8 Key Concepts To Primal Living

With the Primal Blueprint 21-Day Challenge having just begun, it’s the perfect time to go over the Primal Blueprint 8 Key Concepts. I believe that fully grokking these powerful ideas is crucial to success during the challenge. As the saying goes, knowledge is power. Having a firm grasp of these key concepts will provide a framework for – and make you more resolute in – your daily decisions. Read them, commit them to memory, live by them, and you’ll be well on your way to a lifetime of health and wellness.

In the coming days and weeks, I will lay out the path to Primal health in greater detail, but for now, are you ready to learn the basics? Let’s get to it…

1. Yes, You Really Can Reprogram Your Genes

The popular conception of a gene is “a weird collection of DNA and chromosomes and other stuff that determines whether or not you’re going to get this type of cancer, how long you’ll live, and if you’ll get a coronary bypass at some point in your life.” There’s this idea that genes are immutable, that they represent a sort of cosmic destiny for an individual. But, aside from some heritable traits like eye and hair color or the number of fingers on your hands and feet, genes are actually programmable. They “express” themselves in different ways according to information gathered from our environment, our food, and our behaviors. They “turn on” or “turn off” in response to these environmental signals. Thus, though you might have “the gene for type 2 diabetes” – which is really just a genetic proclivity towards the disease, not a sentence – providing the right environmental signals will prevent the gene from ever turning on.

How we eat, exercise, sleep, interact with our social circles, stress, and spend time outdoors (plus tons of other environmental signals) determines how our genes express themselves; how our genes express themselves in turn determines our level of health. Genetic predisposition is not your destiny.
2. The Clues to Optimal Gene Expression Are Found in Evolution

While we can’t sit at a control panel and fiddle with our gene expression like a mad scientist just yet, we can make some very good guesses based on a powerful heuristic: human evolution. Reason being, two million years of selection pressure exerted upon the hominid line designed a healthy, successful, productive, vibrant organism. We didn’t just “happen,” after all. We look like we do and work like we do and have the genes that we do that express themselves the way that they do because of very powerful selection pressures. The habitats in which we lived, the foods we ate, the movements we had to perform in order to survive, the sunlight to which we were exposed, the stressors we faced – these environmental factors shaped our genetic code, and it is to these various environmental stimuli that our genetic expression responds most favorably. The clues to realizing our Primal Blueprint lies scattered amidst our evolutionary history.

Until that day when we can sit a computer terminal and decide which genes we want to express today, and how, the best we can probably do is use human evolution as a base level tool for making lifestyle decisions. You’ll probably refine the details later, but evolution is a darn good place to start.
3. Your Body Prefers Burning Fat Over Carbohydrates

We’ve evolved to be fat-burners (must be why we’re so adept at storing it on our bodies!). It’s easy to see why. Fat burns slow and evenly, providing all-day steady energy levels. Carbohydrates burn quickly, and they’re gone in an instant, leaving you groggy and depleted unless you “carb up.” Furthermore, carbohydrates are an inherently unreliable and fleeting source of energy for our body, with most people only able to store about 400-500 grams of carbohydrates on the body at any one time. Our storage capacity for fat, on the other hand, is virtually endless. Just ten or fifteen pounds of body fat, which is the bare minimum available on even the leanest individuals, can provide tens of thousands of calories. Luckily, reducing carbohydrates and increasing fat intake sends the epigenetic signals necessary to help us revert back to fat-burning, and it only takes a week or two to get things moving in the right direction.

Become fat-adapted, enjoy boundless energy. Free yourself from the shackles of a carbohydrate-based metabolism/dependency.
4. 80 Percent of Your Body Composition Success Is Determined by How You Eat

Food is the single most important factor in body composition. You can exercise all you want but as long as you’re eating garbage, and too much of it, you won’t get very far. For that reason, any real attempt to modify your body composition has to begin by addressing what you put in your mouth. I like to start with the quality of the food you eat. I don’t discount the importance of quantity, mind you, but I do find that honing in on the quality of the food is more crucial and effective. Case in point: 2000 calories of fast food will have a very different effect on your body composition, satiety, and nutrient intake than 2000 calories of grass-fed meat, wild fish, and produce grown in rich, fertile, nutrient-dense soil. The fast food won’t be as satiating, nor as nutrient-dense, as the real food, so you’ll likely be compelled to eat more of it. The fast food will primarily include trans- and polyunsaturated fats, sugary sauces, refined grains, and poor quality meat, which will promote insulin resistance and the storage of body fat while inhibiting fat burning. Eating Primal food, rich in animals, plants, and healthy fat, on the other hand, will normalize insulin sensitivity, thereby allowing fat burning. In effect, quality will determine quantity; you’ll eat less spontaneously when you eat healthy Primal foods. Quality paired with proper quantity will in turn determine your body composition.

Sleep matters, exercise helps, stress has an effect, but how you eat – what you eat and how much you eat – is the prime determinant of your body composition.
5. Grains Are Totally Unnecessary

Despite their exalted position in the Conventional hierarchy of healthy foods, grains are completely and utterly unnecessary. And yes, that even goes for whole grains. I mean, what’s so great about them, anyway? What unique nutrients do they provide? If you want fiber, eat vegetables. If you want antioxidants, eat colorful produce. If you want carbs, eat fruits and tubers. Humans got along fairly well without wide scale grain agriculture for many thousands of years, and there’s no real reason to buy in today, especially when you consider the grain antinutrients like gluten that impair digestion, reduce mineral absorption, and damage the intestinal lining. What is it, then, that necessitates 10-12 servings of whole grains a day? It’s madness. Besides, for all the supposed health benefits that the grain-obsessed like to say are supported with tons of studies, this just isn’t the case when you look a little deeper. Those studies invariably compare whole grains to refined grains, and in that case, the whole grain will generally win out. I’d suspect that if you compared a whole grain-based diet to a grain-free Primal way of eating, you’d get very different results. Unfortunately, that study hasn’t been done.

There’s nothing good in grains that you can’t get elsewhere, and plenty bad that you won’t find elsewhere. Don’t eat ‘em.
6. Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Are Not Your Enemy

Another popular health canard is that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are horrible, evil things that seek only to clog our arteries, thicken our blood, and pad our waistlines. That’s crazy, of course. Fat, especially saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol are important building blocks for sex hormones like testosterone. Saturated fat helps us absorb nutrients from our food. Saturated fat is inherently the most stable fat, able to withstand heat and light stress without oxidizing, and it’s incredibly satiating. Cholesterol is crucial in the creation of vitamin D from sun exposure. And contrary to popular belief and the protestations of “experts,” neither saturated fat nor dietary cholesterol have been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Sugar, refined PUFA oils, trans-fats? Those are the real enemies. Oh, and consider this: every successful diet is actually a high-fat diet. When you lose weight, whether it’s through low-carb Primal or high-carb vegan, you are consuming ample amounts of highly saturated animal fat. The only thing is that this animal fat is coming off your body, but it’s still saturated animal fat just the same.

A diet rich in animal fat and cholesterol is not just safe, it’s downright healthy.
7. Exercise is Ineffective for Weight Management

Exercise is healthy. Exercise is necessary for lasting wellness. Exercise builds muscle and exerts beneficial effects on hormone expression and function. Exercise gets you strong, gets you fit, and keeps you young. I like exercise; I do some form of it every single day, and I recommend that you do the same. But exercise alone is highly ineffective for weight management. For it to truly help manage your weight, exercise must be paired with a healthy eating plan, adequate sleep, effective stress management, ample sun exposure, and healthy amounts of social contact with friends, family, and loved ones. Sure, some people take exercise to the extreme, training for hours and hours on end, all in the quest to burn a few hundred more calories, to “make up for” those donuts at breakfast, to eradicate those love handles. And if you go long enough and hard enough, yeah, you’ll “burn calories.” But at what cost? Exercise is a stressor, after all. Maintained at a chronic, extreme pace and frequency, exercise becomes a chronic stressor that does more harm than good. It makes you hungry. It increases systemic and local inflammation. It depresses your immune system. It fatigues you, leading to less activity throughout the day. You’ll eventually and inevitably burn out unless you eat a massive amount of calories to make up for all that you’ve lost, and, at that point, you’re back at square one.

