Feds theory: Control the Livestock and the Land = Enslave the people

Photo taken in Nuristan and was part of a US Army press release. Flying through the clouds soldiers from the Afghan National Army and Task Force Saber air-assaulted onto landing zone Shetland July 19 during Operation Saray Has. The landing zone is located in a large meadow near the top of a mountain in Nuristan where local Afghans use the area as a grazing pasture for livestock.

Note: Photo above taken in Nuristan and was part of a US Army press release. Flying through the clouds soldiers from the Afghan National Army and Task Force Saber air-assaulted onto landing zone Shetland July 19 during Operation Saray Has. The landing zone is located in a large meadow near the top of a mountain in Nuristan where local Afghans use the area as a grazing pasture for livestock.

Could this be futuristic roundups of our cattle? People,  “the future” is already upon us and has already been going on with wild horse roundups on “Federal Lands”. This also helps explain why the Feds refuse to stop the illegal immigrants who are entering thru the Coronado National Park in AZ (see video below– and why the bogus lawsuits filed against AZ…. Wonder what other areas have FREE access, while the gov elite sit and do nothing to stop the influx of illegal entries?

Also, look at the millions of foreclosures taking place which were caused by our government housing regulators under the guise of “Everyone deserves to be a homeowner” which forced banks to loan money to those unqualified who could not afford such, which also allowed and encouraged folks to take out 2nd and 3rd mortgages on those same properties, guaranteeing that most would LOOSE their properties back to the lenders.  Who would then take that property back at a loss, but then get reimbursed by the government and then make a tidy profit off of it, using OUR tax dollars in order to do it! (see post: Goldman Sucs and GM Ponzie scheme) What a SCAM! We have been HAD folks by the evil greedy masters set to destroy our nation from within!

“Our Land: Collateral for the National Debt”

by Derry Brownfield Dec. 3,2008

I consider Wayne Hage one of the most intelligent men I ever met. On our very first visit he was explaining the World Bank, the International Monetary fund and how the world bankers planned on collateralizing the world debt with land. Not just the U.S. national debt, but also the “WORLD” debt. A listener sent me a copy of a report of the FOURTH WORLD WILDERNESS CONGRESS, which was held in Denver in 1987.

Over 1500 people from sixty countries were told that wilderness lands were to protect the reindeer, the spotted owl and other endangered species. Ninety percent of the group consisted of conservationists, ecologists, government and United Nations bureaucrats. The other ten percent were world banking heavyweights, such as David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank, London banker Edmund de Rothschild and the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, James Baker, who gave the keynote address.

George W. Hunt, an investment councilor, served as official host and sat in on all the meetings. It was George Hunt that wrote the report from which I have gleaned much of my information. NAIS CONCEIVED IN 1987 During the first three days, the group was told that the WILDERNESS CONGRESS was about beating the ozone deterioration and bringing the rain forests back.

The following days were closed to the public. With only the bankers in attendance, the topics discussed centered on the creation of a “WORLD CONSERVATION BANK” with collateral being derived from receipt of wilderness properties throughout the world. This bank would have central bank powers similar to the Federal Reserve. It would create currency and loans and engage in international discounting, counter-trade, barter and swap actions.

Rothschild personally conducted the monetary matters and the creation of this WORLD CONSERVATION BANK. This bank would refinance by swapping debt for assets. A country with a huge national debt would receive money to pay off the debt by swapping the debt for wilderness lands. The plan was to swap one trillion dollars of Third World Debt into this new bank.In the long term, when the countries won’t be able to pay off the loans, governments from around the world will give title to their wilderness lands to the bankers.

WHY A BROKE GOVERNMENT KEEPS BUYING LAND FROM PRIVATE OWNERS?

George Hunt wrote: “Title to the lands will go to the World Wilderness Land Inventory Trust. This Trust will float into the World Conservation Bank by the unanimous decree of the world’s people, saying, God bless you for saving our reindeer. Those people at the congress were ignorant. They don’t suspect anything. They’re very naive. Not stupid, ignorant. I’m talking about the 90% that were not the world banking heavyweights.”

Hunt goes on to say that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized. They’re saying, we want collateral, so when we loan-swap this debt, we’re going to own the Amazon if you default. They’re going to make their bad loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with all of this land and somebody is going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres.They have multi-trillions of dollars upon which they can create currencies and loans and they’re going to begin to barter and counter-trade and loan-swap against the United States.

