Why doesn't the Government want you growing your own food?

by Nick Bernabe

With the recent March Against Monsanto protests that happened on Saturday, the conversation has shifted back to the corporate giant Monsanto, GMOs, chemical pesticides, corruption, our food supply and the other concerns surrounding this monolithic corporation. The social and independent media has been abuzz the last few weeks with the hashtag #MarchOct12 even trending on twitter on October 5th, a few days before the march: 

Post by March Against Monsanto.

Recent events have brought the question of government suppression into the spotlight after Ann Arbor organizer Kryssi Jones was arrested on May 25th after being wrongfully detained and held on bail. Here is a video of some of that encounter with police:



Add to that the blatant censorship brought on by Facebook administrators when they removed the entire event page for the March Against Monsanto's main protest at Monsanto headquarters in St. Louis. On the right is a screen shot of Facebook's reply after there was an outcry of support for the event to be reinstated.
Eco Watch posted a story about the censorship and it immediately went viral; reaching usually very hard to contact administrators on Facebook and promting a quick apology and the event was restored.

Then there was the blatant suppression of social media accounts that were affiliated with March Against Monsanto or posted about the event. It has become common in the activist community to see posts on social media censored when any action or event is near, my own admin account was suspended last May exactly seven days before the first March, rendering my profile and all the pages I administer useless.

Organizers of the March Against Monsanto also received various reports of police attempting to intimidate activists during the march on October 12th. One participant, Karl Tricamo Brandt, said in a Facebook post that

"While standing in an obviously visible pedestrian area, I was man- handled (battered) by Officer D. Weiss of the Chesterfield Police Department. He was nice enough to come all the way out to Olivette to help intimidate my 20-month-old son and I as we marched against Monsanto. While being pushed backwards I easily could have fell, possibly into traffic while holding my child. I will not adhere to arbitrary fascism. If I'm breaking a law (which I was not), arrest or ticket me. Unless a person resists such arrest or ticketing there is absolutely no validation for the use of any physical force by an officer. Let alone a man holding an infant child."

Here is the video he posted:

Post by Karl Tricamo Brandt.

Brandt, who is no stranger to controversy surrounding growing his own food, has already had to defend the garden in his front yard from the St. Louis government and won a lawsuit against the city after they demanded he remove his garden.

Matt Hazelton, who was on my radio show on Monday, stated that police were not permitting the March Against Monsanto participants in Myrtle Beach, SC to practice freedom of speech and were threatening them with being arrested for handing out flyers about Monsanto, GMOs, pesticides and other related material on public property. He later posted the meme on the right from his Facebook profile:

The question remains, why doesn't the Government want you growing your own food? Why is the March Against Monsanto censored in the national media and on the popular social networks?

Some may assume that the political establishment doesn't want the Americans to come to the realization that Monsanto and company have largely infiltrated and corrupted the government and regulatory bodies which are supposed to keep them accountable. Monsanto currently has many former employees within government bureaucracies including the head of the FDA, Michael Taylor, and Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas, so the question of conflict of interest is very evident and would likely lead to punitive action if the public were to learn of this corruption.

Legislation like the 'Monsanto Protection Act' shows the deep connection between these bio-giants and the US Congress, another reason why the government doesn't want the Monsanto cat out of the bag. If this cronyism were to receive mainstream coverage, it could damage the overall faith in the government and regulatory bodies which are supposed to keep our food "safe".

Then you have the control factor. Long time and top level political advisor to many US presidents, man behind the scenes, and wanted international war criminal, Henry Kissinger, has been quoted as saying "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people."

Image: twicsy.com

So a long time presidential advisor, war hawk and foreign interventionist considers control over the food supply one of the best ways to control the population; anyone else see a problem here? Kissinger was also behind the military coup in Chile which sought to oust a democratically elected government and cost thousands of innocent lives, does this man have no conscience? Why does he still have influence over our government?

Monsanto is without a doubt a huge problem for advocates of a democratized food supply and ordinary people alike. Their monopoly over US staple crops has come under scrutiny after lawsuits filed by Monsanto against small farmers have forced the closure of many small farms and and have led at least 284,000 Indian farmers to commit suicide. These lawsuits have tilted in Monsanto's favor even though their seeds were the aggressor that have been invading non-GMO crops and violating farmers' property rights, possibly due to Monsanto's deep connection in the government and the court systems.

