As I have highlighted before, there are three distinct stages of revolution. The 15 counties comprising Northern California have entered stage two on the path to revolution, namely, the civil disobedience stage. And two of the counties have entered the civil disobedience phase with a vengeance as their County Board of Supervisors have voted to secede from the state of California. As I read their local community’s media accounts, accompanied by their reasons for secession, I feel like I’m reading an old United States history textbook in which we could substitute the state of South Carolina for the seceding California counties of Siskiyou and Modoc. Emotions are running very high as the residents lifestyles and livelihoods are facing total obliteration.
Northern California Is an Agenda 21 Battleground
Over the years, many rural residents have been frustrated by federal environmental laws restricting logging and other forestry activities. The timber industry is dead. The mining industry is dead. The entire region is being deindustrialized and many residents and local leaders have stated that becoming a state would finally allow them to push the federal government to alter the onerous restrictions on government-owned land as well to forsake the private property rights restrictions being imposed upon them.
I have been aware of Agenda 21 abuses in places like Fort Collins, Colorado, where the courts steal the children from parents who protest against draconian Agenda 21 policies. I’m also aware that in places like Santa Cruz, California and Austin, Texas that individual property rights are severely limited because the local governments have adopted United Nations Agenda 21 policies. However, nothing and I mean nothing, matches the Agenda 21 abuses of individual liberties and private property rights that is going on in the northern counties of California and Southern Oregon. And true to form for the mainstream media, barely a word of coverage has been broadcast or published for a national audience.
Along these lines of selective media coverage, please allow me to ask you a question. Would you find it a tad bit interesting, and would you want to see it on your nightly news if you were to discover that a portion of the country was purposely being made to go broke by the Federal government? Would you further find it newsworthy that the people in Northern California are soon going to be forced off of their lands, by the tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, which will result in their relocation to urban areas to the south? Have you ever seen a Wildlands Agenda 21 map where all the red dots and red colored areas are targeted for becoming “no human habitation” zones? Well, all of these things and more are taking place in Northern California and I’m willing to bet that none of you have heard of the horrific abuses that have been perpetrated by the Federal government and their minions in California state government. This is their story.
My Interview with Congressman LaMalfa’s Field Representative
Congressional field representative, Erin Ryan attended a public meeting in September of 2013, in which the Siskiyou County board of supervisors approved a secession declaration, the Redding Record Searchlight reported. Ryan, went on to say that she and other LaMalfa staff members supported the efforts of counties in Northern California and Southern Oregon to secede from their respective states and form the state of Jefferson. READ MORE…
Despite the state of Oregon’s passage of SB 863, an attempt to preempt local regulation of agriculture and reserve that right to the state, Josephine County is going ahead with an initiative to ban the planting of GMO crops. All I can say is GO JOSEPHINE COUNTY!!!!! Farm Wars is behind you 100%
Section 1. Title
This Ordinance shall be known as the Josephine County Genetically Engineered Plant Ordinance
Section 2. Purpose and Findings
1. The purpose of this Ordinance is to:
1. Maintain and protect seed sovereignty and local control, free from outside corporate interests and unnecessary and overreaching preemption by the state and federal governments, of this County’s agriculture, environment, public health, economy and private property rights as they pertain to genetic contamination from genetically engineered plants; Read the rest of this entry »
In April 2013, Testbiotech took samples of soybeans from fields in Argentina in regions that are known for the cultivation of genetically engineered soybeans.The samples were taken shortly before the harvest was due. Nearly all the soybeans grown in Argentina are genetically engineered, and made resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (brands such as Roundup). These soybeans were originally developed by the US company, Monsanto. Currently there are only very few publications on the actual load of residues in these geneticallyengineered plants after they have been harvested. So the purpose of this pilot project was to gather some more data on residues from spraying with glyphosate.
The samples were analysed in a laboratory at the University of Buenos Aires.The results showed a surprisingly high content of residue of up to almost 100mg /kg. In seven of the eleven samples the level was higher than the international maximum residue level (MRL) of 20 mg/ kg allowed in soybeans products used for food and feed. The results were confirmed in a second analysis. Aware that these results were alarmingly high, Testbiotech decided to publish its findings despite the small number of samples.