You can’t out-exercise a bad diet and poor lifestyle.
8. Maximum Fitness Can Be Achieved in Minimal Time With High Intensity Workouts

Study after study shows that the key to optimal health, aging, and fitness is muscle strength and mass. The more lean mass we have, the better we’re able to handle what life can dish out, whether it’s carrying groceries, playing with our kids, saving our own lives in a life-or-death situation, or engaging in the time-tested essential activity known as love-making. Luckily for those of us who relish our free time, the most effective, most efficient ways to build and maintain lean mass are through intense strength and sprint training. Twice a week, spend 15-40 minutes lifting heavy things using functional, full-body compound movements – squats, pullups, pushups, planks – and once every 7-10 days, spend 10-20 minutes doing 8-10 all out sprints. If you don’t want to move heavy weights, you don’t have to; bodyweight exercises are plenty of stimulus for most people. And if you’re not ready to run sprints on a track, plenty of lower-impact alternatives exist, like cycling, swimming, rowing, or even uphill sprints.

Make your short, intense workouts shorter and more intense. Round them out with lots of slow moving – walks, hikes, and the like – throughout your everyday life, and you’ll be incredibly fit and well-rounded, in a fraction of the time most people presume is required. This is Primal Blueprint Fitness.

So, that’s it – the overview of the eight key concepts that comprise the Primal Blueprint. There’s more to it, of course – the 10 Primal Blueprint Laws are elementary and should also be studied – but for the purposes of completing and downright killing the 21-Day Primal Blueprint Challenge, these 8 Key Concepts provide a solid foundation for you moving forward.

What do you say? Does this sound doable? Does this make at least a bit of sense? Are you ready to get Primal?

Let’s do it!

Secret TSA Body Scanners 50 X More Lethal

A growing number of Americans are already outraged over the government's use of high-powered, ultra-revealing and potentially dangerous backscatter x-ray machines at a growing number of the nation's airports, and as bad as that problem is, it's about to get a whole lot worse unless Congress intervenes to stop the madness.

In the late 1990s, travel experts doubted the government would ever employ such machines in a security checkpoint role at airports or other locations. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 dramatically reversed that mentality to the point that now, no doubt afraid of being accused of doing "too little" to enhance security, lawmakers and select government agencies have done a complete reversal, permitting the use of high-powered x-ray machines to "scan" airline travelers (and perhaps, we near bus, train and other modes of travel in the future).

The all-knowing Transportation Security Administration insists the machines it is currently using - some 250 of them - are safe, but the agency relies primarily on its own in-house and government experts to support their claims.

The non-governmental experts speak

But other private-sector experts, including a bevy of health and radiation scientists cited by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, disagree. They include Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., a board certified neurosurgeon, who wrote:

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration's new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April (2010).

The letter he referred to was signed by doctors John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D., all of whom are faculty at the University of California, San Francisco. They wrote:

We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers. Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed.

These experts went on to say that even though the overall dose of radiation "would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high."

Despite what the experts say, the government continues to employ more powerful x-ray machines

No matter. Again, the TSA knows better. And apparently, judging by the lack of concern shown by a majority of members of Congress, most of them agree with this rogue agency.

So, law enforcement agencies, including the TSA and others, are continuing to expand their use of x-ray scanners, "including machines that expose people to as much as 50 times more radiation than an airport scanner, and are sometimes using them on people without their knowledge or consent," AllGov.com reported.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is currently installing some 35 drive-thru x-ray gates that will scan vehicles at the border with passengers still inside.

New York City, meanwhile, has utilized specially equipped vans to scan vehicles for drugs and weapons, again while people are inside them.

Also, prisons have begun to use x-rays that can see through the body in search of contraband that may be hidden inside the bodies of prisoners - and jail employees as well.

Where are the government regulatory agencies?

The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for the safety of medical machines like x-ray equipment, apparently has no jurisdiction over their non-medical use, according to reports. So, they've done nothing about the use of x-ray scanners by police.

Eat GMO? Liver Damage?

Genetically engineered wheat contains an enzyme suppressor that, when consumed by humans, could cause permanent liver failure (and death). That's the warning issued today by molecular biologist Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury in Australia.





Heinemann has published an eye-opening report that details this warning and calls for rigorous scientific testing on animals before this crop is ever consumed by humans. The enzyme suppressor in the wheat, he says, might also attack a human enzyme that produces glycogen.

Consumers who eat genetically modified wheat would end up contaminating their bodies with this enzyme-destroying wheat, causing their own livers to be unable to produce glycogen, a hormone molecule that helps the body regulate blood sugar metabolism. This, in turn, would lead to liver failure.

"What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes," said Heinemann in a press conference on the threat of GM wheat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7n_caiTvE).

"We found over 770 pages of potential matches between these two genes in wheat and the human genome," he continued. "We found over a dozen matches that are extensive and identical, and sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems.

The findings are absolutely assured. There's no doubt that these matches exist. ...from this information, we know that it's plausible there will be an adverse effect and therefore that's why we're calling for a particular battery of experiments to be done before humans eat this wheat."

Professor Judy Carman, biochemist and director of the IHER, Flinders University, Adelaide, added: "If this silences the same sort of gene in us -- as it silences in the wheat -- then, well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five. And adults with this problem, just kind of get more and more sick, and more and more tired, until they get very very ill indeed."

She continues, "Before this comes near any human feeding studies, you need to undertake thorough animal safety assessments, where you actually look to see if the animals get sick. So you need to see if this genetic modification survives digestion and gets into the bodies of the animals.

You need to see what effect it has on them. You need to do proper long-term toxicology studies... you need to check for cancer, you need to see if there are any reproductive problems, and you need to check for allergies..."

GMO pushers want you and your children to be the guinea pigs
As you consider this information, keep in mind that GMO pushers want you and your children to eat GMOs that have never been safety tested on anyone! You are simply supposed to believe in the safety of GMOs, like a cult followers, without any scientific evidence proving it.

In today's corporate-run quack science agricultural system, YOU are the human guinea pigs. There is no science behind the safety of GMOs, and in fact the real science shows that GMOs cause infertility, sickness and disease in the animal tests that have been done. GMOs are a threat to humanity, and those who promote them are junk science villains who have sold their souls to the criminal biotechnology industry.

The GMO industry is so evil that it doesn't even want you to know you're eating GMOs! That's why industry giants are funneling tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California (www.CArighttoknow.org) which would legally mandate the labeling of GMOs on food products.

Even popular brands that "sound" natural are actually fighting against GMO labeling: Kashi, Larabar, Cascadian Farm, R.W. Knudsen, Silk and other brands have all betrayed consumers and are now the subject of a global Natural News boycott.

Australian regulators sell out to Monsanto
In commenting on all this, Dr Brian John of GM-Free Cymru said:

"What we see here is yet another example of a GM wheat variety released into the environment without any proper assessment of health and safety issues. CSIRO and the Australian and New Zealand regulators have long had a strategy of promoting GM crops which nobody actually wants, with a degree of enthusiasm that verges on criminal negligence.

We see a very similar scenario in the UK, where GM wheat is being grown at Rothamsted in spite of strong public opposition and in spite of zero market demand, just to satisfy the whims of politicians and multinational corporations. It is high time for this absurd and dangerous experiment with GM technology to be stopped in its tracks, since new evidence of harm to health and the environment now seems to be appearing on a weekly basis."

See the background on CSIRO:HERE

It shows that CSIRO has financial ties to Monsanto and other biotech companies.

Read the expert scientific opinion reports
(Thanks due to GMwatch.org for this list.)

Professor Jack Heinemann's Expert Scientific Opinion

Professor Judy Carman's Expert Scientific Opinion

Professor Michael Antoniou's Expert Scientific Appraisal of Heinemann and Carman's Work

Heinemann's Expert Scientific Opinion: Appendix 1

Heinemann's Expert Scientific Opinion: Appendix 2

Safe Food Foundation media release on the opinions

ABBREVIATIONS
CSIRO = Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
FSANZ = Food Standards Australia New Zealand
OGTR = Office of the Gene Technology Regulator


I am a molecular biologist. I have been an academic at the University of Canterbury since 1994. Prior to that, I was employed by the US National Institutes of Health. My doctorate was conferred by the University of Oregon at Eugene (1989) and my Bachelor of Science (with honours) degree from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1985).

