CERN:Unleashing Coming Destruction? Part 3

Location of AtlantisIsrael Inlaid EYE on stone map

Klaus Dona presents some extremely interesting and compelling artifacts, that hold TRUE that the Continent of Atlantis existed and ties to what Edgar Cayce also stated as the location of this “lost civilization”.
IMO-Not lost, but destroyed & transformed from what it once had been due to mans rebellion and greed.

Ugly Truth: Cause of Autism REVEALED! CDC Knew?

Published on Feb 26, 2014–The Alex Jones Channel

After 10 years and 100 FOIA requests, Dr. Brian Hooker has uncovered documentary evidence that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) knew of the link between Thimerosal in vaccines and the exponential increase in autism.
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.infowars.net/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv

What is Thimerosal and how long has it been used on the American people?

Per CDC web site…

What is thimerosal?

Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative that has been used for decades in the United States in multi-dose vials (vials containing more than one dose) of some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs, bacteria and fungi, that can contaminate them.

What are preservatives and why are they sometimes used in vaccines?

What we are told, do you believe them?

Preservatives have been used in vaccines for more than 70 years  (1920’s but put to use around 1944 when “Operation Paper Clip” Nazi’s came to the USA!! understand this yet?) and are added to vaccines to prevent the growth of bacteria or fungi that could possibly make the vaccine in multi-dose vials unsafe. This may occur when a syringe needle enters a vial as a vaccine is being prepared for administration. Contamination by germs in a vaccine could cause serious infections.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

====================

Banned around the world, but not in the United States!! WHY is this?

Per Natural News and Scientific Discoveries:

The great thimerosal cover-up: Mercury, vaccines, autism and your child’s health

Thursday, September 22, 2005 by: Dawn Prate

Tags: thimerosal, mercury, autism

Thimerosal

Thimerosal is the preservative of choice for vaccine manufacturers. First introduced by Eli Lilly and Company in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the company began selling it as a preservative in vaccines in the 1940s. Thimerosal contains 49.6 percent mercury by weight and is metabolized or degraded into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Mercury, or more precisely, ethylmercury, is the principle agent that kills contaminants. Unfortunately, mercury also kills much more than that.

The Department of Defense classifies mercury as a hazardous material that could cause death if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Studies indicate that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines. Mercury poisoning has been linked to cardiovascular disease, autism, seizures, mental retardation, hyperactivity, dyslexia and many other nervous system conditions. That’s why the FDA rigorously limits exposure to mercury in foods and drugs. Some common sources of mercury include dental amalgam fillings, various vaccines and certain fish contaminated by polluted ocean waters.

The toxicity of mercury has never been in question. The real question is precisely how much mercury-laced thimerosal is toxic, and what are the possible consequences for our children at low doses?