Whether this consolidation of the food supply is simply a result of corporate greed or a more sinister 'Kissinger-esque' power grab over the food supply, one thing is clear: Monsanto must be stopped. The government's brutal reaction to the March Against Monsanto protests, the social media censorship and the blatant blackout of the millions of activists who marched against them last weekend shows us that there is something big happening. The March Against Monsanto is working, despite all these efforts to stop it or slow it down, the march goes on. Activists are already planning more action against Monsanto, these policies and politicians who are actively undermining our food supply. The next march will be on May 24th 2014 with more actions likely to continue until this bio-behemoth is gone for good. To get involved in the March Against Monsanto and stay updated on further action please follow our website: www.March-Against-Monsanto.com

EBT food stamp system crash is inevitable; here's why

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) Thank you to all those who shared and supported our feature article from yesterday about the EBT card recipient ransacking of Wal-Mart stores in Louisiana. With stories like that, Natural News has gained a reputation for stating things that everyone is thinking but few have the courage to print.

Image: occidentaldissent.com

I also want to thank James Wesley Rawles over at SurvivalBlog.com for his important comment on the story, where he stated, "Keep in mind: A nationwide grid power failure would also mean a nationwide EBT card system failure. If and when this happens, it will not be pretty." He's right, and I'll explain why in this article.

Consensus is now quite strong among the well-informed (i.e. people who read the alternative media) that the downfall of the EBT system will be the downfall of civility across America. Thanks to Obama's disastrous economic policies, nearly 50 million Americans are now on food stamps, and the program is on track to double by the time Obama leaves office. Obama will go down in history as the only president to have doubled the national debt and the food stamp program at the same time.

As the Wal-Mart ransacking in Louisiana just demonstrated, people will clear the shelves and engage in mass theft if they believe they can do so with a minimal risk of getting caught. This is no longer debatable. We just saw it happen in a short-term, localized test case.

What's on many people's minds right now is whether the EBT card system is vulnerable to other glitches, failures or defaults. That's what this article attempts to answer.

Let me thank you in advance for sharing this article with others who need to know this information. I believe this knowledge can save lives. Those who face reality and prepare for the inevitable EBT debit card crash have a far better chance of surviving it than people who had no idea this could happen.

EBT crash possibility #1) Computer code failures

The EBT card glitch that happened last Saturday was due to a failed computer code update that cratered parts of the system. They were able to recover the system in just a few hours, but the ransacking had already begun in Louisiana and could have quickly spread if things hadn't been reversed.

As the disastrous launch of Healthcare.gov has vividly demonstrated, government IT programs are quite capable of crashing and burning, even if over half a billion dollars has been plowed into them.

The EBT card system, however, has the advantage of being primarily administered by the Xerox Corporation, a company with a significant history of competency in transactional IT projects. My honest assessment is that as long as Xerox runs this program, it is very unlikely to fail due to incompetent IT administration problems. Xerox, in other words, has a pretty good handle on running this system and I don't see it cratering due to any failures on their part.

However, if the project were to be taken away from Xerox and, for example, handed over to the same team that built Healthcare.gov, then you could reasonably expect disastrous failures to begin appearing.

EBT crash possibility #2) Failure of the power grid

As James Wesley Rawles rightly points out, all EBT card systems depend on the power grid to function. If the power grid fails, EBT cards become useless.

This is a bigger deal than you might first suppose. Power grid failures can be caused by all sorts of events far outside the control of the U.S. government (or Xerox, for that matter). For example, an unfortunate solar flare could cause a powerful EMP spike that blows out the tens of thousands of transformers currently serving the power grid. That would take the grid offline for a year or more. A new plan was proposed to retrofit the power grid with new hardware that would defend against an EMP-induced failure, but it would take decades to implement.

EMP weapons can also produce a similarly disastrous effect, and North Korea, a nuclear-capable nation, has already threatened to launch a high-altitude ballistic missile with the intention of detonating it high above North America, causing an EMP spike across much of the nation.