The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land. This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will grow a one-world fiat currency. This isn’t some scheme conjured up during the Bush and Clinton administrations. The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development was created in 1982.

The commission published the “BRUNDTLAND REPORT,” setting the stage for unlimited enactments to take over ecology, and environmental and pollution laws throughout the world.The report stated: “We will have a proposal for very harsh, quasi-spiritual ecological laws for MOTHER EARTH. A MOTHER EARTH COMES FIRST mentality will arise throughout the world.”

DEBT COLLATERALIZATION IN THE HEARTLAND

When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, “No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks.” Baker’s definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say “about” 20, because they are being added on a regular basis.

As I write this article, Congress is about to vote on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over 500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private property including many farms and ranches. At the same time there is a bill before Congress called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that would increase the acreage of designated wilderness by 50% in the lower 48 states.

While our Heritage sites take in quite a large amount of territory, such as Yellowstone National Park and Mesa Verde, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades, other countries have much greater areas. Brazil for example has the Amazon Conservation Complex and Canada has the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks.

As I write this story, the list includes 851 properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth’s land mass. Will all this land collateralize the world’s debt? Probably not, so along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System).

WHO MAKES THE RULES—WHO ENFORCES?

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, “The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises.”

That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word “premises” under the “international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word “premises” includes a place and a “conveyance.” Why check with the International Criminal Court Act? Because on June 8, 2007, Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, is quoted as saying, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.”

Throughout the entire Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises and not property. A “Premises” has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution protect property rights.

WHAT IS A PREMISE—WHY WAS PREMISE USED INSTEAD OF PROPERTY?

The word “Premise” is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person “leasing” it to another. Webster’s New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition defines “Premises” as the part of a deed or “lease” that states its reason, the parties involved and the property in “conveyance.” Webster then defines “conveyance” as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person to another.

It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term “premises” and never mention “PROPERTY.” Let’s take another look at the wilderness areas and the World Bank’s plans to collateralize its loans. While the wilderness areas cover about one third of the earth’s surface, they are wilderness areas for a good reason – they were useless or difficult to homestead, farm or use in a constructive manner.

Worldwide, the best and more valuable land is occupied by farmers, ranchers and people with the ambition to produce. Wouldn’t the World Bankers rather have some productive property besides mountains, deserts and swamps? I am convinced that the word “premise” will put an encumbrance on your deed. The bankers say they want to monetize land. It’s your land and my land they want to monetize.

WHAT IS THE HISTORICAL METHOD?

The bankers are in the process of accumulating the wealth of the world. Very few privately owned assets can be termed “real wealth.” According to scripture, God made Abraham very wealthy, giving him LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. (Genesis 24:35) Four thousand years later, wealth continues to be LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. I don’t know where the world deposits of silver and gold are stored, but I’m sure the bankers have them in their control. That only leaves LAND and CATTLE, which I believe could be next on the list.

Genesis 47 describes how Joseph had storehouses full of grain to feed the people, but he didn’t have a welfare program.

  • During the first year of the famine, Joseph took “ALL THE MONEY” the people had for only one year’s supply of grain.
  • The second year he took all their cattle for another year’s supply of grain.
  • The next year they said, “We have nothing left but our bodies and our land, Buy us and our land in exchange for food and we and our land will be servants to Pharaoh.

Genesis 47:21 states, “And as for the people, he removed them to the cities and made slaves of them.”

NAIS–OF LAND FEDERALIZATION

James Madison made a statement concerning how our people could lose our freedom by gradual and silent encroachment by those in power. Is it possible that those in power today are gradually and silently in the process of removing the people to the cities to make slaves of them? Federalizing our land and our cattle would certainly be a step in that direction.

*Derry Brownfield, legendary cattleman, rancher and talk radio host, is heard daily across America bringing his common sense approach to listeners. The farmers’ champion and a passionate constitutionalist, Derry takes on big government, mega-corporations, and environmental extremists. From the stock market to the stock yards, from greedy oil companies to the everyday concerns of his loyal audience, no topic is too hot to handle for Derry, who is called “the voice of the heartland”.

www.DerryBrownfield .com

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

By Carol Walker (courtesy of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign - www.wildhorsepreservation.org

By Carol Walker (courtesy of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign - http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org

http://www.mustangfoundation.org/issues/reality-of-roundups/sand-wash.htm

www.wildhorsepreservation.org

Possible Related links:

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/goldman-sucs-and-gm-ponzie-schemes/

Advertisements

Trans-humanism: War of Genetic Armageddon?