Eli Lilly and Co. supposedly answered this question for us back in 1930. Concluding thimerosal to be of “a very low order of toxicity . . . for man,” the company hired its own doctors to perform thimerosal experiments in Indianapolis City Hospital on meningitis patients during a severe outbreak in 1929. This 60-year-old evidence was still quoted on the company’s brochures as recently as 1990. Andrew Waters, who is involved in a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, claims that most critical studies on the toxicity of thimerosal were suppressed by the company until now.

~~~~~

anuk1

Lisa’s Thoughts in a nutshell:
On a personal note and personal observance several years ago, I bear witness to the FACT that one of our grand daughters who received her first “shots’ at about 1 yr old. Almost immediately after returning home,  this poor child ran a high fever, was distraught, inconsolable for at least 18 hours after injection was given.  We took turns walking the floor holding her, trying everything to comfort her, nothing worked, calle dthe doctor who said give her med’s for the fever–which we gave her– She finally fell asleep from exhaustion. It was a few days later that she appeared to be a “normal” happy seeming child again. Motor skills seemed sluggish afterwards, where before they were not.
Hind sight…woulda, shoulda, coulda really rips the heart out at times.
I warned and advised my son and daugher-in-law NOT to take their children in for these shots, but sadly this advice was not taken seriously. Now this same child has been diagnosed as Autistic.
YES, like good concerned parents who were BLIND and STUPID at the time, we made sure our children got those so-called “necessary vaccines” when they were due, much to our sorrow and regret today!
Further Experience of note: We lived in San Diego, CA  1980’s-1990’s, and while there, we had one son who was classified at 7 yrs old as ADHD, doctor prescribed Ritalin (Enter in Big Pharma) and the boy’s behavior worsened at home, but was better at school, so we made sure he took his “meds” so he would be able to stay in “conform” to public school and “learn”.  Interesting enough, From Natural news link below, “In one school in San Diego, 65 percent of fifth graders had been diagnosed with ADD and put on medications. Even “normal” kids are subject to random drugging so they act like the adults in charge of them want them to… dull, placid, and compliant.”

At the age of 16, his behavior steadily got so bad, we took him to a psychologist (Enter in the BIG business of the Freudian-setting American’s up as all “mental cases” to take our rights away)  where we were told that he was NOT ADHD, but was “Bi-Polar” and that Ritalin was the worse thing to give a “Bi-Polar” child, that it would create violent mood swings, and as if that was not enough, the legal & justice system is standing by with their corrupt lawyers, bogus laws, bogus fines, bogus sentencing, and /or jail & prison, a SYSTEM which create a case file on a person that is NEVER to be forgotten or forgiven by the powers that keep these records, so that it follows a person their WHOLE LIFE.

30+ years later, WE FINALLY UNDERSTOOD.

I personally believe to the core of my soul,  that the absolutely overwhelming numbers of MENTAL ILLNESS, be it Bi-Polar, ADHD,  Compulsive Disorders, Defiant Disorders, etc…are DIRECTLY related to THESE SAME TYPE of so called  “INOCULATIONS” which damage the “wiring to” the human brain, then add Fluoride and all the other “Gov approved preservatives” by this corrupt shadow government and it becomes pretty clear what is going on.
This great EVIL has put its MARK on what might have been a good thing to prevent disease, but as documentation plainly states, they have consistently taken “the good” over,  and use it to their advantage in order to HARM our children to further their Luciferian agenda.
Be WISER than the serpent, PLEASE, research before giving your child these injections. Once they are given, there is no REVERSING this process, the brain damage is done.
Peace and discernment to all
Lisa
================================
Related Links:

Per UN, 2010: Year of Biodiversity? Is “ALL Human Activity causing Diversity of Life on Earth to be lost’?

WE are being told that, “Biodiversity is threatened by the sum of all human activities. It is useful to group threats into the categories of over-hunting, habitat destruction, invasion of non-native species, domino effects, pollution, and climate change.”


  • “Habitat loss presents the single greatest threat to world biodiversity, and the magnitude of this threat can be approximated from species-area curves and rates of habitat loss. The spread of non-native species threatens many local species with extinction, and pushes the world’s biota toward a more homogeneous and widely distributed sub-set of survivors. Climate change threatens to force species and ecosystems to migrate toward higher latitudes, with no guarantee of suitable habitat or access routes. These three factors thus are of special concern.”

Okay, I agree to an extent of what The Powers That Be are saying, BUT, the solution is to rein in the WEALTHY  TOP Corporations and STOP THEM from polluting our environment, Stop out-sourcing of American Jobs without raising the import fees, STOP THEM from creating all these NEW strains of VIRUSES, STOP THEM from bypassing laws and regulations that WE,  the ‘Little People”,  have to OBEY  or else pay the price. That would take care of the bulk of the problems, the rest would soon fall in place IMO.

And as Jim commented below, the best solution would be to remove the USA from any and ALL FINANCIAL dealings with the UN and it’s splinter groups,  before they figure out a way to totally destroy what is left of our Constitutional Rights!

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/biodiversity/biodiversity.html

UN Designates 2010 International Year of Biodiversity

Malaysia Sun
Saturday 2nd January, 2010

In a bid to curb the unprecedented loss of the world’s species due to human activity, at a rate some experts put at 1,000 times the natural progression, the United Nations is marking 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity, with a slew of events highlighting the vital role the phenomenon plays in maintaining the life support system on Planet Earth.

“Humans are part of nature’s rich diversity and have the power to protect or destroy it,” the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which is hosted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said in summarizing the Year’s main message, with its focus on raising awareness to generate public pressure for action by the world’s decision makers.

“Biodiversity, the variety of life on Earth, is essential to sustaining the living networks and systems that provide us all with health, wealth, food, fuel and the vital services our lives depend on.

“Human activity is causing the diversity of life on Earth to be lost at a greatly accelerated rate.”

These losses are irreversible, impoverish us all and damage the life support systems we rely on every day. But we can prevent them.”

The Convention, which opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, AGENDA 21, entered into force at the end of 1993 and now has 193 Parties, is based on the premise that the world’s diverse ecosystems purify the air and the water that are the basis of life, stabilize and moderate the Earth’s climate, renew soil fertility, cycle nutrients and pollinate plants.

As a former UNEP Executive Director, Klaus Topfer, put it: “If any part of the web suffers breaks down, the future of life on the planet will be at risk.” That is why the UN General Assembly proclaimed 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity.

Although initial celebrations began in November under the slogan Biodiversity is life, biodiversity is our life,” the official launch will take place in Berlin on 11 January. This will be followed on 21 and 22 January by the first major event of the Year, a high-profile meeting at the Paris headquarters of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which is expected to bring together heads of state, royalty and their representatives.

A host of other events – meetings, symposia, multi-media exhibitions – will follow throughout the year in venues around world, from Trondheim, Norway, to Delhi, India, from Doha, Qatar, to Cartagena, Colombia, and from Shanghai, China, to Nairobi, Kenya, culminating in a high-level meeting at UN Headquarters in New York at the start of the General Assembly’s 65th annual General Debate in September and an official closing in Kanazawa, Japan, in December.

“A wide variety of environmental goods and services that we take for granted are under threat, with profound and damaging consequences for ecosystems, economies and livelihoods,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in November at the start of the pre-celebrations.

“In this International Year, we must counter the perception that people are disconnected from our natural environment. We must increase understanding of the implications of losing biodiversity. In 2010, I call on every country and each citizen of our planet to engage in a global alliance to protect life on Earth.”

The Montreal-based CBD Secretariat likewise stresses the urgency in raising public awareness of the importance of biodiversity and the consequences of its loss.

“The goal for raising awareness of these issues is to generate public pressure for action by decision makers, and to create the conditions for governments, individuals and other important sectors, to be encouraged to implement the Convention and to engage with other international and national institutions, towards achieving the goals of the Convention.”

The Convention covers all ecosystems, species, and genetic resources, linking traditional conservation efforts to the economic goal of using biological resources sustainably, setting principles for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources, notably for commercial use and covering the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology, and addressing technology development and transfer, benefit-sharing and biosafety.