Power grids can also fail due to acts of sabotage, incompetent power companies, acts of war, government-forced shutdowns, natural disasters and other causes. To think that the civility of every U.S. city now depends almost entirely on a fully-functioning power grid is a frightening thought...

EBT crash possibility #3) Financial default of the government

Here's an outcome that's inevitable. If the EBT system isn't crashed by technical failures or a failed power grid, sooner or later it will be abandoned as the U.S. government goes into financial default.

This outcome is unavoidable but the timetable is very difficult to predict (it could be weeks, months or years). What we do know is that anyone who can do basic math recognizes the inevitable financial default for the U.S. government. That's because:

• Government "revenue" through taxation is just over $2 trillion per year.

• Government debt on the books right now is approaching $17 trillion, or roughly 800% more than the government's annual income. This would be equivalent to a person making $50K per year owing $400,000 on his credit cards. See real-time debt figures at USdebtclock.org.

• Government's "unfunded liabilities" (i.e. promises to pay social security, federal retirement pensions, Medicare, etc.) are over $125 trillion. Nobody wants to talk about this number because it spells the total financial doom of the United States of America. This is not a popular topic among denialists who kid themselves into thinking the U.S. empire will never fall.

In summary, a government that takes in about $2 trillion per year actually owes over $140 trillion in debts and obligations, meaning that if the government stopped spending ALL money right now -- that is, it permanently shut down and stopped operating -- it would take roughly 70 years of taxes just to pay off its current debts.

This is equivalent to someone making $50K per year who owes $3.5 million on his credit cards.

It is abundantly obvious that the U.S. government will, sooner or later, collapse into financial default. When that day comes, the EBT system will become worthless for one of two reasons. Either A) The system will be taken offline because there's nothing left to fund it, or B) The system will be funded with hyperinflated currency that are suddenly worthless in the marketplace due to rapid price inflation. (Classic price hyperinflation combined with rapid currency devaluation.)

But just as importantly, all federal financial obligations will be null and void in such a scenario, including all federal pensions, health care plans, social security payments veterans' benefits and so on. All of this can (and will) collapse. This is not even a difficult prediction. It is an inevitability. As sure as the sun comes up, the U.S. government will collapse into financial default sooner or later. There is no way out of the seemingly infinite debt people like Obama have placed on our shoulders.

The social chaos that follows such a collapse will obviously be immense. About half the U.S. population depends in one way or another on government programs, pensions, contracts or other payouts. The day all those become null and void is the day you don't want to be caught in, say, downtown Los Angeles.

The fall of the U.S. empire will one day be looked upon with the same curiosity that we now assign to the fall of Rome.

EBT crash possibility #4) Hacker sabotage

It is possible, although unlikely, that hackers might be able to sabotage the EBT card system. Cyber warfare is very real, and China in particular is advancing its technical skills in this fast-expanding realm of warfare.

From an enemy's point of view, crashing the EBT system would be a tactically efficient way to place a devastating social, economic and law enforcement strain on the nation. It might even serve as the opening salvo to follow-up cyber attacks on water treatment facilities and nuclear power plants.

Imagine waking up one day and discovering the food stamp system has crashed, the municipal water supply doesn't work and your local nuclear power plant is leaking radiation. That's the kind of scenario an enemy nation armed with hackers could unleash.

If you think this is a far-fetched scenario, check out this news: "A hacking group accused of being operated by the Chinese army now seems to be going after industrial control systems," declares a Technology Review article.

It goes on to say, "The group, known as APT1, was caught by a research project that provides the most significant proof yet that people are actively trying to exploit the vulnerabilities in industrial control systems."

EBT crash possibility #5) Intentional government false flag to cause chaos

Here's the final way by which the EBT system could crash: an intentional government shutdown.

As we just saw with the Obama administration's barricading of World War II memorials and the arrest of veterans, today's U.S. government is actively engaged in punishing the American people in order to achieve its political goals.

The history of America is a history replete with admitted false flag operations, such as Operation Northwoods. Click here for a comprehensive compilation of false flag attacks that have been openly admitted by the government as being factually true.