Ever wonder about the fallen angels of the Bible or about the demons that are stated to roam the earth?  What about the offspring of the matings of those fallen angels with human women? Exactly what does the seed of Adam really mean?

What or where the bottomless pit really could be?  What about the giants of the Bible like Goliath or those giants who were reported to be so big that men said they were as a locust compared to the giant men? Who were the Titans? Did they really exist?

What about Greek mythology, Pan-half human half goat, or the Minotaur-half man half bull, Centaur-half human, half horse or the griffin-winged lion, too name a few? What about most ancient cultures that depict human forms with the heads of beasts, Egypt for example, or Mayan or Aztec with their serpent heads?

God did not create these abominations, but the sons of God did and he was NOT pleased about it, thus their fall from His grace. That the fallen ones dared to attempt to “perfect” God’s creations was an abomination to the ONE TRUE CREATOR of everything, our Father in Heaven.

Splicing pig and human DNA to “save a human life” is one example of how mankind plays the role of creator. Then the pathetic creature created will want and demand rights of protection and life, thus the circle of abomination is complete.

Now it appears that the  history of these abominations shown in the Bible may be repeating itself, yet still hidden for the most part and being aided by humans against humans,   under the guise of TRANS-Humanist.  Man proclaiming themselves god and creators of a super race of humans. (Didn’t Hitler attempt this very thing?)

Below is a short introduction into the Trans-humanist ideology and just how far they have progressed with their known  technology.

“While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.

Transhumanists support the emergence and convergence of technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), and hypothetical future technologies such as simulated reality, artificial intelligence, superintelligence, mind uploading, chemical brain preservation, and cryonics. They believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become more than human.[68] They therefore support the recognition and/or protection of cognitive liberty, morphological freedom, and procreative liberty as civil liberties, so as to guarantee individuals the choice of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children.[69] Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate more radical human enhancement no later than the midpoint of the 21st century.[42]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Below is the Playlist with Steve Quayle and Tom Horn regarding the logical possibilities of this transformation technology.  They discuss how trans-humanisum could be applied in the Holy Bible from Genesis to the end times of Revelation. I found their insight very compelling and probable as it falls inline with much of my own research.

.

Genetic Armageddon: Playlist, Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C0E712C94A4C71F5

Genetic Armageddon: Playlist, Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=98F251A3EEB76C7B

——————————————————————————————

UPDATE: 7-13-10 Current Genetic warfare in the News!! This is some shocking stuff folks!!

Related Links:

http://www.stevequayle.com

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

Obama grants immunity powers to FOREIGN INTERPOL OVER our Constitution?

“I do solemnly swear  that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Federal Government of the United States is the central government entity established by the United States Constitution, which shares sovereignty over the United States with the governments of the individual U.S. states.

The policies of the federal government have a broad impact on both the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States. In addition, the powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, states that all powers not expressly assigned to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.

Below is another link that ties back to the European Union and the United Nations. I wonder HOW granting a foreign Police force immunity from our Constitution and laws can be considered DEFENDING, PROTECTING or PRESERVING that precious document?

An international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been ELEVATED above OUR CONSTITUTION upon our OWN SOIL! America  get ready for the guys in Blue Helmets, they are coming!!

Wither Sovereignty

Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America – Is The ICC Next?

By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton | December 23, 2009

Post Source found at: http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009

Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425

EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an “International Organization.” In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Context: International Criminal Court

The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection – and elevation above the US Constitution – afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.

We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC’s Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).

29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute – the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential – if not likely – specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

President Obama’s words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely “premature to commit” to signing America on.

However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama’s roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

Obama’s former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.

“Until we’ve closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.

The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to “show a different face for America.” He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far “in America’s interests.” The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with “inviolable archives” from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

This is the disturbing context for President Obama’s quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.