While recognizing that ecosystems, species and genes must be used for the benefit of humans, the Convention stipulates that this must be done in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of diversity.

It offers decision-makers guidance based on the precautionary principle that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat. It acknowledges that substantial investment is required to conserve diversity, but argues that conservation will bring significant environmental, economic and social benefits in return.

Looking at the economic costs of action or inaction, a recent

UN-backed The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study estimated loss of natural capital due to deforestation and degradation at between $2 trillion and $4.5 trillion every year – “a staggering economic cost of taking nature for granted.

“It is estimated that for an annual investment of $45 billion into protected areas alone, we could secure the delivery of ecosystem services worth some $5 trillion a year, it said. When compared to current financial losses on the markets, this is not a big price to pay. Sound ecosystem and biodiversity management, and the inclusion of Natural Capital in governmental and business accounting can start to redress inaction and reduce the cost of future losses.”

http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/584163/cs/1/

Alex Jones on the UN

Savage on the UN

===================================================================

Concepts of Biodiversity

The sequel to that first biodiversity book, naturally titled Biodiversity II (Reaka-Kudla et al. 1997), documents the rapid rise of the term “biodiversity” in importance and influence. But it also traces the study of aspects of biodiversity back as far as Aristotle. To some extent, biodiversity merely offers a new, emotive, term for some older ideas and programs. In fact, “biodiversity” is now used sometimes to mean “life” or “wilderness” or other conservation values. “Biodiversity” also has served on occasion as a catch-all for “conservation” itself.

The scientific literature illustrates how most any conservation activity might use the label “biodiversity”. On the one hand, workers taking advantage of the acknowledged importance of the term have expanded its meaning to capture concerns at a fine scale, such as that focussing on a favourite single species. This focus might be referred to more accurately as one of “biospecifics”. At the coarser scale, one important interpretation, discussed below, advocates a primary linkage of biodiversity to the maintenance of ecosystem processes — what might be called the “bio-processes” approach.

The nub of the problem of defining biodiversity is that it is hard to exclude anything from a concept that is taken so easily to mean “everything”. Sarkar (2005) has argued that interpreting biodiversity across all biological levels, from genes to ecosystems, amounts to considering all biological entities, so that biodiversity absurdly “becomes all of biology”.

Callicott et al. (1999) examined “biodiversity” as one of the current normative concepts in conservation. They concluded that it remains ill-defined, and that distinctions can be made between “functional” and “compositional” perspectives in approaching biodiversity. “Functional” refers to a primarily concern with ecosystem and evolutionary processes, while “compositional” sees organisms as aggregated into populations, species, higher taxa, communities, and other categories. Callicott et al. call for a better integration of these different perspectives, an issue discussed below in the section on Integrating Process and Elements Perspectives.

Norton (1994) has argued that there will never be a single “objective scientific definition” of biodiversity, in the sense of a prescription for how to measure it. In fact, Norton claims that any increase in our understanding of biodiversity will make it less likely that there will be a single objective measure. This biodiversity pluralism is based on an argument that inevitably there are many different “theory bound” versions of biodiversity and many different ways to value it. This perspective is in accord with recognition of functional-compositional perspectives on biodiversity. For example, Norton (1994; 2001) points to recent emphasis on structure and process regarding ecological “health” or “integrity” that is seen as going beyond a conventional elements-oriented perspective for biodiversity. One cannot aggregate all these different versions of biodiversity. Instead, we are to “describe in ways appropriate given certain purposes” and the choice among these different biodiversity “models” will depend on what values are important to the decision-maker.

This perspective is characterized as “post-positivist” because it recognizes biodiversity as inevitably value-laden — there is no one, correct, measure of biodiversity to be discovered but many, each having different values. Roebuck and Phifer (1999) lament what they perceive as current “positivism” in biodiversity conservation, described by them as based variously on processes of verificationism and falsificationism in seeking facts. They argue that biodiversity conservation is rooted primarily in ethics and we must not continue to back away from values and advocacy.

The idea that the choice of a measure of biodiversity depends on values finds support in Sarkar (2005). He argues that biodiversity operationally amounts to whatever is the valued target of conservation priority setting for different localities.

Biodiversity may be a catch-all for various aspects of conservation, but the fresh perspectives arising from recognition of “biodiversity” suggest possible unifying concepts. E. O. Wilson (1988) sees “biodiversity” as corresponding to a dramatic transformation for biologists from a “bits and pieces” approach to a much more holistic approach. Wilson describes this change in perspective as a realization that biological diversity is disappearing and, unlike other threatened things, is irreversible. Wrapped up in the term therefore is the idea of a “biodiversity crisis”. Ehrenfeld (1988) similarly reinforces this idea of the value of diversity in the aggregate. He argues that diversity previously was never regarded in itself to be in danger, but that biodiversity now is recognised as endangered in its own right. Wrapped up in the term therefore is the idea of a “biodiversity crisis”. While the case for such a crisis itself raises debates about measures and definitions (see Sarkar, 2005), the definition of “biodiversity” sometimes explicitly reflects these links to an extinction crisis. Takacs (1996) reviews cases where the definition of biodiversity is wrapped up in the idea of strategies needed to preserve variation. In accord with this perspective is a shift to a focus on valuing ecosystem processes. This focus arguably will ensure maintenance and ongoing evolution of these systems, and therefore all of biodiversity.

Holistic perspectives on biodiversity have emerged also through another important focus. For Wilson (1988), biodiversity captures the idea of a “frontier of the future”, presenting a dazzling prospect of largely unknown variety, with unanticipated uses. Biodiversity is seen by many as a symbol for our lack of knowledge about the components of life’s variation, and their importance to humankind (see Takacs 1996). These arguments suggest that core biodiversity values might be based more on what we do not know than what we do know. Biodiversity can be viewed as primarily capturing the two-fold challenge of unknown variety, having unknown value.

Anticipated future uses and values of the unknown are captured in the idea of “option values” (for definitions, see World Conservation Union 1980). A species, or other element of biodiversity, has option value when its continued existence retains the possibility of future uses and benefits. Option value corresponds not just to unknown future values of known species, but also to the unknown values of unknown species (or other components of variation). This concept is at the core of biodiversity because it links “variation” and “value”. Estimating and quantifying the largely unknown variation that makes up biodiversity is one and the same as quantifying corresponding option values of biodiversity. According to this emphasis, a basic definition of biodiversity might be expanded as: the variety of all forms of life, from the scale of genes through to species and ecosystems …so forming a “calculus” — a means for measurement and comparison — of option values.

From Species Values to Biodiversity Values

2.1 Species Values and Triage

In developing ideas about the overall value of biodiversity it has been natural to draw on existing arguments about values of individual species (for review, see World Conservation Union 1980; Norton 1988). Commodity value and other direct use values have intuitive appeal because they reflect known values. But a key problem is that species need to be preserved for reasons other than any known value as resources for human use (Sober 1986). Callicott (1986) discusses philosophical arguments regarding non-utilitarian value and concludes that there is no easy argument to be made except a moral one. Species have some “intrinsic value” — reflecting the idea that a species has a value “in and for itself” (Callicott 1986, p.140) — and there is an ethical obligation to protect biodiversity.

A philosophical issue is whether such species values depend on a human-centered perspective. The environmental ethics entry notes that assessments of issues concerned with biodiversity allow for “commitment either to a purely anthropocentric or purely non-anthropocentric ethic”. Regan (1986) argues that we need “duties that are independent of out changeable needs and preferences.” Callicott (1986) sees the intrinsic value of species as not independent of human values, because such values can be linked to Hume’s theory of moral values. Norton (1986) sees all species as collectively embraced by an environmental ethic that is anthropocentric.

