Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Friday, June 18, 2010 President Obama is planning to sneak through his job-killing, economy wrecking carbon tax by stealth according to the Washington Post, by passing a weakened bill and then adding in cap and trade provisions after the heat is off following the November elections. Described as the “lame duck climate strategy,” Obama is planning to secure enough votes in the Senate to pass a weakened energy bill and then drag out the conference long enough to ensure the stronger provisions contained in the original House version are added “after lawmakers have faced voters in November, thereby cushioning the vote’s political impact.” “Several sources familiar with the administration’s thinking confirmed it has started pressing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to bring up a slimmed-down energy and climate bill next month. Such a measure would pass more easily than a comprehensive climate bill, and could still be negotiated with the broader bill the House passed a year ago,” reports the Washington Post. Knowing that the “energy bill” represents nothing less than another massive plunder of the American taxpayer and is widely unpopular, Senators will only stab their constituents in the back and vote for the more nightmarish aspects of the legislation, including a tax on the very substance they exhale, after they have secured their seats in November. As we highlighted last week, plans to impose a carbon tax on American citizens appeared to fade after Republican Senator Lindsey Graham shockingly reversed his views on climate change, telling a press conference that the science behind man-made global warming is in question and those pushing it are alarmists who have oversold the problem. “The Senate is expected to try and push a watered down bill with the hope of moving towards a carbon tax later on,” we reported on June 10, which is exactly the approach now being adopted by Obama. The elite are still desperate to impose a consumption tax on Americans as part of the move towards a “post-industrial revolution” and the kind of nightmare “green economy” that has left Spain with a 20 per cent unemployment rate. In a so-called green economy, over 2.2 jobs are lost for every “green job” created. The EPA has been busy floating propaganda about how Obama’s cap and trade legislation would cost Americans an average of $79 to $146 per year. In reality, as we have documented, the stronger provisions of the bill would see around $2.9 trillion shaved off the economy by the year 2050 if enacted. The legislation would also reduce GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930. A carbon tax would impact almost every aspect of Americans’ lives, from higher gas prices, to soaring utility bills, to exorbitant excesses related to the “energy efficiency” of their homes. It would be enforced by an army of environmental regulators and green police poking their noses into the private affairs of citizens. The government has aggressively exploited the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to manufacture an artificial urgency in an effort to speed the passage of cap and trade, an agenda firmly supported by the transnational oil corporations Obama is claiming to be reigning in. British Petroleum is one of the founding members of the cap and trade lobby, and has consistently “lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.” Yesterday, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt invoked the oil spill disaster to justify passage of the carbon tax bill. “The tragedy in the gulf underscores the need to move quickly, and the president is committed to finding the votes for comprehensive energy legislation this year,” said LaBolt. Obama himself even went to the extreme of comparing the oil spill to 9/11, proving that he is perfectly willing to exploit the horror of nearly 3,000 dead Americans in a completely unrelated event nine years ago to underhandedly push his political agenda.
MSNBC host soft-peddled for Bill Ayers, Pentagon bomber, Obama’s colleague, and the man who led an organization that wanted to kill 25 million U.S. citizens who didn’t share their Communist ideology
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Monday, June 14, 2010
Chris Matthews will this week smear millions of politically active Americans as dangerous and violent radicals when he hosts the MSNBC special, “The Rise of the New Right.” However, when terrorist bomber, leader of an organization that wanted to kill 25 million Americans, and the man who helped launch Barack Obama’s political career, Bill Ayers appeared on Matthews’ show, all he got was softball questions and platitudes.
As we reported last week, after obtaining a leaked transcript of the program which will air this Wednesday at 7pm ET from a concerned MSNBC staffer, it became clear that the show’s producers had gone back on their word to make a fair and balanced biography of the growing influence of the anti-big government movement, and in fact had resorted to exercising the same tired old cliches about how anyone who criticizes the federal government is a dangerous radical neo-nazi racist who probably wants to kill people.
MSNBC’s Matthews has made a habit out of portraying Tea Party members, second amendment activists and anyone who is concerned about the growth in government as part of a new frontier of violent extremism.
However, Matthews’ agenda-driven bias against conservative grass roots activists is exposed by a simple comparison of how the MSNBC host characterizes Tea Partiers as violent radicals with how he cosied up and made apologies for communist revolutionary and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, leader of the Weather Underground and the man who helped plan bomb attacks in the 70’s against the Pentagon, the State Department and the Capitol Building.