Methodology Of INTERPOL

Each member country maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB) staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the Interpol General Secretariat, regional bureau and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives. This is especially important in countries with many law-enforcement agencies. This central bureau is a unique point of contact for foreign entities, which may not understand the complexity of the law-enforcement system of the country they attempt to contact. For instance, the NCB for the United States of America is housed at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). The NCB then ensures the proper transmission of information to the correct agency.

Interpol maintains a large database charting unsolved crimes and both convicted and alleged criminals. At any time, a member nation has access to specific sections of the database and its police forces are encouraged to check information held by Interpol whenever a major crime is committed. The rationale behind this is that drug traffickers and similar criminals have international ties, and so it is likely that crimes extend beyond political boundaries.

In 2002, following United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 passed in the aftermath of September 11, Interpol began maintaining a database of lost and stolen identification and travel documents, allowing member countries to be alerted to the true nature of such documents when presented. Passport fraud, for example, is often performed by altering a stolen passport; in response, several member countries have worked to make online queries into the stolen document database part of their standard operating procedure in border control departments. As of early 2006, the database contained over ten million identification items reported lost or stolen, and is expected to grow more as more countries join the list of those reporting into the database.

More about INTERPOL at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

Current Secretary General of INTERPOL: Ronald Noble

Current President of INTERPOL: Khoo Boon Hui

———————————————————————————————————————-

Another IMPORTANT Executive order—Obama’s FIRST one after swearing in as President of the US.

On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law  Executive Order 13489.

For those of you who can’t take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:

“Sec.2

Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records

When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records  pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”

Now for all of you who commented on our previous articles that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama’s birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn’t this strike you as just a little odd?

That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?

This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?

If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-executive-order-barring-release-of-his-birth-certificate/

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

Related Links:

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/2010/01/01/bilderbergers-creating-a-new-world-order-or-completing-work-of-the-ages/

Possible Related Links:

http://patriotroom.com/article/obama-exempts-interpol-from-search-and-seizure-on-us-lands

http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/

Terminator Seed 3: Plot to Control Our Food Supply?

Terminator Seeds 3: Convergence of our food supply to Global Powers and the great “Culling”?? You decide.

Planting the “Garden of Earthly Delights”

By Stephen Lendman

On January 1, 1995, the WTO was officially established with powers to enforce its corporate-written laws on member states. US agribusiness was already dominant, but it now had a new unelected supranational body to advance its private agenda on a global scale. WTO is a “policeman” for global free trade and “a (predatory) battering ram for the trillion dollar annual world agribusiness” part of it for its giants. Its rules are written with teeth for “punitive leverage” to levy heavy financial and other penalties on rule violators. Under them, agriculture is a priority because American companies are dominant.

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

Cargill wrote the rules that Engdahl calls the “Cargill Plan.” They:

  • Ban all government farm programs and price supports worldwide (but wink and nod at massive US subsidies);
  • Prohibit countries from imposing import controls to defend their own agricultural production;
  • Ban agricultural export controls even in times of famine so Cargill can dominate world export grain trade; and
  • Forbid countries from restricting trade through food safety laws called trade barriers; this demand also opens world markets to unrestricted GMO food imports with no need to prove their safety.

The International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council lobby (IPC) worked with Cargill and US agribusiness to advance this agenda. Four so-called Group of Four QUAD countries took the lead – the US, Canada, Japan and EU. Meeting in secret, they set policy for all 134 WTO members that for agriculture was drafted by US agribusiness giants like Cargill, Monsanto, ADM and DuPont along with EU giants, Nestle and Unilever. They were designed to erase national laws and safeguards in favor of unrestricted free markets favoring Global North countries.

Through patents, GMO giants control staple crop seeds and need WTO leverage to force them on a skeptical world. It’s done through WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) along with its Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Until the advent of agribusiness, food production and its markets were local. That’s now changed with corporate giants in control and able to set prices by manipulating supply.

AoA rules were established to help. They also enforce agribusiness’ highest priority – “a free and integrated global market for its products.” Included are GMO ones the senior Bush administration ruled are “substantially equivalent” to ordinary seeds and crops and need no government regulation.

That provision is written into WTO rules under its “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS). It states that national laws banning GMO products are “unfair trade practices” even when they endanger human health. Other WTO rules (called “Technical Barriers to Trade”) are in place as well. They prohibit GMO labeling so consumers don’t know what they’re eating and can’t avoid these potentially hazardous foods.

