Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails

by: Barbara H. Peterson

While I might assume a particular position on an issue, that position is subject to change when new or more relevant information becomes available. Remember the sorghum aluminum resistance patent that we thought was created by Monsanto to counter the effects of excess aluminum found in the soil after heavy chemtrailing? Well, it turns out that we were partially right.

Here is where we went wrong:

The patent for aluminum resistance mentioned in What in the World are They Spraying? turns out to be owned by the USDA and Brazil’s agricultural department, not Monsanto directly (although a good case can be made for Monsanto actually owning the USDA, but that’s another story) and evidently, made for acidic soil and will not be effective in an alkaline soil caused by chemtrailing. Therefore, it appears that this particular patent most likely is targeted for Africa, which seems to be a major biotech interest.

Here is where we were right:

Monsanto DOES own patents that appear to mitigate the effects of geo-engineering, that can be applied to a whole host of fruits, trees, grains and veggies. A quick patent search brings up 3,981 hits for Monsanto and Stress Tolerance. Mendel Biotechnology is partners with Monsanto in several of these patents. This is taken from one of the joint patents:

The claimed invention, in the field of functional genomics and the characterization of plant genes for the improvement of plants, was made by or on behalf of Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. and Monsanto Corporation as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made.

Here is a patent titled “Stress tolerant plants and methods thereof,” that is owned by Monsanto, and seems to address all forms of abiotic stress that weather manipulation and chemtrails can cause:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

Described herein are inventions in the field of plant molecular biology and plant genetic engineering. In particular, DNA constructs encoding a polypeptide and transgenic plants containing the DNA constructs are provided. The transgenic plants are characterized by improved stress tolerance.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

One of the goals of plant genetic engineering is to produce plants with agronomically, horticulturally or economically important characteristics or traits. Traits of particular interest include high yield, improved quality and yield stability. The yield from a plant is greatly influenced by external environmental factors including water availability and heat, of which tolerance of extremes is in turn influenced by internal developmental factors. Enhancement of plant yield may be achieved by genetically modifying the plant to be tolerant to yield losses due to stressful environmental conditions, such as heat and drought stress.

Seed and fruit production are both limited inherently due to abiotic stress. Soybean ( Glycine max ), for instance, is a crop species that suffers from loss of seed germination during storage and fails to germinate when soil temperatures are cool (Zhang et al., Plant Soil 188: (1997)). This is also true in corn and other plants of agronomic importance. Improvement of abiotic stress tolerance in plants would be an agronomic advantage to growers allowing enhanced growth and/or germination in cold, drought, flood, heat, UV stress, ozone increases, acid rain, pollution, salt stress, heavy metals, mineralized soils, and other abiotic stresses.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7851676.html

Here are the plants that this “invention” intends to cover:

The method of claim 7, wherein said crop plant is selected from the group consisting of corn, soybean, wheat, cotton, rice and rapeseed/canola.

Further on down, we find that a whole host of other plants are under the microscope and used for the process as well:

The transgenic plant is selected from the group consisting of: Acacia , alfalfa, aneth, apple, apricot, artichoke, arugula, asparagus, avocado, banana, barley, beans, beet, blackberry, blueberry, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, canola, cantaloupe, carrot, cassaya, cauliflower, celery, cherry, cilantro, citrus, clementines, coffee, corn, cotton, cucumber, Douglas fir, eggplant, endive, escarole, eucalyptus, fennel, figs, forest tree, gourd, grape, grapefruit, honey dew, jicama, kiwifruit, lettuce, leeks, lemon, lime, loblolly pine, mango, melon, millet, mushroom, nut, oat, okra, onion, orange, papaya, parsley, pea, peach, peanut, pear, pepper, persimmon, pine, pineapple, plantain, plum, pomegranate, poplar, potato, pumpkin, quince, radiata pine, radicchio, radish, raspberry, rice, rye, sorghum, southern pine, soybean, spinach, squash, strawberry, sugarbeet, sugarcane, sunflower, sweet potato, sweetgum, tangerine, tea, tobacco, tomato, turf, a vine, watermelon, wheat, yams, and zucchini.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7851676.html

This patent is infinitely more inclusive of conditions related to chemtrail activity than the singularly applied aluminum patent as it is a relatively all-inclusive “stress tolerance” patent for everything from cold to drought to heavy metals, to salty soil that involves everything from acacia to zucchini. Monsanto to the rescue, again. And we thought the only thing we had to worry about was sorghum and aluminum. Think again…

© 2012 Barbara H. Peterson

http://farmwars.info/?p=7760

Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent

Senior Obama officials tell the US Senate: the 'war', in limitless form, will continue for 'at least' another decade - or two

by Glenn Greenwald

Last October, senior Obama officials anonymously unveiled to the Washington Post their newly minted "disposition matrix", a complex computer system that will be used to determine how a terrorist suspect will be "disposed of": indefinite detention, prosecution in a real court, assassination-by-CIA-drones, etc. Their rationale for why this was needed now, a full 12 years after the 9/11 attack:

Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaida continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight. . . . That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism."