Randall (1988, p. 218) has argued that preference is the basis for value and that it is possible to treat all species values as preferences of humans. Preferences-based approaches to valuation can provide economic (dollar) estimates of value. This valuation process may include methods for assessing and quantifying option values. A claimed advantage of such approaches is that the only good way to protect species is to place an economic value on them. Randall argues that such quantification is advantageous because the species preservation option will fare well when the full range of values is included in conservation priority setting.

The context for many of these arguments has been a consideration of various criteria for placing priorities among species for conservation efforts. These considerations have led to debates about the role of “triage” based on species prioritization. Triage recalls the medical context in which priorities are set for investments in saving patients. Applied to conservation, individual species are differentially valued and assessed relative to differential opportunity costs. The best conservation package is to be found through a process of calculating costs and benefits of protection of individual species.

2.2 Species as Equal Units and SMS

Many biologists have rejected the idea of triage and argue that we must try to save all species (Takacs 1996). Philosophical issues arise in the debate as to whether biodiversity should be approached through the process of differentially valuing species, so that choices could be made in the face of a budget, or regarding species as the fundamental unit and trying to protect them all. The latter option is arguably more holistic and in accord with a focus on all of biodiversity (the individual species focus is sometimes viewed as the first of three phases of growth in biological resources assessment; see the section on The Shift from Elements to Processes).

If one nominated a “prequel” to Biodiversity (1988) it might be The Preservation of Species (Norton 1986). The title suggests a species focus, but the book’s subtitle refers to biological diversity. This book documents an attempt to move from values of species to some overall value of biodiversity, rejecting typical triage arguments based on benefits versus costs for individual species. Here, Norton criticizes the benefit — cost” approaches as piecemeal because every species must exhibit actual or potential use to justify itself. He argues that every species arguably has utilitarian value and that species perceived values are hard to estimate. For this reason, trying to place dollar values is “doomed to failure” (1986, p. 202). Norton concludes that we can’t try to sum up values (in accord with his general advocacy of no aggregation of biodiversity values). It is argued that we should abandon the “divide and conquer” approach and look at total diversity, with species as a unit: “each species in an area can be viewed as a unit of total diversity.” Ehrenfeld’s (1988) position is even more sharply defined: “value is an intrinsic part of biodiversity; it does not depend on the properties of the species in question.”

Alternatives to Unit-species

We can recognize two alternatives to the use of species as equal-weight units for an SMS. One of these (see the section on The Shift from Elements to Processes) consciously moves further away from units or items of any kind. Here, the valuation of species is seen as problematic, with arbitrary solutions. Valuation is to encompass all of biodiversity but through a functional perspective, shifting the focus to ecosystems processes (Norton 1994, 2001).

The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has a major campaign to address the 2010 target, based on mobilising extensive museum species collections data to form the biodiversity calculus needed for exploring trade-offs and synergies in different regions [see GBIF 2010 Campaign]http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/biota/Archive_2010target/8217.htm

Conclusion

Despite a wide range of usage, biodiversity remains a concept strongly linked to the idea of biological variation that is largely unknown in its extent, and its future values. Any “calculus” of biodiversity providing quantitative estimates of this unknown variation automatically provides at the same time a measure of those values that link to the need to maintain variety — option values and intrinsic values. Such values broadly reflect values of elements of biodiversity having unknown present value. These quantified values typically will not be in conventional units (e.g. dollars), but nevertheless can be balanced with other values of society. Decision making (for example, deciding whether we should invest in conservation of area A or area B) may require only estimates of relative gains in represented variation offered by different places (their “complementarity” values). Complementarity helps integrate biodiversity option values with other values attributed to biodiversity, and with values of society more generally. This integrative process, together with processes for the growth of knowledge about components of biodiversity, provide an alternative to the “post-positivism” perspective that sees biodiversity conservation as predominantly value-laden.

The perspective that biodiversity reflects option and intrinsic values, to be balanced with other values, appears to be compatible with the broader discipline of conservation biology: “the field is rooted in a philosophy of stewardship rather than one of utilitarianism or consumption. The latter has been the basis of traditional resource conservation, that is, conserving resources solely for their economic use and human consumption” (Meffe 2000).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biodiversity/

————————————————————————————————

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said more must be done to repair damage done in the Gaza Strip by Israeli military action one year ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8431652.stm

————————————————————————————–

The Natural Capital Institute serves the people who are transforming the world.

The Natural Capital Institute serves the people who are transforming the world. We are a team of researchers, teachers, students, activists, scholars, writers, social entrepreneurs, artists, and volunteers committed to the restoration of the earth and the healing of human culture. We do two things: we describe pathways of change in books and research reports, and we create tools for connecting the individuals, information, and organizations that create change.

Researching the world’s non-governmental-organizations working in the field of Clean Water and Sanitation. We created a database of direct-effect organizations, and identified key leverage opportunities for grantmaking foundations and concerned individuals. http://www.naturalcapital.org/pastprojects.htm

“An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy–or worse.”

Bill Moyers (Member of Bilderberg Group)

WiserEarth promotes social change by empowering the largest and fastest growing movement in the world—the hundreds of thousands of organizations within civil society that address social justice, poverty, and the environment. WiserEarth is a commercial free, community-editable site that provides tools to help these organizations find each other, collaborate, share resources and build alliances.

  • Contains the most extensive international directory of more than 100,000 organizations based in 243 countries, sovereign islands, and territories, including contact details, geographic maps, areas of interest, and mission statements.

“Historically social movements have arisen primarily because of injustice, inequities, and corruption. Those woes remain legion but a new condition exists that has no precedent: the planet has a life threatening disease that is marked by massive ecological degradation and rapid climate change.”

http://www.naturalcapital.org/wiserearth.htm

http://www.naturalcapital.org/

http://www.gaiamind.com/Teilhard.html

—————————————————————————————————–

At the meeting of the environment ministers of the G8 countries and the five major newly industrializing countries that took place in Potsdam in March 2007, the German government proposed a study on ‘The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity’ as part of the so-called ‘Potsdam Initiative’ for biodiversity.

The following wording was agreed at Potsdam: ‘In a global study we will initiate the process of analysing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation.’

This proposal was endorsed by G8+5 leaders at the Heiligendamm Summit on 6-8 June 2007.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/

———————————————————————————————

Possible Related Posts:

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/bilderbergers-creating-a-new-world-order-or-completing-work-of-the-ages/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/usda-now-in-the-tree-and-biofuel-business-property-owners-pay-attention/

Bilderbergers: Creating a New World Order or completing “Work of the Ages”?

“All this chaos, genocide, ethnic cleansing and the overall disasters have a genuine purpose. It is all very carefully planned by a few people, mostly men,  behind the scenes, high up in the society, above any power structure that the ordinary citizen is aware of. It is a modern extension of an old theme to “take over the world”. To those people, power, control and wealth is their true religion and they use any means they can to maintain their power and control, including murder and genocide.

These people on top, who basically claim to be of “royal bloodlines” (Kenites-Sons of Cain via Satan & Eve), are currently working on reducing the world population in order to easier maintain their control, and ultimately the strive towards a centralization of power, a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.

This is a very old plan; something the same bloodlines have been working towards for millennia. However, now is the time when they have the means to accomplish their goal and fulfill the “Work of the Ages”. They see us citizens as inferior and are dehumanizing us in their own minds to the extent that they don’t care if we live or if we die. In a future Global Society, if they manage to accomplish this to its full extent, you and I will be no more than slaves, whom they can kill and treat as they want anytime they want.

