this together” and other such inanities are sparks shot by weapons of degraded thought. They intend to encircle humanity in a wretched fume of pretended helplessness.

Indeed, there is no intention to raise up the individual. Instead, there is a goal of sinking to the lowest common denominator—as if at the bottom of a stagnant lake lies some magic clue to the resurrection of the human species.

There, at last, beyond desperation, is the “sharing and caring” everyone has been seeking. This is the core of a Church of Failure.

Because at the bottom, there is nothing but sludge. And in this case, the fishermen of souls are casting their nets for participants in a half-light dystopia of abject need.

Endless need, never to be satisfied—the ultimate spiritual drug.

In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt wins. Rand wrote about the ultimate victory of the individual, and that is why she is a silver bullet aimed at vampires.

She is called an extreme fantasist, because now we know that society is composed of groups, and each group has special needs and demands, and government exists to satisfy them. Now we know that the individual is a delusional construction, an outmoded prop in a drama that was played out a long time ago. The bright new world is collective.

Yes, isn’t it pleasant?

The present-day oligarchs are actually messiahs, and they head up huge organizations. They no longer wander in the desert. They own castles. They collude with each other to manufacture rainbows for the masses.

Behind their masks, they plot greater and greater control of the population. They even finance and stage protests against…whom? Against any power that isn’t their own. Against any power that isn’t the machine of government. Because the government, you see, is the bringer of help for all who are suffering.

How does that work?

It doesn’t.

It promotes the most profound dependence ever seen on the face of the planet.

Control through “satisfying needs.”

And it’s “free.”

In your dreams.

This “free” is where the individual goes to surrender.

And because she saw that and so much more, and because she wrote about it in incendiary novels, she was hated. Ayn Rand, 1905-1982. Atlas Shrugged; The Fountainhead.

And now, as a backgrounder, I want to describe a point that Rand didn’t make with any force—a prime reason for the collapse of the free market she championed.

Government power and corporate power—the false dichotomy

For decades, people on the Left and Right have been arguing about where the real power is.

Corporations? Government?

Some of these people even cite President’s Eisenhower’s famous warning about the excesses of the “military-industrial complex.” Well, let’s see. “Industrial” means corporations. “Military” means government, since the last time I looked the Pentagon was part of the Executive Branch. So Eisenhower was talking about an ongoing partnership between the public and private sectors.

The federal government isn’t the helpless victim of corporations. And corporations aren’t wilting under the dominating government. They’re in it together.

When people on the Left promote their programs for “a better world,” they invoke a convenient case of amnesia about central government and its chronic collusion with mega-corporations. It is the government, these Lefties believe, that will carry us forward into a more equitable future. Really? The same government that has been willingly carving up the country with corporations at its side?

The same government which, for decades, has been signing Globalist treaties and looking the other way, as millions of jobs have gone overseas? That is the kinder, gentler force that wants only good things for the American people? Perhaps that means good things for expanding Welfare recipients—but not for Americans who are looking for work and want to work.

Here is just one example of collusion, which occurred under a president many people believed finally understood the “helper” and “better world” role of government. Barack Obama.

Who makes the huge number of drones and bombs and planes and supplies them to the military (government)? Defense contractors, otherwise known as corporations. It’s a comfortable marriage.

Buckle up.

The leftist Guardian (1/9/17): “In 2016 [under Obama], US special [military] operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.”

“…in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.”

“As drone-warrior-in-chief, he [Obama] spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen. Obama authorized over 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, and automatically painted all males of military age in these regions as combatants, making them fair game for remote controlled killing.”

Obama. The champ of bombing.

But of course he was the prophet of a better world, a coming glorious revolution in which the downtrodden would be given their due, and past crimes and offenses would be healed.

Sure.

And if Trump had lost and Hillary had ascended to the Oval Office, we would be closer to that “good revolution.” Hillary, who along with Obama, destroyed the nation of Libya and turned it into a hellhole of chaos. The weapons of that mass killing were manufactured by corporations. Vast profits ensued.