The 1996 Biosafety Protocol was drafted to solve this problem, and it should be in place for that purpose. Developing country demands, however, were “ambushed by the powerful organized government and agribusiness lobby.” It sabotaged talks and insisted biosafety measures be subordinate to WTO trade rules favoring developed states. As a result, talks collapsed, safety concerns are ignored, and the path was cleared for the unrestricted spread of GMO seeds worldwide.

Under WTO’s TRIPS rules, all member states must pass patent-protecting intellectual property laws that make knowledge property. That, in turn, “open(s) the floodgates” nearly everywhere for the proliferation of GMO seeds and foods, even in violation of national food safety laws.

GMO giants have powerful friends in government backing their agenda. George Bush is one of them, and in 2003 he made the proliferation of GMO seeds his top priority after the Iraq war. (NOTE: It was George HW Bush, VP under Reagan,  that helped Monsanto get into the ‘seed” market) With that support, GMO companies are pushing things to the limit with a brazen example Engdahl gave involving the Texas biotech company, RiceTec.

It schemed to patent Basmati rice, the dietary staple across Asia for thousands of years. With IRRI collusion, the company stole the seeds, patented them under Rockefeller Foundation-crafted rules, and the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred made it possible.

It “enshrined the principle of allowing patents on plant forms and other forms of life in (this) groundbreaking case.” Under the ruling, GMO plant breeds can be patented, and US government agencies are complicit in helping agribusiness giants ensure nothing stops them from doing it.

As a result, the GMO monoculture onslaught threatens plant species diversity everywhere. With full Washington and WTO backing, major biotech companies are patenting every plant imaginable in GMO form. By the beginning of the new millennium, Engdahl referred to a “Gene Revolution (as a) monsoon force in world agriculture” with four dominant companies controlling GMOs and related agrichemical markets” – Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Agrisciences and Syngenta in Switzerland from the merger of the agriculture divisions of Novartis and AstraZeneca.

The “world’s number one” is Monsanto. The company was discussed in Part I of this review, and Engdahl quoted its chairman saying his goal is a global fusion of “three of the largest industries in the world – agriculture, food and health – that now operate (separately, but) changes….will lead to their integration.” That was over seven years ago. Now it’s happening.

Engdahl covered pertinent information on the industry that might otherwise have gone unnoticed – that the three US GMO giants have a long sordid association with the Pentagon supplying massively destructive chemicals like Agent Orange, napalm and others. They now want to be trusted with the most important things we ingest – our food and drugs in the face of strong evidence their GMO varieties harm human health and their history of public safety concern is atrocious.

Like it or not, they’re advancing their agenda, and a 2004 Rockefeller Foundation report shows it. GM crop production achieved nine consecutive double digit year increases since 1996. More than eight million farmers in 17 countries now plant them, over 90% in developing nations. Far and away, the US is the world’s leader “with aggressive Government promotion, absence of labeling, and the domination of US farm production.” Here, “genetically engineered crops (have) essentially taken over the American food chain.” In 2004, over 85% of soybeans were genetically modified, 45% of corn, and since animal feed is mainly from these crops “the entire meat production of the nation (and exports) has been fed on genetically modified animal feed.” What animals eat, so do humans.

It gets even worse. Wind and air proliferate GM seeds to adjacent fields, including organic ones that are now to some degree contaminated. Engdahl explained that “after just six years, an estimated 67% of all US farm acreage has been (irremedially) contaminated with genetically engineered seeds. The genie was out of the bottle” as nothing known to science can reverse this condition.

It renders the notion of pure organic impossible except from perhaps very isolated farms that comprise a small percent of the industry. Even so, organic crops are safer than chemically-treated ones and hugely preferable to any that are genetically modified. That said, as the Gene Revolution advances worldwide, the future of organic farming is imperiled to the horror of people like this writer dependent on them.

Consider further the way GMO giants gain market share with government and WTO backing. It’s also helped by imposing rigid licensing and technology agreements on farmers who must pay annual fees. They’re binding and enforced through Technology Use Agreements farmers have to sign, and by so doing, entrap themselves in a “new form of serfdom.” Each year, they must buy new seeds, and they’re forbidden to reuse any from previous years as was customary before GMO introductions. Failure to observe the agreements can result in severe legal damages or even imprisonment and possible loss of their land.