I am involved in risk assessment research and participate in risk assessment through evaluation of assessments provided to regulatory bodies and through the development of international guidance documents for risk assessment. I have over 100 scholarly works published on the topic of molecular biology, genetics, risk assessment and other scientific matters within my expertise. I publish in leading international journals and my work has been recognised by prestigious professional organisations for its excellence.

Massive Fund Attack on GMO Labeling Proposal in California

Just how much is it worth to chemical giants like Monsanto to make Proposition 37 – a bill that would require labeling of genetically engineered food – go away?
Enough to contribute $4.2 million so far to a campaign to defeat it, that's how much.
Monsanto's not the only major chemical company hoping to defeat this measure. Dupont ($1.27 million) and Dow Agro ($1.18 million) are contributing millions to fight our right to know what's in the food we eat.

Why are You Being Kept in the Dark About What's in Your Food?

Monsanto is the acknowledged leader responsible for the genetic changes in our food system – the mother of biotechnology in agriculture and creator of other products that have included Agent Orange¹, PCBs², DDT³, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and aspartame⁴.
How Monsanto became such a ringmaster is crucial to understanding why Americans are not allowed to know if their food has been genetically engineered by simple labeling like 50 countries around the world do, including Russia, China and the entire EU.

So why are Americans kept in the dark? Monsanto is not just an expert in manipulating genetic structures, they are also experts in manipulating people.
Monsanto influenced President Ronald Reagan's administration back in 1986 to assure genetic engineering would be kept away from the public forum. Monsanto's power has been further enhanced through each administration, adding more influence with each federal appointment.
Even in the past year, Monsanto has directly supported at least 65 candidates for federal office in the 2012 elections, with significant dollars "donated" to the chairs and leadership of the House and Senate Ag Committee.

Who's Really in Charge of GE Food Safety?

Who is ensuring the safety of Monsanto's products? Not Monsanto.

"Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job" – Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine.

And neither is the US FDA...The FDA has not conducted a single independent test of any genetically engineered product. The agency simply accepts the testing completed and provided by the biotechnology corporations like Monsanto. The FDA makes this very clear,

"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety" – FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104, p. 229

Does that make you a bit concerned about the integrity of our food safety system? There are many variables to consider with these genetically engineered foods. GMOs are living, synthetic organisms that can reproduce and proliferate, they can mutate and migrate. Can we trust a small group of chemical companies to control and monopolize our food and restructure the world's food system?
The USDA has implemented a new fast-track process that is a part of efforts by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack⁵, to "transform the USDA into a high-performing organization that focuses on its customers" – namely big biotech bullies like Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, BASF, and Syngenta. The USDA recently posted 12 new genetically engineered (GE) crop submissions for public comment, and nine are under the new fast-tracked process. It's no coincidence that Vilsack was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Association in 2001...
Former United States Secretary of Agriculture (served from 1995 until 2001), Dan Glickman, was a big promoter for biotechnology and pushed for these products to be sold in Europe to secure profitable exports. He concluded after his USDA departure,

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches."

"FDA Shouldn't Order Costly GMO Labels Just to Satisfy Scientific Illiterates"

Arrogant biotech scientists make alarmingly dishonest blanket statements suggesting all scientists agree that genetically engineered foods are beneficial to us and our environment. I invite you to read GMO Myths and Truths if you'd like to completely debunk that lie.
A recent article by a biotechnology company consultant recently wrote an article entitled, "The FDA Shouldn't Order Costly GMO Labels Just to Satisfy Scientific Illiterates."⁶
In Europe, Monsanto supports labeling genetically engineered foods because the people demand it. In fact, after realizing how much it had upset the European public by attempting to force these products upon consumers, Monsanto ran ad campaigns in support of labeling to save face.

One ad proclaims, "You have the right to know what you eat, especially when it's better... We believe that products that come from biotechnology are better and that they should be labeled."
In an interview with State of the World Forum, News Team journalist Alastair Thompson asked Monsanto CEO, Robert Shapiro about the consumers demand for labeling GMOs. Shapiro said, " ...it is not my role, or Monsanto's role, to decide these things. It is society's role to decide those questions after appropriate debate."
"So you are open to labeling being introduced then?" Shapiro answered: "Yes. Of course."
Monsanto spokesman, Gary Barton also clearly stated, "There's a total misperception that we're against labeling." Genetically engineered products should proudly display a simple statement acknowledging this technology. These multinational businesses should have no problem promoting evidence to convince consumers of their many benefits.
Surprisingly, Monsanto appears to contradict those principles in the United States, where the company says it doesn't support labeling and will spend millions to ensure this information is concealed from consumers.
That's because the current policy in America is one where the FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture operate as both regulator and marketer of biotechnology. Most people don't realize that our own USDA co-patented the "Terminator" technology that makes seeds sterile. Monsanto loves to proclaim that genetically engineered foods will save the environment and feed the hungry, apparently with a very heavy hand.

"People will have Roundup Ready soya whether they like it or not" – Ann Foster, spokesperson for Monsanto in Britian, as quoted in The Nation magazine from article "The Politics of Food" by Maria Margaronis.

India Bans Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton Seeds

The Indian state Maharashtra has now banned the sale and distribution of Monsanto's genetically modified Bt cotton seeds⁷ for obvious reasons. India recently released an analysis from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture regarding Monsanto's Bt cotton performance in the country. According to the report:

"The Bt cotton has aggravated agrarian distress rather than helped farmers. The irresponsible hype and promotion of this technology has cost many farmers their lives and cannot continue."

A thorough investigation into the Bt cotton collusion has been ordered from the beginning, including a review of studies showing inexplicable changes in the organs and tissues of Bt cotton seed-fed lambs. India has suffered greatly due to false promises of biotechnology. I traveled to several locations in India back in 2008 to see the suffering first hand and to hear the tragic stories of farmers consuming the very herbicide that was supposed to help them harvest high-yielding genetically engineered crops.
Instead, these farmers were burdened with great debt to purchase these products, and eventually would lose their land when the promised yield never came, and ultimately would take their own life. Yet we're led to believe these patented, synthetic life forms are supposed to be the salvation for impoverished farmers and starving people. GMOs can't even feed America's inner cities, much less Africa, Pakistan and the rest of the starving population. This is a problem of politics, distribution, and equity that Monsanto simply dismisses in an attempt to control the world's food supply.

Monsanto's Utopian Future = Environmental Disaster

Monsanto was prosecuted on corruption charges in Indonesia. The biotechnology giant said it would pay $1.5 million to settle charges of bribing Indonesian officials. The company made payoffs to officials over six years, according to a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, including a $50,000 cash payoff to Indonesia's environment ministry official.
You see, Monsanto will do whatever it takes to accomplish their ultimate goal.
In January, 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. Monsanto executives told the consulting firm what their ideal future would look like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world in which 100 percent of all commercial seeds would be genetically modified and patented; a world in which natural seeds would be virtually extinct.

"What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain" –Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural sector, in the Farm Journal. Quoted in: Flint J. (1998) Agricultural industry giants moving towards genetic monopolism.Telepolis, Heise.

Why No One Should Overlook Monsanto's Sordid Past

Monsanto has had a controversial past that had polluted the land and contaminated virtually every human and animal on earth. According to a former Monsanto vice president, "We were despised by our customers." Monsanto's chief European spokesman admitted in 1999, "Everybody over here (Europe) hates us."
It appears that the rest of the world is catching on. Monsanto has gone so far as to even begin brainwashing our children, creating a Biotechnology Basics Activity Book.⁸ The book states:

"This is an activity book for young people like you about biotechnology – a really neat topic. Why is it such a neat topic? Because biotechnology is helping to improve the health of the Earth and the people who call it home."

The book goes on misleading kids with statements like: "Reduces Blindness," and "creates products with reduced fat." Not covered in the book however, is any explanation of how for nearly 40 years, while producing PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into an Anniston, Alabama creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into landfills. Thousands of Monsanto documents marked "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" show how they hid their transgressions that went on for decades. One internal memo concluded:

"We can't afford to lose one dollar of business."