According to former FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who was assigned to infiltrate the Weather Underground’s Central Committee, the organization run by Ayers carried out the bombings in an attempt to cause the United States government to collapse and open the door for Cuban, North Vietnamese, Chinese and Russian troops to occupy the country. Grathwohl stated that Ayers and his group planned to deal with Americans who would try to resist this takeover by “establishing re-education centers in the south-west”. Asked what he would do with those who still refused to convert to communism, Ayers said that they would have to be “eliminated,” as in 25 million Americans would be killed in concentration camps.
Grathwohl points out that most of the people advocating this brutality had “graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers,” and relates the shock it was to listen to these people “figure out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people – and they were dead serious”.
Watch the clip below.
The most disturbing aspect about Grathwohl’s description of what the Weather Underground planned to do is not the likelihood that they could have achieved such a goal, but that the man who expressed these intentions, Bill Ayers, went on to become an influential elitist with a prominent position inside the American educational hierarchy, and even more alarmingly that he was instrumental in launching the political career of Barack Obama, which we shall come to shortly.
So while Matthews savages anti-big government activists as representing a dangerous threat to America, he concurrently portrays Ayers, a domestic terrorist who bombed government buildings in an attempt to collapse America into a Communist tyranny and butcher 25 million dissenting citizens, as a reasonable, progressive and reformed individual.
Matthews, despite the fact that he could have been killed by one of Ayers’ bombings when he was working as a cop on Capitol Hill, throws softball questions to Ayers throughout the interview and repeatedly seeks common ground with a man who once, according to Grathwohl, expressed his desire to incarcerate and kill Americans who refused to allow Chinese and Soviet troops to occupy the country as part of a communist invasion.
“I agitate my way, you agitate your way,” Matthews tells Ayers.
So this is a man who not only planned and helped to execute bombings against government buildings, but decades later expressed no remorse, said that more bombings should have been carried out, and even hinted that he would consider carrying out acts of terror once again. Matthews defends Ayers while pointing fingers at grass roots Americans and saying that they represent a violent threat.
Contrast MSNBC’s approach to Ayers with the network’s treatment of critics of big government as a whole. Carlos Watson told his viewers that people who called Obama a socialist were racist radicals who in fact were using it as a secret code for the n-word. Dylan Ratigan said that Tea Party organizers wanted to “kill blacks and Jews,” an incendiary smear regurgitated in MSNBC’s upcoming hit piece. MSNBC’s David Shuster attempted to portray anger being expressed by the majority of Americans who opposed the health care bill as some kind of vicious and deadly mass assault, casting Democrat proponents of the legislation as poor victims of a bloodthirsty mob. In reality, while the corporate media and particularly MSNBC has repeatedly claimed that anti-big government activists are dangerous and intent on violence, the only violence dished out during public events has come from maniacal Obama supporters who are loathe to accept anyone exercising their free speech to criticize their dear leader.
Matthews’ cosying up to communist revolutionary Ayers is unsurprising given the fact that the MSNBC host once named communist ideologue Saul Alinsky as one of his heroes. Recall too that Matthews once let slip during a live broadcast that he analyzes politics from a Marxist perspective, stating “I’m Marxist when it comes to analysis”.
His authoritarian bent also came to the fore during a debate in which it was implied that anyone who is skeptical of, or expresses disdain toward, anything the government does is psychologically insane. This harks back to the former Soviet Union, psikhushkas — mental hospitals — which were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. The Soviet state began using mental hospitals to punish dissidents in 1939 under Stalin. The notion that distrust of government is a psychological illness, as Matthews and his guests promoted during this debate, is a hardcore communist statist principle that has only ever been historically applied by the most brutal dictatorships on the planet, and one that is currently employed by Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea.
Despite being an unrepentant domestic terrorist, Ayers has been rewarded by the establishment with an influential position as a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Following his absorption into the ranks of the elite, Ayers was instrumental in helping to launch the political career of Barack H. Obama.