On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether the statutory basis for this "war" - the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) - should be revised (meaning: expanded). This is how Wired's Spencer Ackerman (soon to be the Guardian US's national security editor) described the most significant exchange:

"Asked at a Senate hearing today how long the war on terrorism will last, Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, answered, 'At least 10 to 20 years.' . . . A spokeswoman, Army Col. Anne Edgecomb, clarified that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today - atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted. Welcome to America's Thirty Years War."

That the Obama administration is now repeatedly declaring that the "war on terror" will last at least another decade (or two) is vastly more significant than all three of this week's big media controversies (Benghazi, IRS, and AP/DOJ) combined. The military historian Andrew Bacevich has spent years warning that US policy planners have adopted an explicit doctrine of "endless war". Obama officials, despite repeatedly boasting that they have delivered permanently crippling blows to al-Qaida, are now, as clearly as the English language permits, openly declaring this to be so.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war - justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism - that is the single greatest cause of that threat.

In January, former Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson delivered a highly-touted speech suggesting that the war on terror will eventually end; he advocated that outcome, arguing:

'War' must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. We must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the 'new normal.'"


In response, I wrote that the "war on terror" cannot and will not end on its own for two reasons: (1) it is designed by its very terms to be permanent, incapable of ending, since the war itself ironically ensures that there will never come a time when people stop wanting to bring violence back to the US (the operational definition of "terrorism"), and (2) the nation's most powerful political and economic factions reap a bonanza of benefits from its continuation. Whatever else is true, it is now beyond doubt that ending this war is the last thing on the mind of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner and those who work at the highest levels of his administration. Is there any way they can make that clearer beyond declaring that it will continue for "at least" another 10-20 years?

The genius of America's endless war machine is that, learning from the unplesantness of the Vietnam war protests, it has rendered the costs of war largely invisible. That is accomplished by heaping all of the fighting burden on a tiny and mostly economically marginalized faction of the population, by using sterile, mechanized instruments to deliver the violence, and by suppressing any real discussion in establishment media circles of America's innocent victims and the worldwide anti-American rage that generates.

Though rarely visible, the costs are nonetheless gargantuan. Just in financial terms, as Americans are told they must sacrifice Social Security and Medicare benefits and place their children in a crumbling educational system, the Pentagon remains the world's largest employer and continues to militarily outspend the rest of the world by a significant margin. The mythology of the Reagan presidency is that he induced the collapse of the Soviet Union by luring it into unsustainable military spending and wars: should there come a point when we think about applying that lesson to ourselves?

Then there are the threats to Americans' security. Having their government spend decades proudly touting itself as "A Nation at War" and bringing horrific violence to the world is certain to prompt more and more people to want to attack Americans, as the US government itself claims took place just recently in Boston (and as clearly took place multiple other times over the last several years).

And then there's the most intangible yet most significant cost: each year of endless war that passes further normalizes the endless rights erosions justified in its name. The second term of the Bush administration and first five years of the Obama presidency have been devoted to codifying and institutionalizing the vast and unchecked powers that are typically vested in leaders in the name of war. Those powers of secrecy, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and due-process-free assassination are not going anywhere. They are now permanent fixtures not only in the US political system but, worse, in American political culture.

Each year that passes, millions of young Americans come of age having spent their entire lives, literally, with these powers and this climate fixed in place: to them, there is nothing radical or aberrational about any of it. The post-9/11 era is all they have been trained to know. That is how a state of permanent war not only devastates its foreign targets but also degrades the population of the nation that prosecutes it.

This war will end only once Americans realize the vast and multi-faceted costs they are bearing so that the nation's political elites can be empowered and its oligarchs can further prosper. But Washington clearly has no fear that such realizations are imminent. They are moving in the other direction: aggressively planning how to further entrench and expand this war.

One might think that if there is to be a debate over the 12-year-old AUMF, it would be about repealing it. Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who heroically cast the only vote against it when it was originally enacted by presciently warning of how abused it would be, has been advocating its repeal for some time now in favor of using reasonable security measures to defend against such threats and standard law enforcement measures to punish them (which have proven far more effective than military solutions). But just as happened in 2001, neither she nor her warnings are deemed sufficiently Serious even to consider, let alone embrace.