A life-long resident of Anniston, Alabama revealed,

"Monsanto did a job on this city. They thought we were stupid and illiterate people, so nobody would notice what happens to us."

Monsanto created virtually all of the PCBs in the U.S. and is a "potentially responsible party" at 93 sites where hazardous waste has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A former Anniston plant manager for Monsanto, William Papageorge, was asked in a deposition whether Monsanto officials ever shared their knowledge about PCB hazards with the community.⁹ "Why would they?" he replied.

Monsanto "Learned its Lesson" from Successful EU Refusal of GE Products

In a 2010 article in the International Journal of Communication, titled "Monsanto Discovers New Social Media," Wilhelm Peekhaus writes:¹⁰

"Monsanto learned some time ago about the value of the Internet in influencing the message being disseminated publicly about genetically engineered crops. The company's director of communications, Philip Angell, admitted to The Wall Street Journal that 'maybe we weren't aggressive enough. …When you fight a forest fire, sometimes you have to light another fire.'
Monsanto executives identified the Internet as the medium that had facilitated the rapid and expansive uptake of European protest against its products.
Jay Byrne, former Monsanto director of Internet outreach, counseled colleagues beyond the company to 'think of the Internet as a weapon on the table. Either you pick it up or your competitor does, but somebody is going to get killed.'"

GE Crops – the Largest Experiment on Earth

Monsanto's business practices are certainly one concern we need to take into account when it comes to our food supply. But what about the science – will Monsanto's monoculture prevail and thrive or cause massive problems for our future agriculture system? The National Academy of Science concluded after a fungus spread through America's corn crop:

"The key lesson is that genetic uniformity is the basis of vulnerability to epidemics."

Back in 1993, Monsanto issued statements to the USDA regarding the potential for the development of weed resistance, ensuring that "glyphosate is considered to be an herbicide with low risk for weed resistance" and "it is highly unlikely that weed resistance to glyphosate will become a problem as a result of the commercialization of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans."
Over 20 different weed species have now developed glyphosate resistance and the risks are not limited to the plants. The Bt gene that is introduced into a majority of the American corn and cotton dramatically catalyzes the resistance of insects. At least eight species of insects have already developed Bt resistance.

"We're not going to make this go away," said University of Minnesota professor Bruce Potter, a pest management specialist. "We're stuck with managing this problem."¹¹

We are performing an experiment on a world scale whose consequences are unknown and can only be imagined. Dr. Charles Benbrook was a former agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality at The White House, Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, and Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences.
He has stated,¹²

"The scope of the fraud, if you will – I know that's a harsh word – the scope of the fraud that's being sold to the American public about this technology is almost unprecedented.
They have no control over where in that cell or where in that plant's genome the new genetic material gets lodged and expressed. Because they don't have control over that, they have absolutely no basis to predict how that trans-gene, the new genetic material, is going to behave in the future as that plant deals with stresses in its environment – whether it's drought, too much water, pest pressures,imbalances in the soil, or any other source of stress.
They just don't know how it's going to behave. They don't know how stable that expression is going to be, or whether the third generation of the plant is going to behave just like other generations. They don't know whether the promoter gene, which has been moved into the plant to turn on the new piece of genetic material, will influence some other biosynthetic pathway that's in the plant, turning on some natural process of the plant when it shouldn't be turned on, or turning it off too soon.
There are all sorts of things that they don't know.
The biotechnology industry says, 'Well, if one of these genetically engineered plants kind of goes crazy, it's probably not going to be fit and it won't survive. It won't last in the environment. Nature will select out against it.'
For somebody that works for a public institution to make that point, it really borders on libelous. It's such a violation of the public trust for scientists who understand this stuff to be so divorced from fairness in talking about the technical issues to an audience of non-scientists. It's really scandalous, in my opinion."

Without Choice, How Can There Be Trust?

Former Monsanto lawyer and current FDA Food Czar Michael Taylor wrote the policy of substantial equivalence, ensuring biotech companies would not need to label their products as genetically engineered. This would appear to contradict Taylor's opinion in a 2003 Nature Biotechnology article¹³ where he states:

"The United States and the major US agbiotech companies have positioned themselves in the eyes of many as opposing choice by virtue of their aggressive promotion of the technology, their opposition to labeling worldwide, and most recently by resorting to trade remedies to force Europe's hand. Nothing could be more destructive of trust in the technology and its promoters than for them to be on the wrong side of the choice issue. They should change their position and put themselves on the side of empowering choice in whatever way works in any given country."

Even Presidential candidate Obama promised to label genetically engineered foods – a promise we're still waiting for him to fulfill even after a full term in the Oval Office.
After moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety, the US ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of George W. Bush, asked Washington to penalize the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops.¹⁴

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," said Stapleton, who with Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team in the 1990s.

In one document, the embassy wrote: "If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow." It was also leaked that the US knew in advance how Spain would vote, before the Spanish biotech commission had even reported their findings.¹⁵

Are Genetically Engineered Crops Saving the World as Promised?

Not according to the Union of Concerned Scientists¹⁶, which recently created an ad campaign to awaken the public to Monsanto's failed agricultural model. One such ad reads:

More Herbicide + Fewer Butterflies = Better Seeds?
Monsanto Says: "In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, while protecting the earth's natural resources."
In Fact: Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops, genetically engineered to tolerate the company's Roundup herbicide, increased herbicide use by an estimated 383 million pounds between 1996 and 2008. And Monarch butterflies have laid 81 percent fewer eggs thanks to habitat loss since Roundup Ready was introduced.

A Cornell University study back in 1999 showed Bt pollen from GMO corn killed monarch butterflies. This was confirmed in a study performed at Iowa State in the summer of 2000. The caterpillars' guts were essentially destroyed, they crawled slowly, turned black and rotted. There are 4,000 different species of butterflies and moths that could be affected.
Walmart has recently announced they will be selling sweet corn utilizing this Bt technology, unlabeled of course. Even more damning may be details from the "GMO Myths and Truths" report¹⁷ that was produced by industry expert scientists. The report presents evidence that genetically engineered crops:

• Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
• Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
• Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
• Do not increase yield potential
• Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
• Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant "superweeds," compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
• Have mixed economic effects
• Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
• Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
• Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
• Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on

Beware of the Hired Front-Groups

In a recent Huffington Post article¹⁸, public health lawyer Michelle Simone warns that many former tobacco industry consultants are now hard at work devising battle plans for the food industry against California's Proposition 37. She writes:

"...Another tactic honed by Big Tobacco is to form a front group that appears to be made up of small businesses and others, in order to give the impression of a grassroots campaign, but which is really funded by large corporations. This tactic, known as Astroturfing, is alive and well with 'No on 37,' which describes itself as a 'broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, taxpayers, small businesses, labor, food companies, biotechnology companies and grocers.'
Small farmers and small businesses? I don't see any listed on the 'Who We Are' page. I do see many not-so-small trade groups representing numerous not-so-small corporations, some of them from outside California, including CropLife America, which is a trade group for the biotech and pesticide industry.
...Another group with Big Tobacco origins now spreading lies about the GMO labeling initiative is the unsubtle front group California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, whose executive director recently warned us to 'beware of trial lawyers lurking in your food.' (It seems lawyers are scarier than altering the genetic code of the food supply.) ...In sum the food industry, to oppose a simple labeling law, is hiring lawyers and consultants with ties to the tobacco industry, to deploy stealth tactics such as creating front groups, digging up dirt on opponents, and spreading outright lies.
For decades the tobacco industry and its shills hid the truth by deploying its most effective weapon: manufacturing doubt about the health hazards of smoking. How many millions of Americans died as a result of Big Tobacco's deceptive and cynical campaign? Why would we trust these same operators now?"