The notion that Ayers, the communist revolutionary and domestic terrorist, was a close friend and confidante of Obama, is not an invention of John McCain or Sarah Palin, it’s a manifestly provable fact. Indeed, as people who dismiss the Ayers-Obama link rightly point out, some of McCain’s top campaign contributors also worked closely with Ayers. However, Obama’s intimate connection with Ayers does not merely stem from the fact that they jointly served on the same board of a Chicago education reform project in 1995, Barack Obama’s political career was launched from Bill Ayers’ own living room.
“In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohr,” reported Politico’s Ben Smith. Again, the corporate media attempted to downplay this controversy when it first appeared in 2008 as a neo-con talking point exaggerated by McCain and Palin. In reality, the fact that the man who wanted to kill millions of Americans who resisted a communist takeover of the country was instrumental in setting Obama on the path to become President was admitted by an Obama-supporting liberal who attended the meeting.
Maria Warren, a liberal activist who attended the infamous Ayers-Obama function, stated plainly that Ayers helped to kick-start Obama’s political career by ingratiating him with the Chicago political elite.
“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread,” wrote Warren.
Imagine if someone like Rand Paul had launched his political career in the living room of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had bombed government buildings. He’d be shot down in an instant. And yet Barack Obama’s political career was launched with the help of domestic terrorist and, according to Larry Grathwohl, would-be mass murderer Bill Ayers, a man who can rely on people like Chris Matthews and the rest of the talking heads at MSNBC to downplay his violent past while claiming that Tea Partiers are the real threat.
The depth of Ayers’ relationship with Obama is revealed by the startling and voluminous indications that suggest Bill Ayers wrote the majority of Obama’s acclaimed 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father.” Writer Jack Cashill has summarized a barrage of evidence that shows the writing style of the book mimics almost entirely that of Ayers. Indeed, author Christopher Andersen subsequently published another book that came to the same conclusion as the argument advanced by Cashill – that the terrorist Ayers significantly contributed to the memoir, dispelling Obama’s claim that he and Ayers merely shared the same neighborhood.
In reality, the implications of Obama’s ties with Ayers, bearing in mind what measures Ayers advocated as part of a violent communist overthrow of the U.S. government, are truly frightening and go beyond the scope of this article. The fact that Ayers has been one of the most frequent visitors to the White House since Obama took residency in the Oval Office only adds to the alarming scope of this story.
What can be succinctly affirmed at this juncture is the fact that while MSNBC and Chris Matthews are busy smearing peaceful Americans as domestic terrorist and radical racists who are a threat to the government and indeed Obama himself, they are concurrently part of a deliberate effort to cover-up and run defense for Bill Ayers, a confirmed domestic terrorist who bombed government buildings before going on to become an influential figure in steering Obama’s path to the White House.
The sheer scale of the hypocrisy exemplified by this comparison renders Matthews’ and MSNBC’s “Rise of the New Right” hit piece a completely agenda-driven and biased smear which should be vehemently debunked on the basis of the network’s shocking efforts to assuage and pacify the outrage surrounding Bill Ayers’ terrorist past and his intimate ties with Barack Obama
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive. Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency. “The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh. The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.” The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks. The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time. “If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh. Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”. As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence. We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away. The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers. Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website. The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.
A monopoly is exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes it possible to manipulate prices. This is accomplished through governmental regulations used to enforce the monopoly. The way to break a monopoly is to remove those laws. This is simple, but not easy in the case of Monsanto, because the roots extend to international, federal, state, and local government regulations. Monopoly owners corner a market by taking control of the resource AND preventing others from using the resource.
The famous robber baron JD Rockefeller refined this method of monopolization with Standard Oil; he created a cartel (an agreement between companies to avoid competition) with the companies he could not buy or force out of business through extraordinarily corrupt business practices. Competition creates a free market; JD Rockefeller is famous for saying, “Competition is a sin.” Of course, the Rockefellers have an enormous stake in biotechnology and the Rockefeller Foundation funded the biology centers and research that led to the creation of GMOs; F. William Engdahl’s book, “Seeds of Destruction”, is highly recommended for the complete details.
This article is intended as a brief sketch to explore the expanse of the roots of Monsanto & understand the machinery of a monopoly, therefore, the science and health issues behind GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be covered in detail. GMOs are created by injecting virus and/ or bacteria into a plant or animal cell, along with the DNA of life forms that would never mate in nature (like spiders and goats).