Complicit government agencies and clever marketing schemes aid the “Gene Revolution” through “lies and damn lies” that GMO crops have higher yields and can solve world hunger problems. The evidence proves otherwise. In addition, resistant “superweeds” develop over time, crop yields drop, farmers must use greater amounts of herbicides, they’re locked into high user fees, and they end up losing money. Bottom line – the case for “genetically engineered seeds for agriculture had been based on a citadel of scientific fraud and corporate lies.” This information is hidden from the public, and it’s too late once unwary farmers learn they’ve been had.

Besides that, Russian science showed GMOs harm unborn babies as over half the rat offsring fed a genetically modified soybean diet died in their first three weeks of life – six times the normal rate. Evidence was growing on GMO dangers, and the industry was alarmed. In 1999, it “required an extraordinary intervention by its patron saint, the Rockefeller Foundation,” to pull its fat out of the fire.

Population Control – Terminators, Traitors, Spermicidal Corn

Crucial to its strategy, GMO giants needed a “new technology which would allow them to sell seed that would not reproduce.” They developed one called GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) that became known as “Terminator” seeds. The process is patented, it applies to all plant and seed species, and replanting them doesn’t work. They won’t grow. It’s the industry’s solution to controlling world food production and assuring themselves big profits as a result. What a discovery. Terminator corn, soybean and other seeds have been “genetically modified to ‘commit suicide’ after one harvest season” by a toxin-producing inbuilt gene.

A closely related technology is called T-GURT seeds, or second generation Terminators, nicknamed “Traitor.” The technology relies on controlling both plant fertility and its genetic characteristics with “an inducible gene promoter” called a “gene switch.” GMO pest and disease-resistant crops only work by using a specific chemical compound companies like Monsanto make. Farmers buying seeds illegally won’t get the compound to “turn on” the resistant gene. Traitor technology thus creates a captive new market for the GMO giants, and Traitor is cheaper to produce than Terminator seeds.

Combined, these two technologies give agribusiness giants unprecedented powers. “For the first time in history, it (lets) three or four private multinational seed companies….dictate terms to world farmers for their seed.” It’s a biological warfare tool almost “too good to believe” in the face of open citizen opposition the industry and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) aim to quash.

Engdahl quoted USDA spokesman Willard Phelps from a June, 1998 interview saying the agency wanted Terminator technology to be “widely licensed and made expeditiously available to many seed companies.” Hidden was the reason why – to introduce these seeds to the developing world as the prime Rockefeller Foundation strategy. Engdahl called it a “Trojan Horse for Western GMO seed giants to get control over Third World food supplies in areas with weak or non-existent patent laws.” It became an urgent Foundation priority to spread the seeds worldwide to irreversibly capture world markets. USDA fully backed the scheme.

Current Government  Admin Trying to Outlaw Organic Farming

That kind of muscle (along with WTO rules) is overwhelming. It’s the tactic used when the US departments of state and agriculture coordinate famine relief using genetically engineered US surplus commodities. Farmers getting GMO seeds aren’t told what they are, they plant them unwittingly for the next harvest, get hooked, and the proliferation isn’t restricted to Africa. Through coercion, bribery and other illegal tactics, the industry’s goal is to introduce them everywhere but especially in highly indebted developing states. In the case of Poland, it was in a country with some of the richest European soil that’s now spoiled by genetic contamination.

Consider how the scheme ties in with Rockefeller Foundation population control strategy. In 2001, it was aided when the privately-owned biotech company, Epicyte, announced it successfully developed the “ultimate GMO crop” – contraceptive corn. It was called a solution to world “over-population,” but news about it vanished after Biolex acquired the company.

One way or other,

“the Rockefeller Foundation aims to reduce population through human reproduction by spreading GMO seeds.”

It’s doing it cooperatively with the UN World Health Organization (WHO) by quietly funding its “reproductive health” program through the use of an innovative tetanus vaccine. Combined with hCG natural hormones, it’s an abortion agent preventing pregnancies, but women getting it aren’t told. Neither is anything said about the Pentagon viewing population reduction as a sophisticated form of “biological warfare” (to) solve world hunger.”

Avian Flu Panic and GMO Chickens

In 2005, George Bush duped the public into believing a so-called Avian (bird flu) epidemic threatened a pandemic if not addressed. The solution as always is turn to the private sector and reward his friends. In this case, he asked Congress to appropriate an emergency $1 billion taxpayer dollars for a drug Tamiflu.Unmentioned was a key fact. It was developed and patented by Gilead Science and, that prior to becoming Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld was its chairman and still a major stockholder.