The Final Hope for Americans to Achieve Basic GMO Labeling

As we are only weeks away before voting begins, this is our final push to raise funding and awareness for the Proposition 37 campaign. There may never be another chance to achieve labeling in the United States.
The decision to label genetically engineered foods will be put into the hands of voters. This coordinated effort has brought millions of consumers together from around the world, but some are wondering why some of the largest businesses that support labeling remain on the sideline. With Monsanto leading the funding for opposition with $4.2M already contributed, funding for support of Prop 37 is provided by consumer associations and organic companies.¹⁹

The biotech industry is definitely running scared; Monsanto is leading the charge contributing $4.2 million, and you can bet more is on the way in an attempt to buy votes with propaganda against the initiative. Please contribute to the Organic Consumers Fund to ensure that Americans will finally have the basic right to know what's in their food.
I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

• Join the CA RightToKnow campaign, and tell everyone you know in California to vote YES on Proposition 37.
  
  
• Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort through the Organic Consumers Fund.
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.

Cesar Tells Of Pongo Fund, A Food Bank For Pets

When Larry Chusid discovered in 2009 that no resource existed to provide dog and cat food to Portland, Oregon area pet owners in need, he made it his mission to become that resource.
The Pongo Fund, named after Chusid’s late four-legged best friend who thrived on homemade food, exists to distribute healthy, high-quality diets to anyone with hungry pets. To date, the nonprofit organization has provided more than 3,731,013 healthy meals to dogs and cats in need.

“A healthy pet leads to a healthy family,” says Chusid, The Pongo Fund’s executive director. “Our belief is that if the family cannot afford pet food, they’re facing a lot of struggles, and giving them low-quality food is only going to exacerbate the situation. Let’s make sure that we take care of the soul of the family: the animal.”

Caring for a Community

Though traditional food-bank networks throughout the Pacific Northwest provide food to people in need, they only focused on the two-legged family members, Chusid says. “I wanted to make sure hungry animals had access to great food, but I was shocked to learn there was no resource. I just thought, this can’t continue.”

So he used his own resources to purchase high-quality pet food and began giving it out twice a day, every day, to families with pets living under bridges or on the streets. He was making a difference, but he felt it wasn’t enough. He wanted to reach everyone in need – including those behind four walls.

“The people who are living outdoors with pets were the easiest people to access because they were out there,” he said. “But what about all the people who are living behind four walls? Suffering in silence?”

Three years ago, Chusid began to formulate a plan — a plan that came to fruition thanks to a chance encounter with Canidae Pet Food CEO Scott Whipple. When Chusid shared his vision, Whipple wanted to help.

“I told him that I wanted to open a pet food bank that would exceed the expectations that anyone ever had when it came to opening any food bank,” Chusid recalls. “I wanted to reach out and care for a community that was in such dire need, that could not afford to feed their pets. But I wanted to do it in a way that was filled with courtesy and dignity, something beyond what anyone even imagined possible.

When Chusid said he needed $125,000 worth of food, Whipple didn’t even blink.
“[Whipple] said, ‘You can count on that donation. When do you want it?’ I couldn’t believe it,” Chusid says. “Canidae has allowed The Pongo Fund to develop an organization with a mission statement of providing quality pet food for the family pets of anyone in honest need.”

In 2010, after just one year in operation, The Pongo Fund had served more than 1 million meals — all made possible by Canidae, pet food maker Dogswell, and the countless volunteers who distribute the food every month.

“When we opened our doors on November 8, 2009, we had forty people that came that day and received literally life-saving respite in terms of the food for who they consider to be the most valuable members of their family: their pets,” Chusid said. “One year later, November 14, 2010, we celebrated our one-year anniversary. On that day, we gave out our one millionth meal. Instead of forty people in line, there were now almost two hundred.”

Since then, The Pongo Fund has provided nearly four million meals to hungry pets. “And we have also facilitated some thousand spay/neuter surgeries, a strategic formula working in unison to reduce overcrowded shelter populations,” Chusid says.

Reaching Beyond Portland

The Pongo Fund not only gives out free Canidae and Dogswell meals twice a month via its distribution center, but it also disperses food throughout Oregon and southwest Washington via allied nonprofits.

“We built this mission into a fully operational endeavor that does not only open the door and give food to the public,” Chusid said. “We have developed, integrated and managed a pet food distribution network that now supplies pet food to more than fifty different nonprofit organizations throughout Oregon and southwest Washington. That is, as far as I can tell, the largest pet food distribution network in America.”

During the month of September, The Pongo Fund will be closing its doors for the first time — but only for six weeks. Plagued with roof leaks in its existing facility, the organization has been forced to relocate to a new space in Southeast Portland.  In anticipation of the move, the group made sure its distribution network was fully stocked, Chusid says.

“The Pongo Fund has donated an extra 50,000 pounds of kibble to many of our community partners, including Snowcap Charities, Salvation Army, Neighborhood House, Potluck in the Park and Clackamas Service Center,” he says. “We also donated food to establish pet food pantries at West Columbia Gorge Humane Society and Multnomah County Animal Services. These extra food supplies will provide struggling families with increased options during this brief service interruption.”

Unfortunately, this also means The Pongo Fund’s depleted pantry will need to be restocked. Chusid says he welcomes donations from concerned supporters. “Because The Pongo Fund purchases pet food at huge discounts, monetary donations go the farthest to help feed hungry animals around the state,” he says.

“If we can continue building on what we’ve done, I remain optimistic that we can make a bigger difference than we already have,” Chusid says.

Love Animals? HELP Homeless People Continue To Feed Their Animals

Pongo is an incredible organization. They donate superior grade dog & cat food to the homeless street people of Portland. Folks who, in spite of adversity, have not neglected or surrendered their animals.

Pongo has also contributed many thousand pounds of dog food & treats to many other rescues including Happy Tails Rotts......our pooches have benefited enormously! We don't know how we could manage without his generosity. Recently, we received 7,000 lbs of premium quality treats and foods, we are thankful for his efforts.

PLEASE vote Pongo! If you can get your family & friends on board it could make a tremendous difference in whether Pongo is able to continue their most worthy efforts, many mouths depend on your support....

Thanks, so greatly appreciated. The Pongo Fund is about loving animals and generosity!

Toni

NOTE FROM PONGO FUND FOUNDER BELOW....

Toni,



I need your help now.



The Pongo Fund is part of the Chase Community Giving campaign. And I need you to please VOTE PONGO. And to please send an email out to your email list also. This is serious.



This isn’t for us, it’s for Oregon. The dollars are going to get donated somewhere and we’ve got a real good chance at getting some of them here. But we need your help. The voting ends on 9/19 and we can’t do this alone.

To keep that food coming requires help along the way. And that help is needed today.



Please VOTE now for The Pongo Fund in the Chase Community Giving contest. This is the quick link



Thank you…Larry

65 Yr Old Texas Shooter Kills Bad Guy & Saves Cop's Life

Vatic Note: Hear that, NATO Troops? And we have over 200 million, just like him, some not as good and some better, much better. Just thought you should know we are not Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, or Syria. And Israel needs to know we are not Palestine, either. Oh, forgot to mention many of those 200 million are also hackers that can take down those drones or maybe even redirect them back to you. Now that would be cherry! You have a problem, Houston.

You know the MSM won't really cover this story like they do the bad shootings. Anything that supports carry will be hidden and anything that supports gun control will be splattered all over the MSM. We see that day after day. So TODAY, the alternative press will splatter the story highlighting the reason for open carry, all over their pages, while at the same time, the reason to resist gun control is carried in the same story.

Not to mention that 58 million citizens of the globe were massacred by their leaders during the 20th century AFTER THOSE LEADERS INSTITUTED GUN CONTROL. Never going to happen here in the US, where legal drugs kill more US citizens per year, than US soldiers killed, in a 10 year war with three or four different countries. Now, where are our priorities, please???.

A 66 Year Old Texan Vic Stacey Puts Four 357 Magnum Pistol Rounds into a Killer Rifleman at 165 Yards

“Any man in combat who lacks comrades who will die for him, or for whom he is willing to die, is not a man at all. He is truly damned.” …author/historian William Manchester, USMC, Goodbye Darkness.

…by Jim W. Dean, VT Editor



Early, Texas – Double Murder Press Conference

Charles Ronald Conner got into a dispute with a neighbor about his dogs. By the time it was over, the dogs, the neighbor and his girlfriend were all dead, shot with Conner’s 9mm.

Conner then grabbed a lever action, scoped 30-30 rifle and took up a position to add a few of the responding police officers to the bad day he was having.