Testbiotech believes the high level of residues from spraying found in the soybeans indicates that they were not grown under conditions conforming to environmentally friendly agricultural practice. The dosage of glyphosate used in the fields concerned is likely to be much higher than recommended. Such high dosages could have been due to increasing weed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate which is also reported in Argentina. Read the rest of this entry »
Rosemary Mason MB ChB FRCA
Dr. Mason confronts Prof. Jonathan Jones, Head of the Sainsbury Laboratory, about GMO scientists’ ignorance of the effects of glyphosate on humans and animals. She challenges the BBC for promoting the Agrochemical Corporations and failing to inform the public about the dangers of exposure to pesticides. She asks why the British Government and Media have been silent about the health risks of GM. She asks the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) why they approved a trial of GM wheat in the UK in 2013 when there was global evidence of widespread genetic pollution from uncontrolled escapes of herbicide-tolerant oil seed rape and a consignment of wheat for Japan in May 2013 was found to be polluted by Monsanto’s GE wheat trials which had been conducted between 1998 and 2005, but never been commercialised.
Repeated recent claims of a consensus affirming the safety of GMOs are misleading and “may place human and environmental health at undue risk and create an atmosphere of complacency,” states Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, chairperson of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). She is one of over 90 signatories to a statement, released 10/21/2013, of scientists and academics concerned that deliberate and coordinated attempts are being made to preclude further research and discussion of the safety of GMOs. Dr Hilbeck continues: “The ENSSER statement draws attention to the diversity of opinion over GMOs in the scientific community and the often contradictory or inconclusive findings of studies on GMO safety. These include toxic effects on laboratory animals fed GM foods, increased pesticide use from GM crop cultivation, and the unexpected impacts of Bt insecticidal crops on beneficial and non-target organisms”. Further signatories to the statement are still being sought.
Letter to Professor Jonathan Jones FRS
Professor Jonathan Jones FRS
Head of the Sainsbury Laboratory
GM Researcher John Innes Centre
Co-Founder and Scientific Advisor to Mendel Biotechnology, a
US firm which has contracts with Monsanto, Bayer and BP
Holder of GMO patents
GMO Correspondent for the BBC
You may recall our email correspondence about glyphosate (Roundup®). I attach a PDF Glyphosate – Destructor of Human Health and Biodiversity about epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes and autism, reported in Scotland in 2013. Page nos. which I quote below refer to that document.
In January 2012 I sent you, among other documents, the Physicians’ Report from the Crop-sprayed towns of Argentina where the first GM Roundup® Ready Soy and GE corn were grown. The use of glyphosate went from 2 litres/ha in 1996 to 10-20 litres/ha by 2010 because of glyphosate-resistant weeds. There was a high incidence of birth defects, cancers, reproductive and endocrine disorders in the rural communities. Monsanto and the Argentine authorities ignored the rural farmers’ health problems because export of GM soya was making Monsanto and Argentina extremely wealthy. However, Prof Andrès Carrasco an embryologist from Buenos Aires showed that glyphosate caused malformation of amphibian and chicken embryos (pp14-16). Your reply was (p42):
“Glyphosate is not poisonous to mammals- it inhibits EPSP (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3 phosphate) synthase, an enzyme that mammals lack because we obtain aromatic amino acids in our diet”.
Is that what Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta have told you?
Jonathan, is that what you and the pro-GM scientists and lobbyists believe? You are all wrong. Read the rest of this entry »
Barb’s Note: This statement from the posted article “No scientific consensus on safety of genetically modified organisms” is worrisome: “The signatories to the statement call for the compliance to the precautionary approach to GM crops and foods internationally agreed upon in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and UN’s Codex Alimentarius.” Compliance with the UN’s Codex Alimentarius is NOT the answer.
Most people think that the United Nations is a noble enterprise and they don’t understand the history and malignant character of the UN. The intent of the UN is to implement one world government. The UN WFP, which spreads GMOs in poor countries, is just one tool used for advancing the goals of UN Agenda 21, the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control.
Although I am glad to see this consensus regarding GMO dangers, I think it is completely counter-productive to expect an agency bent on spreading GMOs to actually curtail them.
Scientists release statement as World Food Prize goes to Monsanto and Syngenta
Press release, ENSSER, 21 October 2013
There is no scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods and crops, according to a statement released today by an international group of more than 90 scientists, academics and physicians.
The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists, journalists, and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops were generally found safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls these claims “misleading”, adding, “This claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”
“Such claims may place human and environmental health at undue risk and create an atmosphere of complacency,” states Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, chairperson of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) and one of the signatories. “The statement draws attention to the diversity of opinion over GMOs in the scientific community and the often contradictory or inconclusive findings of studies on GMO safety. These include toxic effects on laboratory animals fed GM foods, increased pesticide use from GM crop cultivation, and the unexpected impacts of Bt insecticidal crops on beneficial and non-target organisms,” Dr Hilbeck continues. Read the rest of this entry »