To pull off this attack on America, whatever administration occupies the White House could simply order the EBT system to be shut down in exactly the same way Obama recently ordered national parks to be shut down (as part of a contrived, staged federal shutdown theater operation).

What would be the point of such an action? To create social chaos, obviously, from which government would first blame its enemies for the "attack" and then declare martial law to seize control of all power, including control of the internet, all farms and food, all news broadcast organizations, firearms and more. The executive orders have already been put into place for the federal government to seize all private assets in an emergency.

This is classic Orwellian social control, but it's also a tried-and-true tactic used by governments throughout the history of the world. If you don't yet realize how frequently this tactic is invoked by governments, you may not well-schooled in real history. Nor even U.S. history. How do you suppose the NSA got the funding to build its massive surveillance system that now spies on all Americans' phone calls, emails and social media activities? It was authorized by the Patriot Act. And how do you think consensus was engineered for the Patriot Act in the first place?

If Obama gets into real trouble with a possible impeachment over the next few years, watch for a staged EBT card crash (or some other disastrous event) to reassert federal power. Crisis is the lifeblood of dictatorial government, and where a sufficient crisis cannot be found, it can always be contrived.

This is why America needs decentralized food security (home gardens!)

In summary, there are five primary ways the EBT card system can go down. Some are intentional, some are accidental. But either way, the result is the same: 50 million people panicking and desperately trying to figure out where their next meal will come from.

On a philosophical note, this is precisely why a nation of people dependent on the government is a weak nation. A strong nation would reflect the idea of food redundancy (also called "food security"), where most people have their own independent resourcefulness to feed themselves and their families. This can be accomplished through a combination of home gardening, supporting local farming co-ops and CSA's, storing food for preparedness, etc.

A nation of people who cannot grow at least a part of their own diet is a nation with a deep strategic vulnerability that can be exploited by anyone who wants to cause widespread social chaos. Obama's ongoing attacks on raw milk farmers, home gardens and other self-sustaining food production is actually contributing to that strategic vulnerability by destroying local food redundancy.

In World War II, Americans were encouraged to grow "victory gardens" and become independently resilient. Today, Obama encourages Americans to enroll in the federal food stamp program and thereby surrender food security while becoming slaves to a system whose failure is inevitable.

Learn more: naturalnews.com

Government Could Take Your Child if You Feed Them This Food

BROOKLIN, ME – When Alorah Gellerson’s baby did not take to breastfeeding, she started giving him goat’s milk formula.  “Oh, he loved it,” Gellerson said. “We put celery juice in it, and he just loves that, and it worked really well with his body, and he grew like a weed.”

When her doctor alerted the Department of Health and Human Services to the fact that she was using homemade formula and not store-bought formula, things got messy.

“She came in and threatened to take him away and put him in foster care until I complied to go to the doctor and get him seen.”

“It’s so frustrating. My daughter is a great mother. The baby has a great dad, too, and they love this baby very much, and they would never do anything to hurt him. And if we thought the formula was harming him, we would not do that,” said Tania Allen, Gellerson’s mother.


Source: realfarmacy.com

Activists score a victory in Senate against ‘Monsanto Protection Act’

Called “The Monsanto Protection Act” by opponents, the budget rider shields biotech behemoths like Monsanto, Cargill and others from the threat of lawsuits and bars federal courts from intervening to force an end to the sale of a GMO (genetically-modified organism) even if the genetically-engineered product causes damaging health effects.

Image: Reuters/Eduardo Munoz 

Related: Join the March Against Monsanto on 10/12/13: march-against-mosanto.com

The US House of Representatives approved a three-month extension to the rider in their own short-term FY14 Continuing Resolution spending bill, which was approved last week by the lower chamber.

The Senate version of the legislation will make clear the provision expires on Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year.

“That provision will be gone,” Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told Politico.

Pryor chairs the Senate subcommittee on agriculture appropriations.

The Center for Food Safety said the Senate’s eradication of the rider was “a major victory for the food movement” and a “sea change in a political climate that all too often allows corporate earmarks to slide through must-pass legislation.”