Sgt. Means, the first responding officer, despite his having an AR-15 was pinned down in a bad position.


Despite the distance Vic Stacey knew he had to take the clear right flank shot that he had with his 5″ barrel 357 magnum. Vic estimated he was 165 yards out.
But as you are about to hear, that was not a problem for ole Vic.

His first round got the double murderer in the thigh and put him down, but the guy amazingly chambered another round and got a shot off at Vic that almost got him. Vic fired four more times, got four more hits as the officer got the range and finally killed the shooter.

This video is a slice of Texas. What do I mean by that? Well, most people who have pistols, even those who are really good, I don’t know a soul that can shoot accurately at that range. Heck, I don’t even know anyone who has even has even practiced at that range.


But we know Mr. Vic Stacey has. As the saying goes, owning a gun, and being able to use it are two entirely different things.

We have readers who may think that I am glorifying the taking of a life with this piece. They just don’t get it, because it is just the opposite.

Any of you combat vets out there who have had your butts pulled out of what you thought was a one way ticket to hell, due to the shooting skill of a buddy or a stranger, you know exactly what I mean.




This is a riddle. The name is Peter Pace. I will let you figure the rest out.

Gordon ‘gets it’, because he got it. One day in Nam he got caught as the last man out during a pull back.

He found himself in a French colonial cemetery behind a grave stone that an NVA 50 cal gun crew was methodically mowing the top down to their ultimate prize…his head.




USMC – APC

Out of the blue an APC pulled up beside him, the shirtless driver popped out the top and assumed a three point firing position with his carbine and engaged the 50 cal crew. You all know that he was successful, and I can share with you that Gordon had the pleasure of meeting him years later.

You can read this great Nam story in ‘The Last Bayonet Charge’, where the Dufster almost got his name on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Glorifying the saving of some lives by skilled marksmanship?…you bet your behinds we glorify it, and always will. Time now for Vic to fill you in on the details.

And yes, the shooter killed two people because their dogs were pooping in his yard. He had a clean record, but obviously some coping problems. And as more Americans find themselves living in RV parks we may see more senseless killings like this.



YouTube - Veterans Today - – Citizen Shooter Nails Bad Guy

Last I heard was that even if a magnum round did not kill you, the shock alone would take you out of action. This bad guy was one tough character, or the magnums lose their punch at that range.

The wrap on this story is they had the right man, in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills.

Sheriff Grubbs commended the assisting resident for his actions. Law enforcement has determined that the resident acted valiantly and perhaps saved the lives of Sgt. Means and responding deputies, Grubbs said.


“His actions may have also saved the lives of other citizens who could have innocently walked into the situation. Under fire, the resident shooter returned fire at precisely the right moment. One of the rounds struck Conner in the thigh and staggered Conner as he turned fire on Sgt. Means,” said Grubbs.


“This staggered Conner from having an effective aim as Conner fired upon Sgt. Means. This also enabled Sgt. Means to accurately return fire on Conner.”

Food Inflation, Food Shortges & Food Riots

Dees Illustration

A devastating global food crisis unlike anything we have ever seen in modern times is coming. Crippling drought and bizarre weather patterns have damaged food production all over the world this summer, and the UN and the World Bank have both issued ominous warnings about the food inflation that is coming.

To those of us in the Western world, a rise in the price of food can be a major inconvenience, but in the developing world it can mean the difference between life and death. 

 

Just remember what happened back in 2008. When food prices hit record highs it led to food riots in 28 different countries. Today, there are approximately 2 billion people that are malnourished around the globe. Even rumors of food shortages are enough to spark mass chaos in many areas of the planet. When people fear that they are not going to be able to feed their families they tend to get very desperate. That is why a recent CNN article declared that "2013 will be a year of serious global crisis". 

The truth is that we are not just facing rumors of a global food crisis - one is actually starting to unfold right in front of our eyes. The United States experienced the worst drought in more than 50 years this summer, and some experts are already declaring that the weather has been so dry for so long that tremendous damage has already been done to next year's crops.

 

 On the other side of the world, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan have all seen their wheat crops devastated by the horrible drought this summer. Australia has also been dealing with drought, and in India monsoon rains were about 15 percent behind pace in mid-August. Global food production is going to be much less than expected this year, and global food demand continues to steadily rise. What that means is that food inflation, food shortages and food riots are coming, and it isn't going to be pretty.

The United States exports more food than anyone else in the world, and that is why the entire globe has been nervously watching the horrific drought in the United States this summer with deep concern.

It has been the worst drought in more than 50 years, and it has absolutely devastated corn crops all over the nation. According to Bill Witherell, the U.S. corn crop this year "is said to be on a par with that of 1988 crop, the worst in the past thirty years."

Sadly, this will be the third year in a row that the yield for corn has declined in the United States.

That has never happened before in the history of the United States.

And coming into this year we were already in bad shape. In fact, U.S. corn reserves were sitting at a 15-year low at the end of 2011.

So where will we be at the end of 2012?

The official estimates for corn yields put out by the U.S. government just keep dropping, but many fear that they aren't dropping quickly enough. There have been some reports on the ground from some areas of the country that have been very distressing. The following is from a recent Wall Street Journal article....

Meanwhile, scouts with the Pro Farmer Midwest Crop Tour on Monday reported an average estimated corn yield in Ohio of 110.5 bushels per acre, down from the tour's estimate of 156.3 bushels a year ago. In South Dakota, tour scouts reported an average yield estimate of just 74.3 bushels per acre, down from 141.1 bushels a year ago.

Those are catastrophic numbers.

But farmers are not the only ones that have been impacted by the dry weather. A recent article by Chris Martenson summarized some of the other effects of this drought.....

Even though the mainstream media seems to have lost some interest in the drought, we should keep it front and center in our minds, as it has already led to sharply higher grain prices, increased gasoline costs (via the pass-through of higher ethanol costs), impeded oil and gas drilling activity in some areas (due to a lack of water), caused the shutdown of a few operating electricity plants, temporarily reduced red meat prices (but will also make them climb sharply later) as cattle are dumped in response to feed- and pasture-management concerns, and blocked and/or reduced shipping on the Mississippi River.

All this and there's also a strong chance that today's drought will negatively impact next year's Winter wheat harvest, unless a lot of rain starts falling soon.

Ranchers have had a particularly hard time during this drought. If you expect to pay about the same for meat this time next year as you are doing now you are going to be deeply disappointed. The following is from a recent Reuters article....

The worst drought to hit U.S. cropland in more than half a century could soon leave Americans reaching deeper into their pockets to fund a luxury that people in few other countries enjoy: affordable meat. 

Drought-decimated fields have pushed grain prices sky high, and the rising feed costs have prompted some livestock producers to liquidate their herds. This is expected to shrink the long-term U.S. supply of meat and force up prices at the meat counter.

All over the western United States pastures have been destroyed and there is not enough hay. It would be hard to overstate the damage that this nightmarish drought is doing to our ranchers....

I spoke with Caldwell [of Indiana horse rescue] and a number of other horse-rescue organizations around the country by telephone this week. The relentlessly hot dry weather, amplified in many areas by wildfire, has been devastating to farmers, ranchers and other horse owners. 

'Everybody is using their winter hay now. The pastures are destroyed and they probably won’t recover before winter,' said Caldwell. 'The price of hay has doubled, and the availability is down by 75 percent.' 

Caldwell is somewhat sanguine about his own lot, but not optimistic about what lies ahead. 

'Today the problem is not nearly as bad as it’s going to be,' he told me. 'It’s terribly bad today, but it is going to get a lot worse.'

But of course as I mentioned earlier this is not just an American problem.

The truth is that the entire globe is facing a rapidly growing food crisis.

According to the UN, the global price of food rose 6 percent in the month of July alone.

According to the World Bank, global food prices actually rose 10 percent during July.

Either figure is really, really bad.

The other day, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the World Food Program issued a joint statement in which they stated the following....

'We need to act urgently to make sure that these price shocks do not turn into a catastrophe hurting tens of millions over the coming months.'

If the price of food at our supermarkets suddenly went up 20 percent that would really stretch our family budgets here in the United States, but we would survive.