The scare combined with government funding and a rising stock price stood to make him a fortune just as Dick Cheney profited as Vice-President from his Halliburton ties. Engdahl asked: “Was the avian flu scare another Pentagon hoax” with an unknown aim? Based on known and suppressed past government actions, “a supposedly deadly” new flu strain “had to be treated with more than a little suspicion.”

It was being used to advance global agribusiness and poultry factory farm interests “along the model of Arkansas-based Tyson Foods.” Consider the facts. Factory farms are breeding grounds for potential disease proliferation because of their cramped, overcrowded conditions, but this was never mentioned as a threat. Instead, small family-run free-ranging chicken farmers were cited as culprits, especially in Asia, when, in fact, that notion is at least very unlikely.

Small farms like these are the safest, but an industry-government propaganda campaign claimed otherwise. The scheme is clear. Five multinational giants dominate US chicken meat production and processing – Tyson (the largest), Gold Kist, Pilgrim’s Pride, ConAgra Poultry and Perdue Farms. They produce chicken meat under “atrocious health and safety conditions.” According to the GAO, these plants had “one of the highest rates of injury and illness of any industry.”

(Read latest suit against Pilgrims Pride here):

Pilgrims Pride Sells 64 percent stock to Brazilian Company JBS

Pilgrim cuts jobs after sell of stock

Cited was exposure to “dangerous chemicals, blood, fecal matter, exacerbated by poor ventilation and often extreme temperatures….(In addition, chickens are tightly cramped and) prevented from moving or getting any exercise on factory farms (so they can) grow….much larger (and faster) than ever before.” Growth boosters are also used, they create health problems, and growing numbers of animal experts believe these farms, not small Asian ones, are the real source of dangerous new diseases like avian flu. That information is suppressed in the mainstream so the public is duped.

It’s so chicken processing giants can globalize world production with the avian flu scare “gift from heaven” to help them. If small Asian chicken farmers can be squeezed out, Tyson and the others can access the huge Asian poultry market. That’s their aim and removing competition their method with help from friends in high places.

Creating the first GMO animal population is also part of the scheme with the prospect of transforming world chickens into GMO birds. Engdahl put it this way: “By 2006, riding the fear of an avian flu human epidemic, the GMO or Gene Revolution players were clearly aiming to conquer the world’s most important source of meat protein, poultry.” But another scheme to dominate world food production also lay ahead. “Terminator was about to come into the control of the world’s largest GMO agribusiness seed giant.”

Genetic Armageddon: Terminator and Patents on Pigs

In 2007, Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land (D&PL)to complete its aborted 1999 takeover attempt. D&PL had global Terminator patent rights and successfully extended them on GURTs. The deal made Monsanto “the overwhelming monopolist of agricultural seeds of nearly every variety” that includes fruits and vegetables from the company’s acquisition of Seminis a year earlier. With that company, Monsanto is now first in vegetables and fruits, second in agronomic crops, and the world’s third largest agrochemical company. With D&PL, the company has absolute control over the majority of plant agricultural seeds as well. In addition, they’re getting into the genetic engineering and patenting of animal seeds.

In 2005, Monsanto applied to the WTO for international patent rights for its claimed genetic engineering of a means to identify pig genes derived from patented male swine semen. The company also wants patents and the right to collect license fees for particular farm animals and livestock herds. If granted, “Any pigs that would be produced using this reproductive technique would be covered by these patents.” Several techniques are being used and patented as fast as GMO lawyers can submit applications to lock up animal life as intellectual property.

Companies like Monsanto and Cargill have invested huge amounts to genetically modify animals for profit. They thus want patent and licensing rights to the results even though this represents a controversial goal to patent life itself. A 1980 Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, however, gave them an opening by ruling “anything under the sun that is made by man” is patentable. It paved the way for a landmark patent of the “Harvard mouse” that was genetically engineered to be susceptible to cancer.