“Short-term appropriations bills are not an excuse for Congress to grandfather in bad policy,” said Colin O’Neil, the Center for Food Safety’s director of government affairs.

The biotech rider first made news in March when it was a last-minute addition to the successfully-passed House Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2013, a short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

Following the original vote in March, President Barack Obama signed the provision into law as part of larger legislation to avoid a government shutdown. Rallies took place worldwide in May protesting the clandestine effort to protect the powerful companies from judicial scrutiny.

Largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) to assess risk prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.

The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.

The biotech rider “could override any court-mandated caution and could instead allow continued planting.  Further, it forces USDA to approve permits for such continued planting immediately, putting industry completely in charge by allowing for a ‘back door approval’ mechanism,” the Center for Food Safety said earlier this month upon news the House was reviving the measure.

Source: RT.com & minds.com

This is How the Vaccine Companies Control Government

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

This short video, put out by the Canary Party, sheds some much needed light on the corrupt National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). Many people have no idea that they are held financially responsible when a child is injured by a vaccine instead of the actual manufacturer.


The rule in DC is if you have enough money, you can write a law that will insulate you from risk. You can be declared “too big to fail” and pass your liability onto the tax payers. This is exactly what the vaccine manufacturers did in 1988 with the passage of The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the so-called “vaccine court.” This program has boosted vaccine sales growth immensely since its induction, largely because manufacturers now have zero liability for the products they produce.

You can actually prove that you or your child was harmed from a vaccine yet the vaccine maker is completely shielded from liability. Even if you are awarded monetary compensation through the NVICP, the tax payers are put on the line, NOT the vaccine makers. This removal of liability has created the incentive to turn out new vaccines for profit with very little testing, which in turn has shaped the situation that we find ourselves in today. In the last 2 decades, we’ve witnessed a near 300% increase in the number of CDC recommended vaccines.

Join the Canary Party mailing list

Source: realfarmacy.com

Bayer and FDA Knowingly Exposed Thousands of People to HIV

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Bayer Sells AIDS-Infected Drug Banned in U.S. in Europe, Asia – Unearthed documents show that the drug company Bayer sold millions of dollars worth of an injectable blood-clotting medicine — Factor VIII concentrate, intended for hemophiliacs — to Asian, Latin American, and some European countries in the mid-1980s, although they knew that it was tainted with AIDS. Bayer knew about the fact that the drug was tainted and told the FDA to keep things under wraps while they made a profit off of a drug that infected its patients.

If these allegations are true, then both Bayer and the FDA are at fault for this catastrophe. FDA regulators helped to keep the continued sales hidden, asking the company that the problem be ”quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public,” according to the minutes of a 1985 meeting


Source: rawforbeauty.com

Fluoride is killing you and the environment

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Map of US Fluoridation

How would you like it if someone slipped a carcinogenic, brain damaging, endocrine disrupting, and industrial pollutant into your morning coffee? Well, if you live in the United States there is a 72% chance that this already happens to you on a daily basis. Sound crazy? Well it should sound crazy, but that doesn’t negate the fact that municipalities throughout the US add toxic waste to your drinking water in the name of “dental health.”

Hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride are the by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry, and until recently this was the sole source of the chemicals cities used to “treat” the water supply. Recently, however, many municipalities have been importing a lower quality product from China. The fluoride that is paid for with your tax dollars is actually classified as a hazardous waste by the EPA. The DOT Classification of Hydrofluorosilicic acid is a CLASS 8: Corrosive liquid. If the phosphate fertilizer industry had to pay to dispose of it, they would be paying a pretty penny; instead they use government to profit from the sale of their toxic waste to be dumped in to water supplies ultimately ending up inside your body. Below is the Toxicity Data from the Material Safety Data Sheet on Hydrofluorosilicic acid.