Instead, the Washington AUMF "debate" recognizes only two positions: (1) Congress should codify expanded powers for the administration to fight a wider war beyond what the 2001 AUMF provides (that's the argument recently made by the supreme war-cheerleaders-from-a-safe-distance at the Washington Post editorial page and their favorite war-justifying think tank theorists, and the one being made by many Senators from both parties), or (2) the administration does not need any expanded authority because it is already free to wage a global war with very few limits under the warped "interpretation" of the AUMF which both the Bush and Obama DOJs have successfully persuaded courts to accept (that's the Obama administration's position). In other words, the shared premise is that the US government must continue to wage unlimited, permanent war, and the only debate is whether that should happen under a new law or the old one.

Just to convey a sense for how degraded is this Washington "debate": Obama officials at yesterday's Senate hearing repeatedly insisted that this "war" is already one without geographical limits and without any real conceptual constraints. The AUMF's war power, they said, "stretches from Boston to the [tribal areas of Pakistan]" and can be used "anywhere around the world, including inside Syria, where the rebel Nusra Front recently allied itself with al-Qaida's Iraq affiliate, or even what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called 'boots on the ground in Congo'". The acting general counsel of the Pentagon said it even "authorized war against al-Qaida's associated forces in Mali, Libya and Syria". Newly elected independent Sen. Angus King of Maine said after listening to how the Obama administration interprets its war powers under the AUMF:

This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today."


Former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith, who testified at the hearing, summarized what was said after it was over: Obama officials argued that "they had domestic authority to use force in Mali, Syria, Libya, and Congo, against Islamist terrorist threats there"; that "they were actively considering emerging threats and stated that it was possible they would need to return to Congress for new authorities against those threats but did not at present need new authorities"; that "the conflict authorized by the AUMF was not nearly over"; and that "several members of the Committee were surprised by the breadth of DOD's interpretation of the AUMF." Conveying the dark irony of America's war machine, seemingly lifted right out of the Cold War era film Dr. Strangelove, Goldsmith added:

Amazingly, there is a very large question even in the Armed Services Committee about who the United States is at war against and where, and how those determinations are made."

Nobody really even knows with whom the US is at war, or where. Everyone just knows that it is vital that it continue in unlimited form indefinitely.

In response to that, the only real movement in Congress is to think about how to enact a new law to expand the authorization even further. But it's a worthless and illusory debate, affecting nothing other than the pretexts and symbols used to justify what will, in all cases, be a permanent and limitless war. The Washington AUMF debate is about nothing other than whether more fig leafs are needed to make it all pretty and legal.

The Obama administration already claims the power to wage endless and boundless war, in virtually total secrecy, and without a single meaningful check or constraint. No institution with any power disputes this. To the contrary, the only ones which exert real influence - Congress, the courts, the establishment media, the plutocratic class - clearly favor its continuation and only think about how further to enable it. That will continue unless and until Americans begin to realize just what a mammoth price they're paying for this ongoing splurge of war spending and endless aggression.
Related matters

Although I'm no fan of mindless partisan hackery, one must acknowledge, if one is to be honest, that sometimes it produces high comedy of the type few other afflictions are capable of producing.

On a related note: when Attorney General Eric Holder spoke about the DOJ's subpoeans for AP's phone records - purportedly issued in order to find the source for AP's story about a successfully thwarted terror attack from Yemen - he made this claim about the leak they were investigating: "if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks that I have ever seen." But yesterday, the Washington Post reported that CIA officials gave the go-ahead to AP to report the story, based in part on the fact that the administration itself planned to make a formal announcement boasting of their success in thwarting the plot. Meanwhile, the invaluable Marcy Wheeler today makes a strong case that the Obama administration engaged in a fear-mongering campaign over this plot that they knew at the time was false - all for the purpose of justifying the president's newly announced "signature drone strikes" in Yemen.

The key lesson from all of this should have been learned long ago: nothing is less reliable than unchecked claims from political officials that their secret conduct is justified by National Security Threats and the desire to Keep Us Safe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/17/endless-war-on-terror-obama

Suppressed History: When Wall Street Tried to Bring The Holocaust to America

The Morgan Fascist Coup Plot and How FDR Defeated It

“Editor’s note:  The plan was in motion, a veterans group, bankers, Nazi’s all, dictatorship, concentration camps and an end to American democracy.   It almost happened in the 1930s as it could still happen in America today.  This is history, the real history no American child is taught, history no university has in its library…..only the truth can keep America free.”

by L. Wolfe for The Executive Intelligence Review

Introduction

Some 12 years ago, this news service published a report on the 1930s fascist coup plot against the Franklin D. Roosevelt government, led by a Morgan-centered cabal of powerful financial interests; the coup would have replaced FDR with a puppet government whose policies would be controlled by a cabal of wealthy financial plutocrats. As the report made clear, the intention of the conspirators was to use the anarchy and chaos produced by the coup, to eliminate for all time the threat to their power represented by the U.S. Presidency and U.S. Constitution.