Let’s look at one more example of government-corporate collusion, under that same president who best personified “a prophet for a better world and a new age.”

“Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.” (Barack Obama, 2007, on the campaign trail)

Really?

In the last eight years, the global outcry against toxic Monsanto and the other biotech giants has accelerated—but not a significant peep emerged from the Obama White House.

And then Obama signed the bill dubbed The Dark Act. It made GMO labels on food an exclusively federal matter—and those labels will be confusing, weak, and therefore meaningless for the majority of Americans. The Dark Act is basically a free pass for the Monsanto Corporation and the other biotech giants.

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in GMO food/pesticide 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 Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

* Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

* Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

* 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.

* Genetically engineered salmon.

This is an extraordinary parade.

Obama was, all along, a stealth operative working with Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, for corporate control of the future of agriculture.

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

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

Obama had been a covert Monsanto partner since the beginning.

Imposter. Charlatan. These words fit Obama. He doesn’t care that GMO food, with their rivers of toxic pesticides, are taking over the country and the world. He obviously wants it to happen.

Government-corporate collusion and partnership. Not one. Not the other. Both. Together.

The dichotomy of government vs. mega-corporation is false.

Free market?

In your dreams.


The Matrix Revealed

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


(New piece up at my other blog OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE entitled “Consciousness isn’t a box of chocolates for the soul”. Click 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Dear Mr. Trump: here’s something you can do to defend America’s heartland: attack Monsanto

Dear Mr. Trump: here’s something you can do to defend America’s heartland: attack Monsanto

by Jon Rappoport

November 10, 2017

Something is happening in America’s heartland, Mr. Trump, and you don’t know what it is. Or if you do know, apparently you don’t care.

Because Monsanto’s favorite killer pesticide, Roundup, isn’t destroying farmers’ weeds, as promised, the company has gone to a stronger and even more toxic solution: dicamba.

Zero Hedge has the story: “…[dicamba] spray drifts from those liberal herbicide applications began to wipe out the crops of neighboring farmers who didn’t plant Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant seeds.”

“Now, as the Wall Street Journal points out today, after allegedly wiping out millions of acres of farm ground across the Midwest. [With dicamba], Monsanto once again finds itself in a familiar spot: the courtroom.”

Wall St. Journal: “Arkansas has been a flashpoint in the dispute: About 900,000 acres of crops were reported damaged there, more than in any other state.”

Zero Hedge: “…the EPA has reported that farmers in 25 states submitted more than 2,700 claims to state agricultural agencies that neighbors’ dicamba spraying shriveled 3.6 million acres of soybeans. The herbicide is also blamed for damaging other crops, such as cantaloupe and pumpkins.”

MILLIONS OF ACRES OF US FARMLAND DAMAGED AND DESTROYED.

Bill Clinton was a Monsanto man. Obama was a Monsanto man. What about you, Mr. Trump?

During the presidential campaign, you gushed to audiences about making sure the land and soil and air in this country would be pure and beautiful.

Are your Goldman Sachs aides, who are propping up the stock market for you, too strong to resist? Is their mandate to float all corporate boats, no matter what the cost in destruction of the land, to say nothing of human health, too powerful to oppose?

Is your staff somehow keeping you from obtaining knowledge of the crimes of Monsanto?

Is “concern for the environment” the wrong message to send to your base?

Would your weak sister Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, recuse himself from a relentless probe and prosecution of Monsanto?

I suggest a simple tweet to test the waters: “Dear America, do you want me to go after Monsanto?” Watch the reaction.

I guarantee, it’ll be overwhelming.

We’ve known about this death’s head corporation for a long time.

What about you?


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Pot smokers beware: killer pesticides, poison

Pot smokers beware: killer pesticides, poison

by Jon Rappoport

September 12, 2017

Pot smokers, environmentalists, and just plain humans: take notice.