On the other side of the globe, such a price change can mean the difference between life and death. The following is from the CNN article mentioned above....

But step outside the developed world, and the price of food suddenly becomes the single most important fact of human economic life. In poor countries, people typically spend half their incomes on food -- and by 'food,' they mean first and foremost bread. 

When grain prices spiked in 2007-2008, bread riots shook 30 countries across the developing world, from Haiti to Bangladesh, according to the Financial Times. A drought in Russia in 2010 forced suspension of Russian grain exports that year and set in motion the so-called Arab spring.

Already, 18 million people in Niger, Mali, Chad, Mauritania and Senegal are dealing with very serious food shortages.

In Yemen, things are even worse....

Yemen has a catastrophic food crisis. Nearly half the population, 10 million people, does not have enough to eat. While 300,000 children are facing life threatening levels of malnutrition. 

The United Nations says Yemen is already in the throes of a disaster. 

'The levels are truly terrible. Whatever we do thousands upon thousands of children will die this year from malnutrition,' Unicef's man in Yemen, Geert Cappelaere, said. 

'In some areas child malnutrition is at 30%, to put it in context, an emergency is 15%. It is double that already.'

But this is just the beginning. These food shortages are going to spread and we will eventually see food riots that will absolutely dwarf the food riots of 2008.

Many scientists fear the worst. Some are even now warning that food shortages will become so severe that they will eventually force much of the globe on to a vegetarian diet....

Leading water scientists have issued one of the sternest warnings yet about global food supplies, saying that the world's population may have to switch almost completely to a vegetarian diet over the next 40 years to avoid catastrophic shortages. 

Humans derive about 20% of their protein from animal-based products now, but this may need to drop to just 5% to feed the extra 2 billion people expected to be alive by 2050, according to research by some of the world's leading water scientists. 

'There will not be enough water available on current croplands to produce food for the expected 9 billion population in 2050 if we follow current trends and changes towards diets common in western nations,' the report by Malik Falkenmark and colleagues at the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) said.

The days of very cheap meat are coming to an end. Meat will be increasingly viewed as a "luxury" around the globe from now on.

Sadly, there are some in the financial world that actually intend to make lots of money off of this crisis....

The United Nations, aid agencies and the British Government have lined up to attack the world's largest commodities trading company, Glencore, after it described the current global food crisis and soaring world prices as a 'good' business opportunity. 

With the US experiencing a rerun of the drought 'Dust Bowl' days of the 1930s and Russia suffering a similar food crisis that could see Vladimir Putin's government banning grain exports, the senior economist of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, Concepcion Calpe, told The Independent: 'Private companies like Glencore are playing a game that will make them enormous profits.'

Does that disturb you?

It should.

Driving up the price of food for starving people is not a good way to make money. Food is one of our most basic needs. When people are deprived of food they become very desperate.

Just look at what is already happening in Spain. The economic crisis in that country has just begun, and people are already looting supermarkets. You can see a video news report about Spanish activists looting 3 tons of food from local supermarkets right here.

Much of that food was donated to food banks, but in the future I am sure that the desperate "activists" will not be so generous when things get really tight.

In other areas of Spain, large numbers of people have been filmed digging through trash dumpsters for food.

Could you ever see yourself doing that? Don't be so sure that hunger will never come to America. Right now, a record 46.7 million Americans are on food stamps, and anti-hunger organizations all around the country are reporting more of a need than ever before.

For now the federal government is able to feed the tens of millions of Americans that do not have enough money for food, but what happens when a day comes when the federal government stops doing that?

And what happens if the drought in the United States continues throughout the winter and into next summer and Dust Bowl conditions return to the United States?

In a previous article entitled "17 Signs That You Better Start Preparing For A Nightmarish Global Food Crisis", I detailed some more of the reasons why people need to start preparing for food inflation and food shortages.

In the past we could always go out to the supermarket or to Wal-Mart and fill up our shopping carts with huge piles of very cheap food whenever we wanted to.

It will not always be that way.

Get prepared while you still can.

Meanwhile, many Americans continue to enjoy life as if nothing will ever change. For example, the "Rich Kids of Instagram" have been very busy showing off their wealth all summer long. You can see some of the ridiculous ways that they are blowing their wealth right here.

Sadly, they are just a product of our degenerating society. We have piled up wealth in these troubled times while the rest of the world has suffered.

But even our great wealth was not enough for us so we went out and borrowed trillions upon trillions of dollars. We have accumulated the greatest mountain of debt in the history of the world, but we are still not satisfied.

In the end, we will weep and howl in misery as everything that we have built falls apart around us.

More Than 50 Million Americans Short On Food

Being able to afford food has become more difficult for millions of Americans.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than 50 million Americans couldn't afford to buy food at some point in 2011, according to federal data.

Children in some 3.9 million households suffered from food insecurity last year, with their families unable to provide them with adequate, nutritious food at times.

Nearly 17 million Americans suffered from "very low food security," meaning they had to reduce the amount they ate, saying the food they bought did not last and they didn't have the funds to buy more. They typically found themselves in this situation a few days a month for seven months of the year.

The number of people in this category shot up by more than 800,000 from 2010, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released Wednesday. Women living alone, black households and the poor and near-poor were affected the most.


The report comes the day after the department said that a record 46.7 million received food stamps in June. Only 57% of food insecure households said they participate in a federal food and nutrition assistance program.

Food stamps, along with other safety net programs, have come into the spotlight during the 2012 election. President Obama has pushed to expand the initiative, while Republicans want to curtail

JFK's Last Speech Ever Just Prior To Assisination

Does Obama Use NLP?

"Is Barack Obama a brilliant orator, captivating millions through his eloquence? Or is he deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis developed by Milton Erickson, M.D.?

A fundamental tool of "conversational hypnosis" is pacing and leading - a way for the hypnotist to bypass the listeners critical faculty by associating repeated statements that are unquestionably accurate with the message he wants to convey.
In his Denver acceptance speech, Obama used the phrases "thats why I stand here tonight," "now is the time," and "this moment" 14 times. Paces are connected to the lead by words such as "and," "as," "because," or "that is why." For example, "we need change" (who could disagree?)"and that is why I will be your next President."

Techniques of trance induction include extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities, vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion. Hypnotists often have patients count. In a speech after the primaries closed, Obama said: "Sixteen months have passed (paused) "Thousands" (pause) "of miles" (pause) "Millions of voices".

Hypnotists call this a distraction technique: sending the dominant hemisphere on an assignment involving linguistic processes, thus opening the nondominant hemisphere to suggestion."

5 Billion $ Yearly Chemtrail, Geo Engineering Budget

New study looks at specially adapted aircraft to disperse particles into upper atmosphere

The cost of a massive program to spray sun-dimming particles into the upper atmosphere in the name of halting global warming, a process some contend is already underway via chemtrails, has been put at just below $5 billion dollars a year.

U.S. scientists writing in the journal Environmental Research Letters concluded that “Planes or airships could carry sun-dimming materials high into the atmosphere for an affordable price tag of below $5 billion a year as a way to slow climate change,” reports Reuters, a process characterized as “both feasible and affordable.”

The cost of using specially adapted aircraft able to operate at high altitudes as a delivery system to disperse sulphur particles was put at $1 to $2 billion a year. Using “giant guns or rockets” would be more expensive.

Co-author Professor Jay Apt of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh told Reuters that injecting the atmosphere with sulphur but then suddenly removing it from the eco-system could cause temperatures to jump, indicating that the program would have to be ongoing in perpetuity.

The study completely failed to analyze whether such a massive geoengineering program would be a good idea and what environmental consequences it would have.

The latest study follows a similar Carnegie Institution for Science proposal which also advocated spraying the upper atmosphere with aerosols, a process that would “reduce by 20 per cent the amount of sunlight that takes a direct route to the ground” and make blue skies “fade to hazy white,” the New Scientist reported.

Given the fact that most advancements in science and technology are already taking place years before they are disclosed to the public, it stands to reason that geoengineering programs based around spraying the upper atmosphere with particles are already underway, most notably in the form of chemtrails, contrails that linger in the sky for hours and form into artificial clouds.

Scientists now admit that vapor trails from airplanes are creating “artificial clouds” that block out the sun. 