Today, we are faced with the same intention by the heirs of that cabal of fascist bankers, who now control most of the Executive branch of the U.S. government and who have, through their agents such as Felix Rohatyn, attempted to emasculate the Democratic opposition. They now seek to impose a fascist government that Democratic leader Lyndon LaRouche has warned would be “Schacht without Hitler”—a brutal austerity government without the overt “messy” characteristics of the Hitler regime.[1]

In the intervening dozen years, our research has more accurately located the Morgan coup plot as part of the broader push for a fascist world order, as promoted by the Nazi-supporting, Synarchist networks of this cabal. The destruction of the U.S. constitutional system was a critical feature of this push for fascism.

Read more here:  http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/10/13/suppressed-history-hidden-facts-behind-the-wall-street-nazi-plot/

Globalist ‘New Vision’ for Agriculture: A GMO World Takeover

by: Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton

More and more people are waking up to the fact that the widespread proliferation of genetically modified (GM) foods and petrochemicals are not only wreaking havoc on our environment, but wreaking havoc on us. More than 250 million acres are planted with GM crops each year. Again and again, honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has been linked to pesticide use; for all the promises that genetically modified foods would result in less pesticide use, studies have actually confirmed the opposite to be true, giving rise to superweeds and superbugs. Herbicide use has only substantially increased.

According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, GM foods have been linked to some 65 health risks; evidence from dozens of animal studies and dire warnings from academic and industry research cannot be overlooked. Among these documented hazards are increased chances of allergies, organ dysfunction, digestive disorders, autoimmune issues, cancer and reproductive dysfunction.

Once planted, genetically modified organisms have been found to escape their fields and contaminate natural crops, killing biodiversity one plant at a time. GM material is tainting farmland all over the world in short, and it is only spreading.

The initial so-called Green Revolution was spurred in the 1940s by The Rockefeller Foundation as was ultimately about large-scale corporate farming practices — including propagation of hybridized seeds and pesticide use — and tended towards consolidation and monopoly of the food supply. As writerStephen Lendman notes, “With Rockefeller family funding, the Green Revolution laid the groundwork for the Gene Revolution, allowing a handful of Anglo-American agribusiness giants to gain worldwide control of the food supply.”

This paved the way for the eventual introduction of GM crops all over the world. In July 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation initiated “Africa’s Turn: A New Green Revolution for the 21st Century,” with the accompanying statement, “It is time for a second ‘Green Revolution,’ aimed squarely at Africa.”

Africa, with its mix of developing nations and growing economy, is continually being forced back under the yoke of its neo-colonial masters. Just today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a new trade mission “to promote U.S. agricultural trade and investment in sub-Saharan Africa” in support of President Obama’s “U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa” initiative.

These kinds of ‘initiatives’ push GM products and agricultural chemical use in Africa, while consolidating local farmers under big agribusiness. One of the larger global initiatives is The World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture. According to the initiative website, New Vision “engages leaders of business, government, civil society, farmers organisations, development partners and other groups to work together to achieve sustainable agricultural growth. The initiative works at the global level with the G8 and G20, and facilitates national-level partnerships in 11 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.”


With specific mention that the world’s population will reach 9 billion by 2050, the plan revolves around the idea of production shortfalls, resource scarcity and climate change as drivers that justify modern agriculture ‘techniques’.

Plans include a transformational framework and roadmap for stakeholders that lays out “steps toward national-level agriculture transformation”. The initiative’s 2012 reportacknowledged that the role GM foods will play is controversial, but stated, “Focus and good faith are required by all parties to ensure that controversies over these or other issues do not derail the broader multistakeholder collaboration.”

Internet archiving revealed the New Vision’s original explanation of their mission:

In 2010 the New Vision for Agriculture initiative worked with select governments to form public-private partnerships aimed at harnessing private-sector investment and technical expertise to help achieve the government’s goals for sustainable agriculture-sector growth. Initial reaction to this model has been strongly positive among governments, donor agencies and the private sector alike, as all three recognize it as a ‘win-win’ approach that leverages and multiplies each party’s investment. [emphasis added]

Participating companies involved in New vision include the usual suspects:

• AGCO Corporation (an agricultural equipment manufacturer)
• A.P. Møller-Maersk A/S (a shipping, oil and gas parent company)
• BASF SE
• Bayer CropScience AG
• Bunge Limited (St. Louis-based international soybean exporter)
• Cargill Incorporated
• CF Industries Holdings Inc. (agricultural fertilizer manufacturer/distributor)
• Diageo Plc (international alcoholic beverage company)
• DuPont
• General Mills Inc.
• HEINEKEN
• METRO AG
• Mondelez International (formerly Kraft Foods Inc.)
• Monsanto Company
• Nestlé SA
• Novozymes A/S (Denmark-based biotech company)
• PepsiCo Inc.
• Rabobank International (a leading international food/agri bank)
• Royal DSM NV (international, science-based ‘nutrition’ company)
• SABMiller Plc (multinational brewing/beverage company)
• Sinar Mas Agribusiness & Food
• Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd.
• Syngenta International AG
• The Coca-Cola Company
• The Mosaic Company (Fortune 500 phosphate and potash miner; sells Hydrofluosilic Acid byproducts to municipalities to fluoridate water supplies)
• Unilever
• United Phosphorus Ltd. (a chemical and seed company)
• Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
• Yara International ASA (Norwegian chemical and fertilizer company)

In addition to representatives from these corporations, project review and advisory support also includes representatives from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations World Food Programme, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the USDA and Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).

Major public-private New Vision partnerships also include country-level initiatives in Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia and India.

With so many major corporate players involved, it is all too clear who this project is meant to target – and benefit.

Aaron and Melissa created TruthstreamMedia.com,where this first appeared, as an outlet to examine the news, place it in a broader context, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, grasp the underlying factors, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free...

SOURCE:  http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/globalist-new-vision-for-agriculture.html

Join us at facebook.com/asheepnomore and asheepnomore.net

12 Little Known Laws of Karma (That Will Change Your Life)

What is Karma? Karma is the Sanskrit word for action. It is equivalent to Newton's law of ‘every action must have a reaction’. When we think, speak or act we initiate a force that will react accordingly. This returning force maybe modified, changed or suspended, but most people will not be able eradicate it. 

This law of cause and effect is not punishment, but is wholly for the sake of education or learning. 

A person may not escape the consequences of his actions, but he will suffer only if he himself has made the conditions ripe for his suffering. Ignorance of the law is no excuse whether the laws are man-made or universal. 

To stop being afraid and to start being empowered in the worlds of karma and reincarnation, here is what you need to know about karmic laws. 

THE GREAT LAW - "As you sow, so shall you reap". This is also known as the "Law of Cause and Effect". - Whatever we put out in the Universe is what comes back to us. - If what we want is Happiness, Peace, Love, Friendship... Then we should BE Happy, Peaceful, Loving and a True Friend. 

THE LAW OF CREATION - Life doesn't just HAPPEN, it requires our participation. - We are one with the Universe, both inside and out. - Whatever surrounds us gives us clues to our inner state. - BE yourself, and surround yourself with what you want to have present in your Life. 

THE LAW OF HUMILITY - What you refuse to accept, will continue for you. - If what we see is an enemy, or someone with a character trait that we find to be negative, then we ourselves are not focused on a higher level of existence.

THE LAW OF GROWTH - "Wherever you go, there you are". - For us to GROW in Spirit, it is we who must change - and not the people, places or things around us. - The only given we have in our lives is OURSELVES and that is the only factor we have control over. - When we change who and what we are within our heart our life follows suit and changes too. 

THE LAW OF RESPONSIBILITY - Whenever there is something wrong in my life, there is something wrong in me. - We mirror what surrounds us - and what surrounds us mirrors us; this is a Universal Truth. - We must take responsibility what is in our life. 

THE LAW OF CONNECTION - Even if something we do seems inconsequential, it is very important that it gets done as everything in the Universe is connected. - Each step leads to the next step, and so forth and so on. - Someone must do the initial work to get a job done. - Neither the first step nor the last are of greater significance, - As they were both needed to accomplish the task. - Past-Present-Future they are all connected... 

THE LAW OF FOCUS - You can not think of two things at the same time. - When our focus is on Spiritual Values, it is impossible for us to have lower thoughts such as greed or anger. 

THE LAW OF GIVING AND HOSPITALITY - If you believe something to be true,then sometime in your life you will be called upon to demonstrate that particular truth. - Here is where we put what we CLAIM that we have learned, into actual PRACTICE. 

THE LAW OF HERE AND NOW - Looking backward to examine what was, prevents us from being totally in the HERE AND NOW. - Old thoughts, old patterns of behavior, old dreams... - Prevent us from having new ones. 

THE LAW OF CHANGE - History repeats itself until we learn the lessons that we need to change our path. 

THE LAW OF PATIENCE AND REWARD - All Rewards require initial toil. - Rewards of lasting value require patient and persistent toil. - True joy follows doing what we're suppose to be doing, and waiting for the reward to come in on its own time. 

THE LAW OF SIGNIFICANCE AND INSPIRATION - You get back from something whatever YOU have put into it. - The true value of something is a direct result of the energy and intent that is put into it. - Every personal contribution is also a contribution to the Whole. - Lack luster contributions have no impact on the Whole, nor do they work to diminish it. - Loving contributions bring life to, and inspire, the Whole. 

http://ravenemrys.hubpages.com/hub/The-12-Laws-Of-Karma

Join us at facebook.com/asheepnomore and ahsheepnomore.net

Banking Cartel is the Cause of Humanity's Woes

June 26, 2002

(left. Eustace Mullins)

Most of our problems can be laid

at the doorstep of the Mason Jewish central banking cartel.

"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins-- A review

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." ---Thomas Jefferson

by Henry Makow Ph.D,

In November 1949, Eustace Mullins, 25, was a researcher in Washington DC when friends invited him to visit the famous American poet Ezra Pound, who was confined at St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital and listed as a "political prisoner."

A leading figure in Modern English literature, Pound was the editor and critic who introduced the world to James Joyce, W.B. Yeats and T.S. Eliot. During the Second World War, he was charged with treason for broadcasts on Rome Radio that questioned the motives behind America's involvement.

Pound commissioned Mullins to examine the influence of the banking establishment on U.S. policy. Mullins spent every morning for two years in the Library of Congress and met with Pound every afternoon. The resulting manuscript, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" proved too hot for any American publisher to handle. Nineteen rejected it. One said, "you'll never get this published in New York." When it finally appeared in Germany in 1955, the U.S. Military Government confiscated all 10,000 copies and burned them.

Thanks to the American Patriot Friends Network, this book is freely available on line. (I recommend you save it on your desktop, as I did.) Why is it so (excuse the pun) inflammatory?

Essentially it paints a picture of the world, and the role of the United States, which is radically different from the one we are given in school or in the media.

"Notwithstanding the war of independence against England," writes Mullins, "we remained an economic and financial colony of Great Britain." Between 1865 and 1913, he says London bankers led by the Rothschilds used agents such as J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller to gain control of American industry and organize it into cartels.

Where did these bankers get the money? For over 200 years, European bankers have been able to draw on the credit of their host countries to print it!

In the Seventeenth Century, the moneylenders and the aristocracy made a pact. If the king would make paper currency a liability of the state, the moneylenders would print as much as he liked! Thus the Banks of England, France and the Reichsbank came into being but they were all private corporations and remain so today.

According to this nefarious pact, the moneylenders got to charge interest on assets they created out of thin air. The aristocracy all took shares in the central banks plus they got to finance a burgeoning government and to wage costly wars.

This piece of chicanery is at the heart what plagues humanity.

The bankers have a vested interest in the state (i.e. the people) incurring as much debt as possible. They are behind the Marxist, socialist and liberal movements which call for big government and social spending. They are behind the catastrophic wars of the last century. The Warburgs financed the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bank of England financed the rise of Hitler. Prescott Bush (W's grandfather) was head of Brown Brothers Harriman, which financed the construction of the Nazi war machine.

Naturally if you can create money out of thin air, your first instinct is to buy tangible assets with it. There is a powerful impulse to use debt to control nations and take over their real assets. This is the essence of the so-called Third World Debt crisis. Dedicated to owning all wealth and enslaving humanity, an irresistible vampire has been unleashed upon the world.

Much of Mullins book is devoted to the subterfuge by which the United States was drawn into its lethal embrace. In 1913, the Owen-Glass Bill gave mostly foreign-controlled banks (posing as "the Federal Reserve") the right to create currency based on the credit of the United States government and to charge it interest for doing it!

To accomplish this, the bankers had to rig the election of 1913 in order to get Woodrow Wilson elected. Then their stooges in Congress passed the legislation on December 22 after their opponents had gone home for Christmas.

"This act establishes the most gigantic trust [cartel] on earth," Congressman Charles Lindbergh said at the time. "When the President signs this bill; the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed."

Mullins explains that the legislation passed just in time for the American people to finance World War One. After maintaining standing armies for 50 years, European powers no longer could afford the luxury of another war. But the U.S. was relatively debt free and made the whole thing possible.

What would WWI have been without Germany? Apparently Germany was not self-sufficient in food and would have had to sit out this war. In the nick of time, the bankers organized something called "The Belgium Relief Committee" which channeled billions of dollars worth of U.S. meat and potatoes not to Belgium but to Germany. When Edith Cavell, an American working in a Belgium hospital pointed this out, British intelligence had the Germans arrest and execute her.

Mullins makes a convincing case that every U.S. President since Wilson has been a lackey of the bankers. J.F. Kennedy was assassinated because he started to print his own U.S. government-backed currency. This is also the transgression that led to the murders of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield.

Last year alone (2001), the American people paid $360 billion in interest to the bankers. To maintain this massive fraud, the bankers enforce an iron grip on the political and cultural organs of the nation. According to Mullins, "The New York Times" is owned by the Kuhn Loeb while "The Washington Post" is owned by Lazard Freres. In Europe the Rothschilds own Reuters as well as the French and German news services.

I presume US publishers, TV networks and movie producers are similarly beholden. Rockefellers, Carnegies and the Fords endow the nations' libraries and universities. Journalists and professors dutifully parrot fantasies about democracy and freedom. Mind control laboratories run by the CIA and the British army (TheTavistock Institute) dream up ways to manipulate and undermine the population. The psychological sterilization of the human female ("feminism") is an example.

The "War on Terror" is part of the banking cabal's plan to consolidate its grip on humanity in a friendly (or not so friendly) fascist "New World Order." They want to secure their political, economic and social grip on the obstreperous Muslim world, as well as build up a security apparatus in case the docile populations of the West become restive.

Well, at least the cosmic battle between Good and Evil is out in the open at last!

FULL INFORMATION HERE

Join us at facebook.com/asheepnomore and asheepnomore.net

(VIDEO) John McCain Caught Lying on CNN Piers Morgan 9/12/2013

In the 20 mile radius of land called, Washington DC, they think we are stupid:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/11/cia-state-department-weapons-gear-syrian-rebels/2802491/

Sen. John McCain talks to CNN's Piers Morgan about the situation in Syria and in Congress.. Notice John McCains very last statement when asked about the CIA supplying arms to Syrian Rebels. He"the fool he is" says It is all lies "that the CIA is not arming rebels" and They "CIA" is not giving them the weapons they need.

(VIDEO) John McCain Caught Lying on CNN Piers Morgan 9/12/2013

IT'S TIME TO BREAK FREE FROM THE FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM!

JOIN US @ facebook.com/asheepnomore and asheepnomore.net

Kosher, non-GMO, gluten-free, natural and organic: Top twelve things you probably didn't know about food label claims

by: Mike Adams

Are you confused about food label claims and what they really mean? That's part of the strategy of the global food giants, of course: confuse you with so much noise that you give up trying to make sense of it all.

That's why I wrote this article: to demystify food label claims and give you the low-down on what they really mean. Most of these points will probably surprise you...

#1) "Kosher" does not mean non-GMO

Genetically engineered ingredients are openly allowed in Kosher-certified foods. The Kosher certification does not involve testing for GMOs, and Kosher certifications are routinely found on foods containing GMOs.

#2) "Organic" does not mean low in heavy metals

The USDA certified organic certification process does not test for heavy metals. Foods that are very high in lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and even aluminum are openly allowed to be labeled USDA certified organic.

#3) "Non-GMO" does not mean organic

Just because a food is certified non-GMO doesn't mean it is organic. Even conventionally-raised crops such as corn, soy and canola can be certified non-GMO if they are grown without genetically engineered seeds.

There are several snack chips on the market right now which use non-GMO ingredients grown with chemical pesticides.

#4) "All Natural" doesn't mean anything at all

The phrase "All Natural" is not regulated in any way by the FDA. Any foods, including foods made with artificial colors, chemical sweeteners, chemical preservatives and GMOs, can be labeled "all natural."

"All natural" is the trick used by large food corporations to try to mislead consumers into thinking their junk food products are somehow organic.

#5) "Trans-Fat Free" does not mean free from trans fats

The FDA currently allows foods containing up to 0.5g of trans fats per serving to claim ZERO grams of trans fats per serving.

The FDA, you see, has been completely hijacked by food and drug corporations, and they have convinced the FDA to allow food labels to blatantly lie to consumers about what the food really contains. Everywhere else in the world, 0.5 does not equal zero. Even in high school math class, it's rounded up to one. But at the FDA, 0.5 somehow means zero.

#6) "Non-GMO" does not mean certified non-GMO

There are many foods, superfoods and even nutritional products currently claiming to be "non-GMO" but failing to provide any certification of that status. A company that self-proclaims its products to be "non-GMO" is most likely trying to pull a fast one on you unless it can back up that claim with certification.

Only certified non-GMO means something. The next time you see a label that claims "non-GMO," ask yourself, "Certified by whom?" "Where's the proof?"

#7) "Gluten-free" foods are often GMO

Beware of GMOs in gluten-free foods. Because gluten-free foods are often based on corn, they are usually made with genetically modified corn containing BT toxin, a deadly insecticide.

Avoid gluten-free unless it's also certified non-GMO.

#8) "Organic" foods can still contain a small amount of GMO

GMOs are so widespread that they have now contaminated virtually the entire food supply. Foods that are certified organic can still contain trace levels of GMOs.

How much are they allowed to contain? "there aren't specific tolerance levels in the USDA organic regulations for GMOs," says the USDA. "National Organic Program policy states that trace amounts of GMOs don't automatically mean the farm is in violation of the USDA organic regulations. In these cases, the certifying agent will investigate how the inadvertent presence occurred and recommend how it can be better prevented in the future. For example, they may require a larger buffer zone or more thorough cleaning of a shared grain mill."

Even though certified organic foods can still contain trace levels of GMOs, they are still far healthier for you than conventionally-grown foods, by the way.

#9) "Organic" foods are now being routinely grown in heavily polluted countries such as China

An increasing percentage of "organic" foods, superfoods and raw materials used in nutritional supplements are being imported from China. Natural News has found that these raw materials are consistently higher in heavy metals than competing products grown in North America.

But because they are significantly lower in case, they are being increasingly used in nutritional products or sold at health food stores after being labeled "organic."

Organic certification standards openly allow organic farms in China to grow produce in fields that are heavily polluted with cadmium, lead and mercury. There is no limit on the heavy metals levels in soils used to produce USDA certified organic foods.

#10) The FDA currently has no limit on the amount of heavy metals allowed in foods, either

The FDA does, from time to time, conduct food contaminant tests on imported foods. However, the FDA does not publish or set any official limits on heavy metals in imported foods.

Usually, when the FDA does find metals in foods (such as arsenic in rice), it declares the contaminant "too low to cause short-term health risks" while blatantly ignoring the long-term health risks.

As long as the food is dead and not carrying e.coli or salmonella, there is almost no food too polluted for the FDA.

#11) The use of "organic" ingredients does not automatically make the whole product organic

Some products sold today are being described as "organic" when only a fraction of their ingredients are organic. This does not qualify a product to be called organic.

Unlike the phrase, "all natural," the term "organic" is highly regulated by the federal government and carries a specific meaning. The mere presence of organic ingredients in a product is not sufficient to be able to claim the entire product is organic.

Interestingly, even if ALL the ingredients used in a product are certified organic, the product itself still needs to be separately certified to be accurately called "organic."

By the way, sometimes the cleanest product in a particular category is not the one that's certified organic, as we discovered in our heavy metals tests of chlorella superfoods.

#12) "Low calorie" almost always means it is sweetened with a chemical sweetener

Look on the ingredients labels of "low calorie" foods or beverages, and you'll almost always find sucralose, acesulfame potassium, saccharin, aspartame or other chemical sweeteners. The presence of such chemical sweeteners is almost ubiquitous on foods sporting the "low calorie" label.

And yet "low calorie" does not mean it's healthier for you in any way whatsoever. In fact, low-calorie foods such as diet sodas can still contain extremely damaging ingredients such as phosphoric acid, a potent chemical that can eat away your teeth and bones.

What is the ultimate food, then?

The ultimate commercially-available food would be certified organic, certified non-GMO, grown in your local country, certified Kosher and lab tested to be very low in heavy metals.

But if you just grow it in your own garden, you don't need all those labels and certifications in the first place. You've got real food right from your own yard.

That's why I encourage everyone to grow what you eat and eat what you grow. The answer to pollutants, GMOs, pesticides and heavy metals in foods is found when you get on your knees and put some seeds in the ground.

Everything else in the marketplace -- including quadruple-certified premium food -- is vastly inferior to food you grow yourself.

How do you know you can trust me on this point? Because I sell superfoods and I'm still telling you to grow your own instead. In my vision of a perfect world, the Natural News Store wouldn't even exist because everybody would be growing their own foods and superfoods in their own yards or greenhouses. :-)

SOURCE: http://www.naturalnews.com/042045_food_labels_demystified_certified_organic.html#ixzz2etIJkZKU