A recent article in The Atlantic reveals highly toxic pesticides are being used on illegal pot farms in California, and the runoff is poisoning forests.

I’ll quote extensively from the article and then make comments:

“Secret growers are taking advantage of the state’s remote stretches of public land—and the environmental impact is severe.”

“…this past November, [California] residents voted ‘yes’ on Proposition 64, making California the fifth state to legalize recreational pot. Almost two-thirds of the country’s total legal harvest comes from the Golden State…” [poisoned pot shipped everywhere]

“The lethal poisons growers use to protect their crops and campsites from pests are annihilating wildlife, polluting pristine public lands, and maybe even turning up in your next bong hit.”

“…grow sites tested positive for carbofuran, a neurotoxic insecticide that is so nasty it has been banned in the U.S., Canada and the EU. Farmers in Kenya have used it to kill lions. Symptoms of exposure range from nausea and blurred vision to convulsions, spontaneous abortions, and death….”

“Some 50 different toxicants have turned up at grow sites… Growers use the poisons to keep rodents and other animals from eating the sugar-rich sprouting plants, from gnawing on irrigation tubing, and from invading their campsites in search of food. Acute rodenticides cause neurological damage and internal bleeding. Animals literally drown in their own blood or stumble around until they’re eaten themselves, passing the poison up the food chain to predators like owls and fishers.”

“’It’s a massive problem,’ says Craig Thompson, a wildlife ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service. ‘People don’t tend to grasp the industrial scale of what’s going on. There are thousands of these sites in places the public thinks are pristine, with obscene amounts of chemicals at each one. Each one is a little environmental disaster’.”

“Gabriel [biologist] and Thompson fear the poisons could spread far beyond each grow site and contaminate the water supply of towns and cities far downstream. The toxicants can leach into the soil and linger for years. Using water monitors, Gabriel has already found organophosphates—nerve agents used to make insecticides and certain types of chemical weapons—several hundred meters downhill from grow sites.”

“’These guys aren’t growing for the legal recreational market or medical dispensaries—they’re growing to exploit a black market somewhere,’ says Mark Higley, a wildlife biologist with the Hoopa Tribe in Humboldt County, whose reservation has seen an explosion in illegal grow sites. While there is no proof that illegal pot ends up in the burgeoning legal market, many familiar with the industry suspect it does.”

“Law enforcement officials think many trespass grows are set up [on government land] by Mexican drug cartels, which prefer to ship marijuana from state to state rather than smuggle it over the international border. Growers arrested during raids are often undocumented immigrants in their 20s from Michoacan, experienced in covert agriculture and hard living. They earn around $150 a day for two-to-four months, much more than they would at a farm or winery.”

“Captured growers sometimes claim their employers are holding their families hostage until the harvest is collected. Whether or not that’s true, they’re motivated to protect the crop. Hendrickson estimates between a quarter and half of raids turn up some kind of weapon, from crossbows to automatic rifles. He has found elevated sniper positions set up near grow sites.”

“Just walking through rows of plants coated with toxic chemicals can be enough to bring on symptoms like lethargy and headaches—let alone spending hours cutting them down in the hot sun under the wash of a helicopter. Gabriel [biologist] and his employees have started getting monthly blood tests to check for pesticide exposure.”

“Some chemical threats are more immediate. At one site Gabriel was inspecting an unfamiliar container full of aluminum phosphide, a poisonous powder used to kill rodents and insects. It had gasified and built up pressure in the heat of the sun. When he touched it, it exploded in his face. Luckily he was wearing a hazmat respirator.”

“’My biggest fear is that some kid will come across one of those bottles,” Thompson says. ‘Carbofuran is pink, it looks like Pepto, like candy. Can you imagine what a five-year-old would do with that?’”

—-end of Atlantic excerpt—

So the contamination and the poison are in the land, in the water, in animals, and in the marijuana people smoke.

This is not the first time, in recent years, that pot has been found to contain pesticides. A quick search will turn up a number of articles. However, the level of toxicity here in these California pot farms is extreme, to say the least.