“Severe irritant. Ingestion may cause burns of the gastrointestinal tract leading to vomiting, acidocis, bloody diarrhoea, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache and shock. Circulatory system may be affected with symptoms of shock, rapid, weak or no pulse, severe hypotension and pumonary changes with dyspnea, and emphysaema. In some cases, necrosis and haemorrhage of the  gastrointestinal tract, liver damage and death may occur. Scarring of the gastrointestinal tract may occur in non-fatal cases.” And this is put in to water for you and I to drink.
37 studies have linked fluoride ingestion with reduction in IQ. Most recently was the study out of the Harvard School of public Health that concluded, “children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas.” Dozens more studies show the ineffectiveness of fluoride ingestion in preventing dental caries; they actually show an increase in dental fluorosis instead of a reduction in decay. Even if the science is not enough to make you throw your arms in the air and march into your local city hall to demand they remove the fluoride from the water, the fact that you are being drugged without your consent should be the final nail in the coffin. Yes, the FDA considers fluoride a “drug.”

The question that should be asked now is, if all the information gathered by independent research groups all over the world shows that the effects of fluoridating the water supply are detrimental to the health of the populace, why then would politicians be pushing for it? Why do they continue to ignore the thousands of professionals that constantly petition the state for the removal of fluoride from the water system, the decades of scientific studies, and the horrifying concept of mass drugging a population without consent? In fact, in 1952 The Delaney Committee 82nd Congress Hearings on Fluoride revealed that there was no actual scientific basis for the fluoridation of water supplies in the prevention of tooth decay. Their recommendation was ignored.

There is little doubt that ingesting fluoride is harmful to your health. If you need more evidence of this, simply read the back of your tube of toothpaste. Under warnings, it states something to the effect of “If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” Exactly how much toothpaste is “more than used for brushing” is a subjective amount, but we can take the fact that the majority of toothpastes on the market contain .15% fluoride ion or 1500 ppm and then convert that amount to drinking water levels. Most fluoridated water contains about 1.0 ppm, if the bureaucracy that runs the poison distribution center is functioning properly.  That means that in 1 liter of water, you would find about 1 mg of fluoride. In about 1.5 ml of toothpaste (a large strip on the bristles) you would find 2.25 mg of fluoride. In a small amount of toothpaste for children, the size of a pea, you would find 0.3 mg of fluoride. Apply these amounts to the 1.0 ppm level in drinking water and somewhere between 300 ml to 2 liters is the same amount of fluoride needed to be ingested that toothpaste manufacturers recommend you put in a call to poison control; and this is in our drinking water.

If the fact the fluoride lowers your IQ, is linked to cancer, is poisonous, is a hazardous bi-product of phosphate fertilizer production, and is being given to you without your consent doesn’t get you riled up, then maybe the environmental aspect will.

A rule of thumb for fluoride dispersion through public water is around 130 lethal doses of fluoride per person annually. Fluoride slowly accumulates in our bodies as well as in the environment. It doesn’t just blow away in the wind, nor get easily expelled in the urine. It first goes to the bone, then to the teeth, then to the hard tissue such as cartilage, tendons, and blood vessel walls, and finally what’s left over gets excreted via the kidneys. Approximately 50% of the fluorine ingested, remains and accumulates in the body.

Fluoride cannot be removed from drinking water with a charcoal filter; only a reverse-osmosis filter or steam distilling process will remove fluoride. Boiling water for soup, coffee, tea or other drink, only concentrates fluoride. Approximately 1.2 grams of sodium fluoride will kill an adult human being. That was the low estimate that Dominic Smith ingested when he died from an overdose of fluoridated water at Hooper Bay, Alaska on 23 May 1992. (Approximately 200 mg will kill a small child.)

Water utility companies advertise that they supply us with approximately 115 gallons of fresh water per person, per day. That’s approximately 400 liters per person, daily. Humans only drink approximately one-fourth of one percent of the fresh water supplied by the water utility companies. Therefore, for every 400 liters per person that gets supplied, just 1 liter get swallowed in food or drink (including coffee, juice, soda pop, soups or any other beverage made with fluoridated water), while the other 399 liters of water goes for baths, watering lawns, washing cars, flushing toilets, putting out fires, etc.