Many people call this the New World Order, but it is really an Old World Order which is now about to be fully accomplished, unless we do something about it.”–Wes Penre, Illuminati News

JFK WARNED US and died for it!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Interview was conducted on March of 2007 where Brzezinski (Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisor) openly discusses and jokes about his affiliation with these globalist think tanks.

The Bilderberg group and their secret and not so secret meetings have all had one main objective – how to reduce the number of human beings on the planet. These New World Order elitist scumbags are dictating who has the right to live and who doesn’t.

=========================================================

Who are/were members of the Bilderberg Group?

Josef Ackermann Business 7-Feb-1948 CEO of Deutsche Bank
Umberto Agnelli Business 1-Nov-1934 27-May-2004 Chairman of Fiat, 2003-04
Fouad Ajami Author 9-Sep-1945 Director of Middle East Studies, SAIS
Paul Allaire Business 21-Jul-1938 Twice CEO of Xerox
Graham T. Allison Scholar 23-Mar-1940 Kennedy School of Government
Joaquin Almunia Politician 17-Jun-1948 EU Economic Affairs Commissioner
Roger C. Altman Business c. 1945 CEO of Evercore Partners
Ed Balls Politician 25-Feb-1967 British MP, Normanton
Robert L. Bartley Editor 12-Oct-1937 10-Dec-2003 Editor of the Wall Street Journal, 1979-2003
Evan Bayh Politician 26-Dec-1955 US Senator from Indiana
Queen Beatrix I Royalty 31-Jan-1938 Queen of the Netherlands
Ben Bernanke Economist 13-Dec-1953 Federal Reserve Chairman
Prince Bernhard Royalty 29-Jun-1911 1-Dec-2004 Prince of the Netherlands
Carl Bildt Head of State 15-Jul-1949 Foreign Minister of Sweden
Conrad Black Business 25-Aug-1944 Rapacious newspaper mogul
Charles G. Boyd Military 15-Apr-1938 Retired General, US Air Force
John Browne Business 20-Feb-1948 CEO of British Petroleum, 1995-2007
John H. Bryan Business 5-Oct-1936 CEO of Sara Lee, 1975-2000
William F. Buckley Columnist 24-Nov-1925 27-Feb-2008 National Review
William Bundy Government 24-Sep-1917 6-Oct-2000 Cold War advisor to JFK, LBJ
Peter Carington Government 6-Jun-1919 UK Foreign Secretary, 1979-82
Henri de Castries Business c. 1954 CEO of AXA
Ahmed Chalabi Government 30-Oct-1944 Prominent on the Iraqi Provisional Council
Raymond Chrétien Diplomat 20-May-1942 Canadian Ambassador to the US, 1995-2000
W. Edmund Clark Business c. 1947 CEO of Toronto Dominion Bank
Kenneth Clarke Politician 2-Jul-1940 Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1993-97
Bill Clinton Head of State 19-Aug-1946 42nd US President, 1993-2001
Marshall A. Cohen Business c. 1935 CEO of Molson, 1988-96
Timothy C. Collins Business c. 1956 Private equity, Ripplewood Holdings
Bertrand P. Collomb Business c. 1943 CEO of Lafarge SA, 1987-2003
Jon Corzine Politician 1-Jan-1947 Governor of New Jersey
Chester A. Crocker Government 29-Oct-1941 Asst. Secy. State, African Affairs, 1981-89
Claes Dahlbäck Business c. 1948 CEO of Investor AB, 1978-99
Tom Daschle Politician 9-Dec-1947 US Senator from South Dakota, 1987-2005
Paul G. Desmarais, Jr. Business 3-Jul-1954 Co-CEO of Power Corporation of Canada
John Deutch Government 27-Jul-1938 CIA Director, 1995-96
Chris Dodd Politician 27-May-1944 US Senator from Connecticut
Thomas E. Donilon Attorney c. 1955 O’Melvany and Myers
Esther Dyson Business 14-Jul-1951 EDventure Holdings, former ICANN director
Murray Edwards Business c. 1959 Canadian Natural Resources
Martha J. Farah Psychologist c. 1955 Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, UPenn
Dianne Feinstein Politician 22-Jun-1933 US Senator from California
Martin Feldstein Economist 25-Nov-1939 Reagan economist
Anthony S. Fell Business c. 1941 Chairman, RBC Capital Markets
Harold Ford Politician 11-May-1970 Congressman from Tennessee, 1997-2007
Stephen Friedman Business 21-Dec-1937 Former Partner, Goldman Sachs
Thomas Friedman Journalist 20-Jul-1953 New York Times
Melinda Gates Philanthropist 15-Aug-1964 Married to Bill Gates
Timothy F. Geithner Government 18-Aug-1961 US Secretary of the Treasury
David Gergen Columnist 9-May-1942 Advisor to Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton
Paul Gigot Columnist 1955 Wall Street Journal columnist
Donald E. Graham Journalist 22-Apr-1945 Washington Post CEO
Katharine Graham Publisher 16-Jun-1917 17-Jul-2001 Washington Post publisher, 1966-79
Richard Haass Government 1951 President, Council on Foreign Relations
Chuck Hagel Politician 4-Oct-1946 US Senator from Nebraska
Richard C. Holbrooke Diplomat 24-Apr-1941 US Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan
Allan Hubbard Economist 8-Sep-1947 George W. Bush economist
Kenneth Jacobs Business c. 1958 CEO of Lazard North America
Merit E. Janow Educator 13-May-1958 Professor of Int’l Affairs, Columbia University
Peter Jennings Journalist 29-Jul-1938 7-Aug-2005 Former anchor, ABC World News Tonight
James A. Johnson Business 24-Dec-1943 CEO of Fannie Mae, 1991-98
J. Bennett Johnston Politician 10-Jun-1932 US Senator from Louisiana, 1972-97
Vernon Jordan Business 15-Aug-1935 Advisor to Bill Clinton
Muhtar Kent Business c. 1952 CEO of Coca-Cola
Henry Kissinger Government 27-May-1923 US Secretary of State, 1973-77
Klaus Kleinfeld Business 6-Nov-1957 President and COO of Alcoa
Andrew S. B. Knight Journalist 1-Nov-1939 Editor of The Economist, 1974-86
Henry Kravis Business 6-Jan-1944 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Marie-Josée Kravis Economist 11-Sep-1949 President of MoMA
Bill Kristol Columnist 23-Dec-1952 Editor of The Weekly Standard
Neelie Kroes Government 19-Jul-1941 EU Commissioner of Competition
Jan Leschly Business ? CEO of SmithKline Beecham, 1994-2000
William J. Luti Military c. 1952 NSC Defense Policy Adviser
Peter Mandelson Politician 21-Oct-1953 EU Commissioner for Trade
Jessica Tuchman Mathews Government 1946 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Charles Mathias Politician 24-Jul-1922 US Senator from Maryland, 1969-87
Charlie McCreevy Politician 30-Sep-1948 EU Commissioner, Internal Market and Services
William J. McDonough Business c. 1934 President of New York Fed, 1993-2003
Frank J. McKenna Politician 19-Jan-1948 Canadian Ambassador to the US, 2005-06
Tom McKillop Business 19-Mar-1943 Chairman, Royal Bank of Scotland
George J. Mitchell Politician 20-Aug-1933 US Middle East Envoy
Bill Moyers Journalist 6-Jun-1934 NOW with Bill Moyers
Craig Mundie Business c. 1949 CTO of Microsoft
George Pataki Politician 24-Jun-1945 Governor of New York, 1995-2006
Henry M. Paulson Business 28-Mar-1946 US Secretary of the Treasury
Frank H. Pearl Business c. 1943 CEO of Perseus LLC
Richard Perle Government 16-Sep-1941 Prince of Darkness
Fredrik Reinfeldt Head of State 4-Aug-1965 Prime Minister of Sweden
Bill Richardson Politician 15-Nov-1947 Governor of New Mexico
Rozanne L. Ridgway Diplomat 22-Aug-1935 Asst. Secy. of State for Europe, 1985-89
Don Riegle Politician 4-Feb-1938 US Senator from Michigan, 1976-95
David Rockefeller Business 12-Jun-1915 Founder of the Trilateral Commission
Charlie Rose Talk Show Host 5-Jan-1942 Charlie Rose Show
Dennis B. Ross Diplomat c. 1949 US Middle East Envoy, 1992-2000
Lynn Forester de Rothschild Business 2-Jul-1954 Telecom executive
Barnett R. Rubin Educator c. 1950 The Fragmentation of Afghanistan
Mark Sanford Politician 28-May-1960 Governor of South Carolina
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Politician 3-Apr-1948 NATO Secretary General, 2004-09
Eric Schmidt Business 1955 CEO of Google
Kathleen Sebelius Politician 15-May-1948 Governor of Kansas
John Shad Government 27-Jun-1923 Jul-1994 SEC Chairman, 1981-87
Robert B. Shapiro Business 4-Aug-1938 CEO of Monsanto, 1995-2000
George Shultz Government 13-Dec-1920 US Secretary of State, 1982-89
George Soros Business 12-Aug-1930 Hungarian financial speculator
Lesley Stahl Journalist 16-Dec-1941 60 Minutes
James B. Steinberg Government c. 1951 Deputy National Security Advisor, 1997-2001
Dennis Stevenson Business 19-Jul-1945 Chairman of HBOS
Lawrence H. Summers Economist 30-Nov-1954 US Treasury Secretary, 1999-2001
Peter Sutherland Government 25-Apr-1946 First Director General of the WTO
Peter Thiel Business 1967 Co-Founder of PayPal
Jean-Claude Trichet Business 20-Dec-1942 President, European Central Bank
Sanam Vakil Educator ? Mideast Scholar, SAIS
John Vinocur Journalist ? International Herald Tribune correspondent
Vin Weber Politician 24-Jul-1952 Congressman from Minnesota, 1981-93
John C. Whitehead Business 1922 US Deputy Secretary of State, 1985-89
Michael H. Wilson Politician 4-Nov-1937 Canadian Ambassador to the US
James Wolfensohn Business 1-Dec-1933 World Bank president, 1995-2005
Paul Wolfowitz Government 22-Dec-1943 President of the World Bank, 2005-07
Daniel Yergin Author 6-Feb-1947 The Prize
Robert Zoellick Government 25-Jul-1953 World Bank president

======================================================================

Governor of Texas, Rick Perry off to secret forum in Turkey

12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, May 31, 2007

By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News
choppe@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul, Turkey, today to speak at the super-secret Bilderberg Conference, a meeting of about 130 international leaders in business, media and politics.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/310507rickperry.htm

============================================

Related Links:

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/obama-grants-immunity-powers-to-foreign-interpol-over-our-constitutionwtf/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seed-1-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seeds-2-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seed-3-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/usda-now-in-the-tree-and-biofuel-business-property-owners-pay-attention/

———————————————————————————–

League of Nations (later changed to United Nations) Created in 1919-20 with Woodrow Wilson US president

Terminator Seeds 2: Plot to Control our Food Supply?

Terminator Seeds 2: Control and Decline of Organic Seeds

“Rockefeller Foundation funding was the Gene Revolution’s catalyst in 1985 with big aims – to learn if GMO plants were commercially feasible and if so spread them everywhere. It was the “new eugenics” and the culmination of earlier research from the 1930s. It was also based on the idea that human problems can be “solved by genetic and chemical manipulations….as the ultimate means of social control and social engineering.”

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/usda-now-in-the-tree-and-biofuel-business-property-owners-pay-attention/

Food is Power

By Stephen Lendman
Rockefeller Foundation funding was the Gene Revolution’s catalyst in 1985 with big aims – to learn if GMO plants were commercially feasible and if so spread them everywhere. It was the “new eugenics” and the culmination of earlier research from the 1930s. It was also based on the idea that human problems can be “solved by genetic and chemical manipulations….as the ultimate means of social control and social engineering.” Foundation scientists sought ways to do it by reducing infinite life complexities to “simple, deterministic and predictive models” under their diabolical scheme – mapping gene structures to “correct social and moral problems including crime, poverty, hunger and political instability.” With the development of essential genetic engineering techniques in 1973, they were on their way.

They’re based on what’s called recombitant DNA (rDNA), and it works by genetically introducing foreign DNA into plants to create genetically modified organisms, but not without risks. London Institute of Science in Society chief biologist, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, explained the dangers because the process is imprecise. “It is uncontrollable and unreliable, and typically ends up damaging and scrambling the host genome, with entirely unpredictable consequences” that might unleash a deadly unrecallable “Andromeda Strain.” Research continued anyway amidst lies that risks were minimal and a promised future lay ahead. All that mattered were huge potential profits and geopolitical gain so let the good times roll and the chips fall where they may.

One project was to map the rice genome. It launched a 17 year effort to spread GMO rice around the world with Rockefeller Foundation money behind it. It spent millions funding 46 worldwide science labs. It also financed the training of hundreds of graduate students and developed an “elite fraternity” of top scientific researchers at Foundation-backed research institutes. It was a diabolical scheme aiming big – to control the staple food for 2.4 billion people and in the process destroy the biological diversity of over 140,000 developed varieties that can withstand droughts, pests and grow in every imaginable climate.

Asia was the prime target, and Engdahl explained the sinister tale of a Philippines-based Foundation-funded institute (IRRI). It had a gene bank with “every significant rice variety known” that comprised one-fifth of them all. IRRI let agribusiness giants illegally use the seeds for exclusive patented genetic modification so they could introduce them in markets and dominate them by requiring farmers be licensed and forced to pay annual royalty fees.

By 2000, a successful “Golden Rice” was developed that was beta-carotene (Vitamin A) enriched. It was marketed on the fraudulent claim that a daily bowl could prevent blindness and other Vitamin A deficiencies. It was a scam as other products are far better sources of this nutrient and to get enough of it from any type rice requires eating an impossible nine kilograms daily (about 20 pounds). Nonetheless, gene revolution backers were ready for their next move: “the consolidation of global control over humankind’s food supply” with a new tool to do it – the WTO. Corporate giants wrote its rules favoring them at the expense of developing nations shut out.

Unleashing GMO Seeds – A Revolution in World Food Production Begins

Argentina became the first “guinea pig” nation in a reckless experiment with untested and potentially hazardous new foods. No matter, potential profits are enormous so concerns for public safety and human health are ignored. Let the revolution begin in real time. See link below for a closer review of local info

Argentina: Countryside No Longer Synonymous with Healthy Living

By the end of the 1980s, a global network of genetically-trained molecular biologists were ready to kick it off, Argentina was their first test laboratory, and it was hailed as a “Second Green Revolution.” Look what followed. From 1996 to 2004, worldwide GMO crop planting expanded to 167 million acres, a 40-fold increase using 25% of total worldwide arable land. An astonishing two-thirds of the acreage (106 million acres) was in the US. By 2004, Argentina was in second place with 34 million acres while production is expanding in Brazil, China, Canada, South Africa, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Colombia, Honduras, Spain and Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania and Bulgaria). The revolution was on a roll and looks unstoppable.

Argentina was an easy mark when Carlos Menem became President. He’s a corporatist’s dream, a willing Washington Consensus subject, and he even let David Rockefeller’s New York and Washington friends draft his economic program with Chicago School dogma at its heart – privatizations, deregulation, local markets open to imports, and cuts in already reduced social services.

By the mid-1990s, Menem was “revolutioniz(ing) Argentina’s traditional productive agriculture” to one based on monoculture for global export. He took office in July, 1989. By 1991, Argentina was already a “secret experimental laboratory for developing genetically engineered crops” with its people unknowing human guinea pigs. In effect, the country’s agriculture was handed to Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and other GMO giants to exploit for profit with untested and potentially hazardous new products. Things would never be the same again.

In 1995, Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans with its special gene gun-inserted bacterium that allows the plant to survive being sprayed by the glyphosate herbicide, Roundup. GMO soybeans are thus protected from the same product used in Colombia to eradicate drugs that also harms legal crops and humans at the same time.

Foreign investors have large land holdings in Argentina, the late 1990s – early 2000s economic crisis made vast more amounts available, and bankrupted farmers had to give it up for pennies on the dollar. Corporate predators and Latifundista landholders took full advantage, but look what for.

After Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans were licensed in 1996, “a once-productive national family farm-based agriculture system (was turned into) a neo-feudal state system dominated by a handful of powerful, wealthy” owners to exploit for profit. Menem went along. In less than a decade, he allowed the nation’s corn, wheat and cattle diversity to be replaced by corporate-controlled monoculture. It was a Faustian sellout, and it helped Monsanto’s stock price hit an all-time high near year end 2007.

Earlier decades of diversity and crop rotation preserved the country’s soil quality. That changed after soybean monoculture moved in with its heavy dependence on chemical fertilizers. Traditional Argentine crops vanished, and cattle were forced into cramped feedlots the way they are in the US. Engdahl quoted a leading country agro-ecologist predicting these practices will destroy the land in 50 years if they continue. Nothing suggests a stoppage, and by 2004, nearly half the nation’s crop land was for soybeans and over 90% of it solely for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready brand. Engdahl put it this way: “Argentina had become the world’s largest uncontrolled experimental laboratory for GMO” and its people unwitting lab rats.

Mechanized GMO soybean monoculture took over, the country’s dairy farms were reduced by half, and “hundreds of thousands of workers (were forced) off the land” into poverty. Monsanto was on a roll and used various exploitive schemes. Included were ploys to ignore Argentine law against collecting royalty payments. Smuggling Roundup soybean seeds illegally into Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay also went on sub rosa. In addition, the company got Menem to allow it to collect “extended royalties” in 1999 even though Argentine law prohibited the practice.

Monsanto then pressured the government to recognize its “technology license fee.” A Technology Compensation Fund was established and managed by the Ministry of Agriculture. It forced farmers to pay a near-1% fee on GMO soybean sales. Monsanto and other GMO seed suppliers got the funds. By 2005, Brazil’s government relented. It legalized GMO seeds for the first time, and by 2006, the US, Argentina and Brazil accounted for over 81% of world soybean production. It “ensure(s) that practically every animal in the world fed soymeal (is) eating genetically engineered soybeans.” It also means everyone eating these animals does the same thing unwittingly.

Argentina experienced more fallout as well that threatens to spread. Its soybean monoculture affects the countryside hugely. Traditional farmers close to soybean ones are seriously harmed by aerial Roundup spraying. Their crops are destroyed as that’s how this herbicide works. It kills all plants without gene-modified resistance. It also kills animals with farmers reporting their chickens died and horses were gravely harmed. Humans are affected as well and show violent symptoms of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and herbicide-inflicted skin lesions. Other reports claimed further fallout – animals born with severe organ deformities, deformed bananas and sweet potatoes, and lakes filled with dead fish. In addition, rural families said their children developed “grotesque blotches on their bodies.”