Where are the growers buying their banned pesticides? Mexico? On the black market in the US?

How can pot smokers be sure they’re smoking clean product? For example, are legal dispensaries working with proper labs to test many, many samples? In these tests, how many pesticide compounds are covered? How many aren’t?

Over time, stories like the one in The Atlantic come and go, and people forget them. But that would be a mistake.

People who use marijuana often reply to stories like this with the claim they know that a great deal of pot is pure, and their suppliers are ethical. One hopes that’s true, but is it?

If some, most, or all of these highly contaminated pot farms in California are run by Mexican drug cartels, don’t expect state or federal law enforcement to solve the problem. It isn’t going to happen. The resources aren’t there, and neither is the determination.

The government of California considers the state to be a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. So how is the government going to stop some of these immigrants from becoming illegal pot growers who deploy highly dangerous chemicals on a daily basis?

As for the California forests and rivers, government agencies are far behind the curve. The illegal growers are, in effect, staging wide-ranging random attacks on the environment.

This has nothing to do with a “progressive attitude” toward pot.

It has everything to do with criminals seeding the land with poison.

And it is yet one more consequence of the unchecked and unprosecuted growth of the pesticide industry, in which, over many decades, corporations have been manufacturing and selling all sorts of heinous poisons—“better living through chemistry”—reversing centuries of agricultural practice that fed populations good clean food.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The mayor of New York embraces Karl Marx

The mayor of New York embraces Karl Marx

by Jon Rappoport

September 8, 2017

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” (Karl Marx, 1875)

At infowars.com, Kelen McBreen has unearthed a stunning statement NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio made to New York Magazine:

De Blasio: “What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development… Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.”

Boom.

The elimination of private property rights is one of the primary tenets of extreme socialism/Communism.

And of course, the disposition of private property—the takeover—would be achieved by government.

So for those people who think the rising tide of socialism is just a myth, you now have the mayor of the world’s most powerful city advocating it publicly and openly.

And the response of the mainstream press? A yawn, and silence.

Or to put it another way, bland acceptance.

Private property was one of the basic issues Ayn Rand, the most reviled and adored novelist of the 20th century, explored in depth. Here are several statements she uncompromisingly offered:

“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

“The doctrine that ‘human rights’ are superior to ‘property rights’ simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of ‘human’.”

“You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers.”

In a half-sane society, private property rights would be debated in depth at every college, without interference. But that is no longer possible, owing to censorship of speech.

Beyond this restriction, students aren’t equipped with tools of analysis to approach the subject. Instead, they’re indoctrinated with vapid generalities.

As I’ve detailed in several recent articles (see tag:socialism here), the rank promotion of socialism has nothing to do with “power to the people.” Socialism is an elite strategy, boosted by Globalists as a way of gaining control of governments and populations.

Their pretense of “share and care” is a mask behind which they are instituting a worldwide management system. They, not the people, will own the means of production, and they will determine the distribution of goods and services.

Instead of solving the problem of predatory mega-corporations, “socialism” will elevate those corporations to even greater heights of power.

As just one example—what president of the US stood for, and promoted, the greatest degree of socialism? That would be Franklin Roosevelt, who presided over the New Deal and World War 2. How did he rein in corporations and prosecute their crimes? Are you kidding?

Consider Charles Higham’s classic, Trading with the Enemy:

“What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s [Germany’s] fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”

If you want a modern example of “socialism” at work, consider another soft promoter of this philosophy, President Barack Obama, and his response to one of the most predatory of corporations, Monsanto, and other food giants.

From Scott Creighton, “Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa”:

“At the G8 Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.”

“But African civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned ‘public private partnership.’ Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero has teamed up with their most hated nemesis [Monsanto] to exploit an entire continent like they did to India not that long ago?…”

“With a commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to ‘partner up’ with mega-multinationals like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential, Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says ‘There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.’

“Of course, that’s an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos for centuries. But it’s true that only the biowreck engineers will foist patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa.”