Engdahl explained how four agribusiness giants used “stealth, system, and a well-supported campaign of lies and distortion” to progress toward Henry Kissinger’s ultimate goal – controlling oil to control nations and food to control people. The pursuit of both are ongoing with little public knowledge of how far advanced things are and how reckless the scheme is –

–To genetically engineer all plants and life forms and to control world population by culling its “unwanted” parts.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/TransgenicAnimals.html

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Pituitary.html#GH

Afterward

A September, 2006 WTO tribunal ruled for the US and against the EU. In so doing, it threatens to open this important agricultural region to the “forced introduction (of) genetically-manipulated plants and food products.” It recommended the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) require the EU to conform with its obligations under WTO’s SPS Agreement that lets agribusiness ignore national laws and rights to protect public health and safety. Failure to comply can cost EU countries hundreds of millions of dollars in annual fines, so this issue is crucial to both sides.

At the time of Engdahl’s writing, it was unclear if the “GMO juggernaut would be stopped globally.” It’s still uncertain, but as of December, only nine biotech products are authorized for sale in the EU. So far, most US corn exports are blocked and trade in other products is hindered in spite of dozens of applications pending in the pipeline with their fate undecided.

Several EU countries, including France, Germany, Austria and Denmark, even ban some EU-approved biotech products to further cloud the outlook. Polls show why with European public opinion strongly opposed to GMO foods and ingredients with hostility levels in France as high as 89% and 79% wanting governments to ban them. This shows European consumers are far ahead of Americans and much better protected (so far) by their overall exclusion as well as having labeling requirements for those allowed to be sold. That provision is crucial as it empowers consumers to use or avoid eating these foods. If enough people abstain, food outlets won’t carry them.

Engdahl ends on a high note by observing how vulnerable GMO giants are to criticism. Thrusting untested products down consumer throats is “grounds for organizing a global ban or moratorium on them” if enough vocal opposition can be marshaled. Throughout his book, he sounds the alarm with reams of carefully documented facts on the industry, its products and goals. Converting world agriculture to GMOs, allowing agribusiness free reign over them, and combining that scheme with a diabolical population culling agendaadds up to solving world hunger through genocide and endangering the rest of us in the process.

So far, Washington and the industry are on a roll toward controlling oil and food. Hundreds of millions around the world stand opposed, but it’s unclear if that’s enough. Engdahl’s book is a wake-up call for every friend of the earth to understand issues this crucial can’t be left in the hands of unscrupulous business giants and their supportive friends in high places everywhere. The book has reams of ammunition against them. It needs to be thoroughly read and used. The stakes are much too high – human health and safety must never be compromised for profit.

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-seeds-2-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

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

Currently being Discussed is H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-875&tab=committees

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

More Related Links:

China prepares blacklist of dangerous food additives

Cuba ready to authorize GM corn crop: scientists

Big Island of Hawaii Bans the use of GMOs,  Although this Bill passed unanimously, Mayor Harry Kim saw fit to go against public and council opinion and vetoed the Bill on October 30th, 2008.

Big Island bans genetically modified taro

Federal Courts in the US have ruled against the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in three successive cases for failing to carry out proper environment impact assessment, making the original approvals of GM crops illegal.

Agent Orange is the code name for a herbicide and defoliant—contaminated with TCDD—used by the U.S. military in its Herbicidal Warfare program during the Vietnam War.

GMO proponents have insisted for a decade that genetic contamination could never happen

Seeds of Deception

Amphibian Roundup Herbicide Kills More Than Weeds

The World According to Monsanto

Big Corporations are gaining the power of governments

Genetically modified crops from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

————————————————————————————————————————-

Big Island prepares to ban GMO crops | Checkbiotech Home–what I could find of it is below…..??

HILO, Hawaii – The Big Island may make it illegal this week to grow genetically modified taro and coffee. The Hawaii County Council on Thursday plans to override a veto of an islandwide ban on testing, introduction and cultivation of genetically modifiedhttp://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/big_island_prepares_ban_gmo_crops

NOTE ABOVE: This link above is NO LONGER locatable??? Hmmmm…….interesting!

——————————————————————————————————————-

Possible Related Links:

http://millennium-ark.net/start.main.html

http://standeyo.com/start.main.html

http://lit4ever.org/endtimesprivateblog/

http://www.birdflumonitor.com/swineavian_fluthe_story_so_far_expert_explains_the_flu_vaccine_-archive.html

http://mayanmajix.com/art_dt.html

http://www.livway.org/livingletter27.htm

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

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