Forest lands were also damaged as vast acreage was cleared for soybean planting. Their loss “created an explosion of medical problems because Roundup is toxic, kills every non-GMO plant that grows and, it harms animals and humans as well that come in contact with it.

As for higher promised yields, results showed reduced harvests of between 5% and 15% compared with traditional soybean crops plus “vicious new weeds” that need up to triple the amount of spraying to destroy. By the time farmers learn this, it’s too late. By 2004, GMO soybean plantings spread across the country, they cost more to produce and yield less, and Engdahl summarized farmers’ plight: “A more perfect scheme of human bondage would be hard to imagine,” and it was even worse than that. Argentina was the first test case “in a global plan that was decades in the making and absolutely shocking and awesome in its scope.”

Iraq Gets American Seeds of Democracy

Democracy for Iraq meant erasing the “cradle of civilization” for unfettered free market capitalism. Iraq was conquered for its oil but also to make the country a giant free trade paradise. The scheme was diabolical, elaborate and ugly – blitzkrieg “shock and awe,” elaborate PsyOps, fear as a weapon, repressive occupation, mass detention and torture, and the fastest, most sweeping country remake in history. It happened in weeks, Iraq no longer exists, the country is a wasteland, its people are devastated, and a blank slate was created for unrestrained corporate pillage on a near- unimaginable scale.

Part of the scheme was for GMO agribusiness giants to have free reign over that part of the economy – to radically transform Iraq’s food production system into a model for GMO seeds and plants. One hundred swiftly implemented Bremer laws mandated it, but Iraqis had no say about them as the country is now governed out of Washington and its branch office inside the heavily-fortified Green Zone in the largest US embassy in the world by far.

Bremer laws imposed the harshest ever Chicago School-style “shock therapy” of the kind that devastated countries around the world since first introduced in Chile under Pinochet in 1973. The formula was familiar – mass firings of state employees in the hundreds of thousands; unrestricted imports with no tariffs, duties, inspections or taxes; deregulation; and the largest state liquidation sale and privatization plan since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Corporate taxes were lowered as well from 40% to a flat 15%, and foreign investors could own 100% of Iraqi assets other than oil. They could also repatriate all their profits, had no obligation to reinvest in the country and wouldn’t be taxed. They were further given 40 year leases, and the only Saddam era laws remaining were those restricting trade unions and collective bargaining. Foreign transnationals, mainly US ones, swooped in and devoured everything. Iraqis couldn’t compete, and the occupation laws assured it.

The recent Food Labeling Act passed by the corrupt Congress allows further relaxation of labeling requirements on what is in your food, essentially letting the corporate food conglomerates to poison you at will!

GMOs (genetically modified organisms), rather than feeding the world as Bill Clinton — responsible for the FDA approval of these poisonous products — would have us believe are cash cows for Monsanto, ADM, DuPont and Dow, et al, and a way for the New World Order (NWO) to control the world’s food supply. As an example, Paul Bremer, former Viceroy of Iraq and Medal of Freedom recipient, issued 100 orders before fleeing the country. Order 81 specifically dealt with prohibiting the saving of seeds as they have in Mesopotamia (Iraq) — the cradle of civilization and agriculture — for thousands of years and required that they instead buy and use GMO seeds from Monsanto, DuPont and Dow.

William Engdahl’s articles on this subject are a must read: “Iraq and Washington’s ‘seeds of democracy’” and “WTO, GMO and Total Spectrum Dominance.”

Bremer’s illegal orders also call for the privatization of all Iraq’s state owned industries and services with multinational (American) corporations getting them for pittance. This is predatory globalization. Have you ever heard these 100 orders discussed in the corporate media? Of course not.

What will Iraq look like if the new “government” succumbs to US dictates and Bremer’s Orders? “A small sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq’s 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) ‘national treatment’ — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) Unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses,” wrote Antonia Juhasz, a project director at the International Forum on Globalization in San Francisco (LA Times, August 5, 2004).

http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3457

Consider Bremer Order 81. It covered patents, their duration and stated: “Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety” the edict covered. It gave plant varieties patent holders absolute rights over farmers’ using their seeds for 20 years.

They’d be genetically engineered, owned by transnationals, and Iraqi farmers using them had to sign an agreement stipulating they’ll pay a “technology fee” as well as an annual license fee.

Plant Variety Protection (PVP) was the core of this order. It made seed saving and reuse illegal. Even using “similar” seeds could result in severe fines and imprisonment. GMO seeds got protection to displace 10,000 years of developed plant varieties being sacrificed.

Iraq’s fertile valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is ideal for crop planting. Since 8000 BC, farmers used it to develop “rich seeds of almost every variety of wheat used in the world today.” They were erased through a GMO modernization and industrialization scheme so agribusiness can get a foothold in the region and supply the world market. While Iraqis suffer and starve, GMO giants run the country’s agriculture for export. Iraqi farmers are now agribusiness serfs and are forced to grow products foreign to the native diet like wheat designed for pasta.

Bremer laws mandated it and are inviolable under Article 26 of the US-drafted constitution. It states that the Iraqi government is powerless to change laws a foreign occupier made. To assure it, US-sympathizers are in every ministry with those most trusted in key ones. Engdahl sums up the damage to agriculture: “The forced transformation of Iraq’s food production into patented GMO crops is one of the clearest examples of (how) Monsanto and other GMO giants are forcing (these) crops onto an unwilling or unknowing world population.” They’re infesting the planet with them one country at a time so it’s futile trying to undo the damage they cause.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com

=============================================================

Related Links:

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/obama-grants-immunity-powers-to-foreign-interpol-over-our-constitutionwtf/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seed-1-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seed-3-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/bilderbergers-creating-a-new-world-order-or-completing-work-of-the-ages/==============================================================

**NOTE to Readers: I first cross posted this on Ireport on March 23, 2009

To view comments and some of the debates over this go to:

Report Part I at: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-233664

Report Part II at: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-234112

View Part III at: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-234051

=============================================================

=============================================================

More Related Links:

The industrial food system is playing for keeps: Another dispatch from the front lines of the North American war on nutrient dense foods

=============================================

Terminator Seed 1: Plot to Control Our Food Supply?

Are the AgroScience companies with the HELP of our government, “really” helping to feed the people giving Hope for the World or are they Greed driven profiteers with plans to Globalize/Privatize our food supply??? This is something to think about.

This is what WE are told about Genetic Modified Organisms: > The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques.

These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy.

For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. >

When all the bees are gone what happens next?

Commercial beehives pollinate over a third of North America’s crops and that web of nourishment encompasses everything from fruits like peaches, apples, cherries, strawberries and more, to nuts like California almonds, 90 percent of which are helped along by the honeybees. Without this pollination, you could kiss those crops goodbye, to say nothing of the honey bees produce or the flowers they also fertilize’.

This essay will discuss the arguments and seriousness pertaining to the massive deaths and the decline of Bee colonies in North America. As well, it will shed light on a worldwide hunger issue that will have an economical and ecological impact in the very near future.There are many reasons given to the decline in Bees, but one argument that matters most is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and “Terminator Seeds” that are presently being endorsed by governments and forcefully utilized as our primary agricultural needs of survival. I will argue what is publicized and covered by the media is in actuality masking the real forces at work, namely the impact of genetically modified seeds on the reproduction of bee colonies across North America.

See links below for whole story

Bees Decline: (Our natural Pollinators and a MUST HAVE in our Environment)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8436

In the mid-1980s, scientists, with the help of biotechnology, thought they had found the key to mastering the planet, and especially its living organisms. Suddenly, everything seemed possible!