In the fluoridation process at the water treatment plant, fluoride is added to our water supply at the rate of one part per million, or 1 milligram per liter. One milligram is the daily intended “target dose” of this “medicine,” for each child under 14 years of age whose teeth haven’t yet fully formed. Adults and pets supposedly don’t count in this equation, even though they also receive their own fluoride in extremely unreliable and varying dosages. Therefore, for every 400 liters of water supplied to us, a full 400 milligrams of fluoride is added to the water supply. However, since only 1 milligram of that amount (one liter of water) is swallowed, 399 milligrams of excess fluoride literally gets flushed down into the sewer or sprayed out onto the ground as a fully legal toxic waste dumping ground.

Since we even bought the toxic waste, that’s quite profitable for whomever manufactured and sold it, but not very healthy for Mother Earth. Exactly how many lethal doses are disseminated in this manner? Simple math on the above numbers reveals that 140 grams of fluoride per person is dumped into the environment each year. 140 grams of fluoride gives us our rule of thumb of 130 LETHAL DOSES OF FLUORIDE PER PERSON, PER YEAR, DUMPED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT wherever “standard” water fluoridation is used.

Multiply 130 by 150 million people (the total number of U.S. population currently drinking fluoridated water) and that makes 20 billion lethal doses of fluoride per year, dumped into our environment. That’s an additive 10 million tons of rat-poison spread across America yearly, in the name of dental health.

So consider this an ACTION ALERT. Go to your city hall and tell them that you are tired of being poisoned and you don’t want fluoride put in your water supply anymore. Municipalities all over the US have been getting fluoride removed. I live in Louisiana and in 2010 the state passed La. Admin. Code Tit. 48, § 1315 that mandates all supplies with populations over 5000 people be fluoridated, yet we resisted and we won. Thanks to an informed minority, we remain fluoride free! You can do the same.

Source: RealFarmacy.com 

US Government Once Again Hiring Monsanto Employees

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Following in the footsteps of other Monsanto bigwigs going through the government’s revolving door, the seed company has again supplied a staff member for a position of authority in one of the very agencies that are allegedly present to protect the public from unsafe farming practices.  The Iowa Department of Agriculture has hired Mike Naig to serve as the deputy secretary.

Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey announced he has hired former Monsanto lobbyist Mike Naig as deputy secretary.

Naig was manager of state and local government affairs for Monsanto, the nation’s largest seed-corn company and a farm-chemical giant.

Naig will start Sept. 4.

“Mike will be a tremendous asset to the department and I’m glad he agreed to join our team,” Northey said in a statement. “His background and experience make him a natural fit for the department.”

…Naig will help manage the ag department, especially on personnel and budget issues. (source)

Please feel free to share any information from this site in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to this website and the following bio.

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

Source: theorganicprepper.ca

The US Government is Monsanto's Top Lobbyist Overseas

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Our tax dollars are being used to aggressively push GMO crops around the world. An in-depth analysis by Food and Water Watch (FWW) called “Biotech Ambassadors” details how the U.S. State Department is engaging in

“a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology overseas, compel countries to import biotech crops and foods that they do not want, and lobby foreign governments—especially in the developing world—to adopt policies to pave the way to cultivate biotech crops.”

In 2010 Wikileaks released a slew of State Department cables that were never meant for public eyes. FWW analyzed 926 of these cables from 2005 to 2009 containing the words “biotech” or “GMO.” From this we clearly see that the agency mobilized its vast resources to promote the interests of the biotech industry and exclude alternative methods of meeting global agricultural challenges.

This is especially true in the developing world. Monsanto is trying to cash in on the hunger problem in countries such as Kenya and Nigeria by taking over their agricultural systems with GMO crops and chemical inputs. What better way than to have the U.S. State Department flex its might on their governments?

Here are some of the ways in which our taxpayer-funded agency carries out its so-called “science diplomacy":

Hosting and coordinating pro-biotech conferences and public events.

Bringing foreign reporters and opinion-makers to the U.S. to “educate” them on the wonders of biotech so they can help overcome public opposition to GMO in their home countries.

“Protect the interests” of biotech exporters and “facilitate trade in agribiotech products.”

Lobbying countries in the developing world to pass legislation favored by the biotech industry.

Opposing laws that would require labeling of GMO foods.

Working with trade representatives to export biotech foods and crops to unwilling countries.

Helping to create new pro-biotech nongovernmental organizations.

Opposing laws requiring labeling of GMO foods.

Swaying public opinion with pamphlets, radio shows, and DVDs to high schools.

Intervening in commercial disputes on behalf of Monsanto.

The FFW analysis is full of quotes and detailed information on the breadth and depth of the State Department crusade. During the five years the number of biotech related cables more than doubled. Annual cables were sent reminding the foreign offices to “pursue an active biotech agenda.”


In 2009 the State Department created a “Feed the Future” initiative that included a partnership with Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill and Syngenta. The agency continued to advocate specifically on behalf of Monsanto even after the company was caught bribing an Indonesian official and paid a $1.5 million fine under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The State Department routinely uses the same propaganda that Monsanto and biotech companies use for their public relations campaigns. They repeat discredited mantras that GMO crops will reduce chemical use when in fact herbicide use has skyrocketed, or that GMO crops provide higher yields when in fact yields have not significantly improved. The most absurd claim is that GMO crops promote sustainable development. How is it sustainable to make farmers buy new seed every year instead of saving seeds for replanting? How is it sustainable to buy chemical fertilizers and herbicides that must be used for these crops, instead of using successful practices of composting and manure management?

The U.S. State Department is acting in a criminal manner by advocating on behalf of Monsanto and other biotech industry giants while excluding alternative, proven methods of sustainable agriculture.

Source: realfarmacy.com

Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail for Collecting Rain Water

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Harrington, of Eagle Point, Oregon, has been fighting for his right to do what he wishes with water since 2002. Now more than a decade after he first defended himself over allegations that the man-made ponds on his 170 acres of land violated local law, Harrington has been sentenced to 30 days behind bars and fined over $1,500.

Authorities say that Harrington broke the law by collecting natural rain water and snow runoff that landed on his property. Officials with the Medford Water Commission contested that the water on Harrington’s property, whether or not it came from the sky, was considered a tributary of nearby Crowfoot Creek and thus subject to a 1925 law that gives the MWC full ownership and rights. Therefore prosecutors were able to argue in court — successfully — that three homemade fishing and boating ponds in Harrington’s backyard violated the law.

For filling “three illegal reservoirs” on his property with runoff water, Harrington has been convicted on nine misdemeanor charges in Circuit Court. He says he will attempt to appeal, but as long as the conviction stands to serve 30 days of imprisonment. He has also been sentenced to an additional three years of probation.
Thirty days in jail for catching rainwater?” Harrington tells the Mail Tribune. “We live in an extreme wildfire area and here the government is going to open the valves and really waste all the water right now, at the start of peak fire season.”

“When it comes to the point where a rural landowner can’t catch rainwater that falls on his land to protect his property, it’s gone too far,” he adds to the Associated Press. “This should serve as a dire warning to all pond owners.”

Sources: Raw For Beauty
AntiGMOfoods.com

U.S. Tax Payers Footing the Bill for Pro-GMO Lobbying Globally

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

A recent article exposed the use of American tax dollars to promote GMOs worldwide. US  diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. In 2007, then-US ambassador to France Craig Stapleton was concerned about France's decision to ban cultivation of genetically modified corn produced by biotech giant Monsanto. He also warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across Europe. Some European countries were even threatened with economic sanctions over their refusal to comply with US economic interests and implement unregulated us of GMOs in Europe.

This is a video with Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology on the practices of US manipulation of other countries regarding their refusal to plant GMOs.

10 Cannabis Studies The Government Wishes It Never Funded

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY: A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.

9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997

8) THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE: Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.

7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I): The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.

6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II): DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.

5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.

4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.

3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE: In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report acknowledged there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting. The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government loves to ignore our report; they would rather it never happened. (Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006)

Sources: Higher Perspective

Waking Times

Jon Stewart on The Monsanto Protection Act

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Jon Stewart faults Congress for being mostly unaware that the legislation protecting businesses that want to sell genetically modified foods was hidden in a bigger bill. 



Related Articles :
Interview With Monsanto

Find A Farmers Market Near You

The Sad Truth About GMO Foods