This is no longer a matter of debate. The chemtrail “conspiracy theorists,” who were ridiculed for pointing out that from the mid-90?s onwards contrails from jet planes were lingering for hours and forming artificial clouds, have been proven correct.

Reading University’s Professor Keith Shine told the Daily Mail that the clouds “formed by aircraft fumes could linger ‘for hours’, depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.”

The report also makes reference to a 2009 Met Office study which found that high-level winds did not disperse contrails that later formed into clouds which covered an astonishing 20,000 miles.

As we have documented, geoengineering programs based around the premise of artificial aerosols were already in operation years ago, including at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, which in 2009 began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.

Another program under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program is directed towards, “developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter.”

These programs are already having the effect of blocking out sunlight. The emergence of the chemtrails phenomenon coincided with an average 22% drop in sunlight reaching the earth’s surface.

In 2008, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.

The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA.

KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system.

Spraying sulphur into the upper atmosphere is linked with both environmental catastrophes and human health problems.  The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.

- Neurological effects and behavioral changes
- Disturbance of blood circulation
- Heart damage
- Effects on eyes and eyesight
- Reproductive failure
- Damage to immune systems
- Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
- Damage to liver and kidney functions
- Hearing defects
- Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
- Dermatological effects
- Suffocation and lung embolism

Even pro-geoengineering scientist Mark Watson, admits that injecting sulphur into the atmosphere could lead to “acid rain, ozone depletion or weather pattern disruption.”

Rutgers University meteorologist Alan Robock also, “created computer simulations indicating that sulfate clouds could potentially weaken the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing rain that irrigates the food crops of billions of people.”

“Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the planet,” Robock told a geoengineering conference in 2010.

The Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) has called for such experiments to be shut down. “This experiment is only phase one of a much bigger plan that could have devastating consequences, including large changes in weather patterns such as deadly droughts,” the group said in a written statement.

Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers.

“If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.

Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist – a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation – Doug Parr – has slammed attempts to geoengineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.

Chembombs Way Beyond Chemtrails

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. All copyrighted materials contained herein belong to their respective copyright holders, I do not claim ownership over any of these materials. I realize no profit, monetary or otherwise, from the exhibition of these videos.


Bruce Douglas was an organiser for the Chemtrail/Geoengineering Symposium in April 27, 2012 held in Maui. Douglas is also the originator of the Maui Clean Sky Ordinance bill currently under review by Maui County Council member Ellie Cochran who is actively behind the legislation.

The proposed ordinance states that the people of the County of Maui recognize that geoengineers have proposed the global disbursement of aerosols and other particulates into the atmosphere for the stated goal of reversing the effects of global warming and cooling the planet. Supporters of the bill want geoengineers to notify and gain approval from the county with an environmental impact statement before spraying anything related to climate manipulation in Maui County skies.

For more information and to keep updated on the status of the Maui Clean Sky Ordinance, visitMaui Sky Watch

Food Industry Spending Millions To Keep GMO On Your Table

Big Agriculture and food companies are shelling out gobs of cash ahead of November's election to convince Californians to vote against a proposed law that would require businesses to label products that contain genetically modified organisms.





Proponents of Proposition 37 applaud the strict labeling requirements and say it will help consumers make better purchasing decisions. Opponents say that the labels are misleading and overly burdensome to food producers. Not only that, they claim, but compliance would be costly -- an expense that would likely drive up the price of goods in the grocery store.

The money is behind the opposition, literally.

Prop 37's opponents include Monsanto (MON), PepsiCo (PEP), Coca-Cola (KO), Hershey (HSY), and Kellogg (K). Together these companies and other large agricultural concerns have already spent millions to fight the proposed labeling law.

Labeling Purity

If Proposition 37 becomes law, raw GMO produce would be required to carry a label stating that it is "genetically engineered," and all processed foods containing GMOs would be required to be labeled as "partially produced with genetic engineering," or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering." It will also prohibit the use of labels such as "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," and "all natural" in foods with GMO ingredients.

In addition, Prop 37 would require farmers to maintain traceability records on foods that lack labels alerting consumers to the possible presence of GMOs. But suppose a GMO seed gets into a non-GMO field -- which does happen. Under Prop 37, it will be illegal to have even trace amounts of GMOs in packaged food that isn't labeled as containing them, even accidentally. Contrast this with the European Union, which has a 0.9% threshold for unintended GMOs.

Prop 37 would also make it easier for consumers to win lawsuits against food producers by eliminating the requirement to show specific damages resulting from the labeling violation.

Finally, organic foods are exempt from Prop 37's labeling requirement, despite the possibility that they can also contain unintended traces of GMO ingredients.

What's So Bad About That?

Opponents claim that Prop 37's labeling requirements would mislead consumers by falsely implying that GMOs are harmful to human health, despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization have concluded GMOs pose no risks to human health.

Some claim that Prop 37's zero-tolerance threshold for accidental GMOs, combined with the low burden of proof for consumers to win lawsuits for the mislabeling of food, will actually undermine the ability of consumers to avoid GMOs.

This camp argues that, because it is nearly impossible to comply with such a high standard, food companies will simply label everything as containing GMOs in order to lower litigation risk. They also claim that this law privileges organic foods, which are exempt from the labeling requirement despite the fact that they can also contain trace amounts of accidental GMOs.

But it's not just about labels; it's about setting a precedent.

Opponents aren't just worried that the law will drive California consumers away from their products. They also fear that the rest of the country will follow California's lead and give the anti-GMO movement traction in other states.

Judge Napolitano On Nullification And Constitutional Supreme Power Of States

Is DHS Ramping Up To Subdue & Kill Americans?

Would they kill their own?  Would these Americans shoot fellow American men, women and children if ordered to do so?  You bet they would.  And let's not forget the 450 MILLION rounds ammo that was purchased last year by DHS, this 'President' has created a super force accountable to no one but himself. What could they need equipment like this for here in the US?  They are hitting the road with it.  Caravans of National Guard equipment but with new never before seen equipment in the convoys. Take a close look at what is painted on the side of the Black Humvees. The Humvees are fully armored the same standard used by our military. The use of the word 'Rescue' is an obvious psy op...makes it sound nice and benign, kind of like a life-saving paramedic ambulance and not a domination and death machine.  The Posse Comitatus Act is gone. They are gearing up for serious business and are training the National Guard, FEMA and Police with them.  The latest batch of 2,500 GLS vehicles don’t come more heavily-armored.  The GLS is the larger vehicle on the trailer below. It is a deadly serious piece of equipment and they have never been used inside the US until now.  All information in this email has been released publicly.

INTERPOL: Judge Orders Extradition And Arrest Of Former U.S. Treasury Undersecretary David Mulford

A judge in Argentina has ordered the arrest of Credit Suisse executive and former U.S. Treasury Undersecretary David Mulford because he failed to testify over a 2001 Argentine debt swap, the state news agency reported on Monday.

Federal Judge Marcelo Martinez de Giorgi will ask Interpol to issue an international arrest warrant seeking Mulford's extradition for questioning over the bond exchange carried out by the government in an unsuccessful bid to avoid default.

Mulford, who currently serves as vice chairman international of Credit Suisse Investment Bank, was seen as one of the debt swap's architects when he served as a senior official at Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB).

Argentina's government swapped about $30 billion in debt for new, longer-maturity issues in June 2001. But it stopped paying most of its debts six months later as the economy collapsed.

A local court has been investigating the swap for more than 10 years to see if Argentine officials committed any crime when they hired banks to carry out the swap. Former Economy Minister Domingo Cavallo and former Finance Secretary Daniel Marx have been charged in the case, which has yet to go to trial.

Mulford was first called to testify in the probe in 2002 but he has never done so, according to court documents cited by the Telam news agency.

Argentine officials have "made numerous attempts by all possible legal means to achieve David Mulford's compliance, in this country's territory as well as through U.S. authorities, and all of these have invariably failed," the documents stated.

Cavallo said that Mulford was one of the main engineers of the swap.

Mulford worked at the U.S. Treasury from 1984 to 1992 and was at the center of international economic negotiations under former U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

He later served as the U.S. ambassador to India.

---

Here's Mulford on the 2008 crisis: