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