Twenty years later the filmmakers embark on a global journey to explore the effects of the ongoing experiments in the genetic manipulation of plants, animals and human beings.

Some of the results have not been pretty.

  • Due to a disastrous crop of genetically modified cotton many Indian farmers face ruin, and choose instead to sell one of their kidneys or commit suicide.
  • In Canada genetically modified canola seeds blow onto the fields of neighboring organic farms, thus making organic certification of those farmers’ crops impossible.
  • The Icelandic parliament sells the entire gene pool of its population to a private company which intends to turn over the data at a profit to the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies.
  • The Human Genome Diversity Project collects blood, hair and saliva samples from 700 groups of people judged to be in danger of extinction on the pretext of preventive health care. The gene samples find their way into the laboratories of industry to provide the basis for valuable patents.

Worldwide only a handful of idealistic scientists are defying industry, doing independent research on the effects of transgenic animals and plants on the environment and our health when we consume genetically modified food.

This leads to the conclusion that not only does genetic engineering pose a serious scientific problem, it also challenges fundamental democratic principles, and deserves the widest possible public discussion.

Life is Running Out of Control: Documentary
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1876901729566469042

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7849
http://www.saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&catid=&topic=4&allstories=1

===================================================================

The man that brought you Monsanto’s genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone is now america’s food safety czar

Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar.

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto’s vice president and chief lobbyist. (Click link for more on this story)

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=120594.0

===========================================

Tom Vilsack appointed head of USDA

WASHINGTON, DC – Today’s announcement that former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, has been selected as the new Secretary of Agriculture sent a chill through the sustainable food and farming community who have been lobbying for a champion in the new administration. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm

Genetically Engineered Trees danger to worldwide forests

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/usda-now-in-the-tree-and-biofuel-business-property-owners-pay-attention/

—————————————————————————————-

Related Links:

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/obama-grants-immunity-powers-to-foreign-interpol-over-our-constitutionwtf/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seeds-2-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seed-3-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/bilderbergers-creating-a-new-world-order-or-completing-work-of-the-ages/

==============================================================

**NOTE to Readers: I first cross posted this on Ireport on March 23, 2009

To view comments and some of the debates over this go to:

Report Part I at: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-233664

Report Part II at: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-234112

View Part III at: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-234051

===========================================================

H1N1: The Trail of Tears Revisited?

toft-h1n1

Some may read this post and think that I am just paranoid or a conspiracy theorist, However, as a person that was orphaned at age 16 because her father died in January 1977 from complications –GBS– due to the Swine Flu vaccine given to him in the fall of 1976, I have reason to be concerned.

How many of you have considered, in the RUSH to meet this so-called “Pandemic” face on, where are those in the MEDIA that demand to know, what is in this injection and EXACTLY what are the possible side-effects?

Who will be accountable if more than the CDC “Quota of acceptable Risks” exceeds their projections?

WHY has Oklahoma been ‘chosen’ as one of the “Test Subjects” for this so-called UNTESTED vaccine and WHY so many CHILDREN?

Considering Oklahoma has the 2nd largest Native American Population per the 2000 census, call me PARANOID when I can see history repeating itself and I consider this “Testing” as nothing but another Trail of Tears in the making!!!!!

If indeed this “Vaccine” contains Sterilization properties and Bioweapon toxins, what ELSE can one think??

Below are links and videos that I hope folks will take time to read and listen to and I hope will research more in detail these questions and come to their OWN conclusions. I know what I think about all this, how about you??


“According to the 2000 census, about 2.5 million people in the United States reported they were Native Americans. Some 1.5 million others reported they were Native American plus another race, typically white. The two figures together represented a 26 percent increase over the 1990 census figures. Overall, Native American people accounted for about 1 percent of the total U.S. population.

At the time of the census, California had the largest concentration of Native Americans (314,000), followed by Oklahoma (263,000), Arizona (261,000), New Mexico (166,000), Washington State (105,000), and Alaska (101,352). Nearly 50 percent of Native Americans lived in the West, 29 percent in the South, 17 percent in the Midwest, and 6 percent in the Northeast. The Native American population was a young and growing population: Thirty-nine percent of its population was under 20 years of age, compared with 29 percent of the nation’s total population….”

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570777_49/native_americans_of_north_america.html

The Trail of Tears
“In one of the saddest episodes of our brief history, men, women, and children were taken from their land, herded into makeshift forts with minimal facilities and food, then forced to march a thousand miles(Some made part of the trip by boat in equally horrible conditions). Under the generally indifferent army commanders, human losses for the first groups of Cherokee removed were extremely high. John Ross made an urgent appeal to Scott, requesting that the general let his people lead the tribe west. General Scott agreed. Ross organized the Cherokee into smaller groups and let them move separately through the wilderness so they could forage for food. Although the parties under Ross left in early fall and arrived in Oklahoma during the brutal winter of 1838-39, he significantly reduced the loss of life among his people. About 4000 Cherokee died as a result of the removal. The route they traversed and the journey itself became known as “The Trail of Tears” or, as a direct translation from Cherokee, “The Trail Where They Cried” (“Nunna daul Tsuny“).
Ironically, just as the Creeks killed Chief McIntosh for signing the Treaty of Indian Springs, the Cherokee killed Major Ridge, his son and Elias Boudinot for signing the Treaty of New Echota. Chief John Ross, who valiantly resisted the forced removal of the Cherokee, lost his wife Quatie in the march. And so a country formed fifty years earlier on the premise “…that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..” brutally closed the curtain on a culture that had done no wrong”…..

http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html

12,000 children in Oklahoma are going to be tested with vaccinations for H1N1
“Because H1N1 flu is a novel virus, parents are concerned as 12,000 children in Oklahoma are going to be tested with vaccinations for H1N1 to see whether there are any serious side effects. Some parents are complaining the only benefit is going to be for the vaccine manufacturers. Other parents say numerous children will die, not from the new vaccine, but from the novel virus that combines avian, swine, and human viruses.

Among the parents’ fears are the fear of autism, fear of children becoming paralyzed by novel reactions similar to the syndrome that occured with a different type of swine flu vaccine in 1976. See the Nov. 24, 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association article, Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following Influenza Vaccination. According to the article’s abstract, “An unexplained increase in the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) occurred among recipients of the swine influenza vaccine in 1976-1977. Guillain-Barré syndrome remains the most frequent neurological condition reported after influenza vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) since its inception in 1990.”……

http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacramento-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m7d28-12000-Oklahoma-children-to-be-tested-with-new-H1N1-flu-vaccine-to-see-any-side-effects

OKLAHOMA CITY —  Sept. 11, 2009
“Tests for the H1N1 vaccine are now under way in Oklahoma, with close to 300 adults and children taking part…”
http://www.koco.com/news/20865007/detail.html

CDC: H1N1 Vaccine May Injure or Kill 30,000 Americans, FDA Requires Minimal Effectiveness
“The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has officially stated that there will be as many as 30,000 serious, potentially lethal adverse reactions to the novel H1N1 vaccine, while the FDA guidelines for the novel H1N1 vaccine only require that it work in 3 out of every 10 recipients…..”
http://noworldsystem.com/2009/08/31/cdc-h1n1-vaccine-may-injure-or-kill-30000-americans/

Swine Flu 1976 part 1

Swine Flu 1976 part 2

Quarantine or $1000 per day Fine and up to 30 days in prison for refusing vaccine

Depopulation Agenda

BioWeapon in the Vaccine ?




Immunocontraceptive Hidden in the Flu Vaccine

Injected with Poison


YOU have a RIGHT to KNOW what they are injecting you with!!

World Health Organization’s Swine Flu Vaccine Scam

—————————————————————————————–