Obama? A socialist warrior against corporations on behalf of the people? It’s long past the time for ripping that false mask away.

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

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

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

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

Then came the reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
* Monsanto GMO sugar beets.
* Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.
* 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.

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

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

Socialism? Power to the people? Share and care? Special concern for the downtrodden?

Socialism is a means for government to gain ironclad control of the means of production by colluding with mega-corporations.

That collusion, that tight partnership has been called fascism. And that’s what socialism turns out to be.

To the degree that governments are socialist, in England, the US, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, China, Canada, Australia and other countries, that’s the pattern.

It would evolve into the same pattern in New York, where Mayor Bill De Blasio is blowing smoke up everybody’s backside, with his remarks about people-power and strong government taking over private property.

If the mayor wants to prove otherwise, let’s see him go after the most mighty anti-people corporation in his city: Goldman Sachs. Let’s see him lead a no-holds-barred prosecution of that outfit’s crimes.

Let’s see him attack the company that is running a significant chunk of Donald Trump’s presidency.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Bill Gates, Google’s Brin fund lab-grown meat for the masses

Bill Gates, Google’s Brin fund lab-grown meat for the masses

by Jon Rappoport

August 25, 2017

Wikipedia: “In 1998 Jon F. Vein of the United States filed for, and ultimately secured, a patent (US 6,835,390 B1) for the production of tissue engineered meat for human consumption, wherein muscle and fat cells would be grown in an integrated fashion to create food products such as beef, poultry and fish.”

Step right up and try a delicious burger grown from animal cells in a lab. What could go wrong?

True, there’s no fat in it, and the cells were grown in sketchy fetal bovine serum, and certain, ahem, “growth factors” may have been added, but don’t worry. Slather on the mustard and mayo, close your eyes, and munch.

Rest secure in the knowledge that Bill Gates and Google “don’t- be-evil” co-founder, Sergey Brin, are pumping money into the ongoing research. Brin Burger. Bill Burger.

Food giant Cargill and Bill Gates are collaborating. Brin gave money to a Dutch scientist, Mark Post, to produce a burger manufactured from cow stem cells. And various research labs around the world are experimenting with different ways of “making meat.”

The medium in which the animal cells are grown is fetal bovine serum; so the possibility of various infectious agents getting into the mix is quite real.

If this frankenfood miracle comes to pass, a whole sector of traditional animal farming would eventually shrink and be phased out; but at the same time, the amount of energy and the cost of creating meat in factories in huge vats would be considerable.

Because meat without fat doesn’t have much taste (or a full nutritional profile), fat would have to be added. How? From what source? That problem hasn’t been solved yet.

And of course, if manufactured meat took hold, the producers would have an ideal opportunity to add elements “for our own good.”

“People should have edible vaccines in their food, don’t you think? It would be so much easier than getting a shot…”

Then, imagine something like this: “Fake But Real Meat Inc. announced that six hundred vats of growing pork in its Malaysian factory are contaminated with numerous bacteria and viruses, plus fungi. A temporary power outage may have been to blame. It’s estimated that 40 million pork burgers are loose in thirteen countries. A recall has been issued, but ‘the pig is already out of the pen’.”

If you read the technical literature on this lab-meat movement, you’ll notice one thing is missing: in-depth programs for studying the long-term human health effects. Oops.

“Meat is meat is meat. Who cares where it comes from or who designed it?”

How about the mineral content of lab-meat? What manufacturer will really care about that?

How about the unpredicted consequences of adding fat after the production of the meat itself? How will that work?

How many, and which, chemicals will be added to the vats of growing meat, in order to “keep it safe?”

“Say, Bob, I think we need to put a few hundred more gallons of chlorine into Vat 7 today. Did you catch the smell over there?”

But don’t worry, be happy. It’ll all work out.

Only a few lone meat manufacturers will come up with the idea of making deals with crematoria to divert human corpses to their factories…


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.