There is extensive proof that GMOs are detrimental to health.(1) Monsanto’s business practices are corrupt- for example, there have been cases where seed sold as non- GMO were actually contaminated. GMOs are not limited to food; industrial chemicals, plastic and drugs can be grown in plants like corn, and there is an overwhelming chance that you have ingested these chemicals and drugs, if you live in America.(2) Cross pollination is rampant and is an enormous problem, thereby polluting non-GMO farms and endangering America’s food supply. Most Americans are unaware that up to 75% of their daily diet is comprised of GMO food.
This is all part of the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development depopulation program (remember that the Rockefellers have overwhelming influence with the UN). Monsanto promises their seeds are more prolific and can feed more people, but the opposite has often proven to be the truth. The most shocking part of this is that the USDA co-owns a patent, along with Monsanto, on a gene (the Terminator) that can destroy food and be used as a bioweapon.
Monsanto’s monopoly is firmly entrenched within the US government:
1. US Patent Office: this where the problem began, in allowing a patent on life. Monsanto’s seeds are protected under an ‘Intellectual Property’ patent; the seeds are good for one season. When a farmer buys Monsanto seed, he also signs the Technology Agreement that stipulates he may not collect seed and replant it. While the farmer is free to plant any type of seed he wishes, the courts have maintained that farmers are not tied to Monsanto seeds in future seasons. However, it is difficult and costly to stop using Monsanto seed once a farmer has planted it because he may not collect and replant the Monsanto seeds collected after harvest, and must buy all new seeds for the new season. Even if a farmer, having once planted GMO seed, then wishing to switch back, faces the issue of “volunteers” (seeds in the ground from the previous planting) which appear and Monsanto has aggressively sued farmers for patent infringement.(3)
Monsanto is the GMO leader because it has a proprietary patent on the method for creating GMOs, so other companies pay an exorbitant fee to make GMOs.
Monsanto is now patenting non GMO seed as well; this is essentially a patent on nature.(4) Monsanto owns over 20,000 patents
2. FDA (US Food & Drug Administration)*: Many people rely on the FDA to determine the safety of food or a product. The FDA is corrupt, particularly within the realm of GMOs. The only “testing” for safety that is required is for the GMO producer to submit a self authored report on the new GMO’s safety. This fraud was accomplished by Michael Taylor, a lawyer who went to work for the FDA and established the “no testing” policy by reasoning that GMOs are “SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT” to food, and food has already been determined to be safe. However, this is an oxymoron because in order to receive a patent, the new product must be different. Michael Taylor (second cousin to Tipper Gore) is notorious for his “revolving door” employment within the US government and Monsanto- he was recently chosen by Obama as the Deputy Commissioner for foods in the FDA.(6)
GMO seed companies prohibit any testing of their products, by contract, to their buyers.(7)
The FDA has made it illegal to label GMO foods as containing GMOs, as they are GRAS (generally recognized as safe). Some companies, like Whole Foods, are starting to label their products as NO GMOs.
3. *President George HW Bush*, under executive power, mandated the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence of 1992, the same year that Agenda 21 was introduced. This policy requires NO health or safety testing before a GMO product is released into the public.(8)
4. *USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)*: This government body determines whether a plant is safe to grow. GMOs are unsafe to grow; wind, seeds blown from trucks and insect pollination bring GMO pollen and seeds into non-GMO farmland and contaminate the nearby non-GMO farms
Outrageously, the USDA co-owns the patent on the “Terminator Gene”, which means that the seeds have been modified to “commit suicide” after one season, and will not germinate if they are planted in a subsequent season. This technology could potentially wipe out food on the planet in one season. The US government has been funding GMO research since 1983; William Engdahl has said that this will give the owners control of the food seeds over entire regions and nations, when commercialized.
The USDA and the co-owner of the “terminator” patent promised not to commercialize it in 1999, however, in 2001, they signed a commercialization agreement. Seven years later, Monsanto bought out the co-owner and is now partnered with the USDA for the “Terminator” patent. Food can be used as a weapon.(9)
The USDA has also engaged in illegal dispersal of subsidies to Monsanto as well as giving farmers a break on crop insurance premiums if they used Monsanto seeds, which is tantamount to product endorsement.
Remember the USDA is business partners with Monsanto. This is where your tax dollars are going. We are paying for our government to poison us.
5. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency)*: The EPA is responsible for determining the safety of GMOs in the environment. GMOs can withstand more pesticides and herbicides than normal crops, so more of these toxins are used and a resistance to the toxins has occurred. GMO pollen has been proven to be detrimental to certain insects; many believe that the great bee die- off in the US is a result of large quantities of pesticides sprayed on GMO crops plus, some crops have pesticides contained in their the DNA. The EPA often relies on the chemical producer for its research and safety testing.(10)
The EPA is a corrupt agency that continually fails to protect public health: there are over 80,000 chemicals used today, but only a few hundred have been tested for safety.(11)
6. The US Supreme Court* is an agency of the US government, which has usurped untold power. Currently, there is a case in the Supreme Court, to uphold a ban on GMO alfalfa, as GMOs often contaminate nearby farms via cross pollination; a decision is expected this month. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto from 1976 to 1979, but he has failed to disqualify himself due to a direct conflict of interest.
A ban was placed on the GMO alfalfa due to danger of cross contamination (not safety of the food, but whether the plant is safe to grow- the USDA failed to carry out a proper Environmental Impact Study); the prior rulings have been against Monsanto, and this is their 3rd appeal.
Justice Scalia has made remarks that contamination isn’t “the end of the world”. However, it does affect farmers regarding international trade because there are many GMO bans in Europe, and they don’t want GMO crops from the US. A judgement against contamination and in favor of safety would put the USDA’s lack of ethics in preventing contamination in the news and could negate prior lower court decisions that failed to protect non- GMO farmers from contamination. And a ruling in favor of food safety could put the USDA in the news again, connecting the dots of collusion because of their refusal to ban GMOs, in order to protect their own patent on the Terminator Gene. So, given the evidence of governmental complicity in GMO monopolies, incompetence and ignorance, don’t expect the miracle of common sense to prevail in this case.
Incidentally, Elena Kagan, Obama’s candidate for the Supreme Court, sided with Monsanto in the alfalfa case, during the petition period, although it was outside of he jurisdiction as solicitor general.(12)
7. State governments* have also contributed to the monopoly by blocking local bans on GMOs. Mendocino and Marin Counties, in Northern California, banned GMOs in 2004. California’s Central Valley, the nation’s largest produce provider, did not follow the GMO ban. Lobbying from GMO seed producers was intense, as the monopoly became threatened.
The response was that a number of States enacted pre-emptive laws preventing local governments from declaring bans on GMOs within their jurisdictions.(13)
8. Monsanto has a long history of lying, lobbying, bribing and pressuring government scientists and government officers in order to keep their monopoly in place.(14) Monsanto has used very dirty business practices to corner the market on seeds. Within Monsanto contracts there are provisions that mandate the destruction of all Monsanto seeds when a seed company changes ownership: the result is that this makes it very easy for Monsanto buy seed companies cheaply in the bidding process. Another way that Monsanto has eliminated competition is through withholding non GMO seeds from the market. They have also undercut their prices, making their cheaper product appear to be a good deal to farmers. News stories about the detrimental effects of GMOs have also been suppressed, as in the case of some news investigators who got fired from a Fox news investigation over rBHG.
9. US DOJ (Department of Justice)* is currently conducting an investigation regarding anti-trust violations (like the concentration of the seed supply being in the possession of 2 companies), but the investigation seems skewed in the favor of Monsanto as farmers are under-represented and the US interest in the GMO monopoly is deeply rooted. In other words this will be a lightweight investigation.(15)
Maybe the 7 States that are investigating Monsanto’s monopoly on seeds will be more authentic, but I doubt it as DuPont’s complaint against Monsanto accuses them of offering rebates to seed distributors for excluding rival seeds; DuPont offers GMO seeds and is acting in its own interest- this investigation will likely avoid looking into how Monsanto edged out healthy non GMO seeds.(15)
In conclusion, it is undeniable that the our government is deeply complicit in depopulation through food control, especially the USDA’s patent on the Terminator Gene. Frighteningly, amateur garage laboratory scientists and other hobbyists are pursuing new GMO creations on their own, which could have catastrophic results.(16) While this option could break Monsanto’s monopoly, it is certainly not the preferred way to go
The solution is to educate your family, educate friends, and especially educating farmers is crucial. The US government involvement is particularly disturbing, regarding the sterile Terminator Gene and needs to be exposed far and wide. Please share this information with everyone you know, in order to support the growth of organic and non-GMO farming. Source List:
