Who's Behind The Doomsday Seed Vaul?

One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can’t be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world’s richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers.

In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status.

 A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization.

So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.

No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.

The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. It’s almost ready for ‘business’ according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government.

 Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault’s relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity.
Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.’ What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?

Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it’s worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things.

The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change.

CGIAR and ‘The Project’
As I detailled in the book, Seeds of Destruction1, in 1960 the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III’s Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, the Philippines. By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation’s IRRI, along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR).

CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation’s George Harrar, Ford Foundation’s Forrest Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family’s international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation’s decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of racial purity, what has been called The Project.

To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank. Thus, through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the beginning of the 1970’s was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And shape it did.

Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to ‘master’ the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO ‘Gene Revolution’ in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture.

Genetically engineering a master race?
Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race.

The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing.

The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.

2  The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace.

The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same.

In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’

Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later.

John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950’s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.”

 He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then— a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer.

 3   A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation.

That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder’s authorization.

 It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen. If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto’s Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution.

 4  In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign, mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process.

Under the Green Revolution Agribusiness was making major inroads into markets which were previously of limited access to US exporters. The trend was later dubbed “market-oriented agriculture.” In reality it was agribusiness-controlled agriculture.

Through the Green Revolution, the Rockefeller Foundation and later Ford Foundation worked hand-in-hand shaping and supporting the foreign policy goals of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and of the CIA.

One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in desperate search for work. That was no accident; it was part of the plan to create cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures, the ‘globalization’ of recent years.

When the self-promotion around the Green Revolution died down, the results were quite different from what had been promised. Problems had arisen from indiscriminate use of the new chemical pesticides, often with serious health consequences. The mono-culture cultivation of new hybrid seed varieties decreased soil fertility and yields over time. The first results were impressive: double or even triple yields for some crops such as wheat and later corn in Mexico.

That soon faded.

The Green Revolution was typically accompanied by large irrigation projects which often included World Bank loans to construct huge new dams, and flood previously settled areas and fertile farmland in the process. Also, super-wheat produced greater yields by saturating the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer per acre, the fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum, commodities controlled by the Rockefeller-dominated Seven Sisters major oil companies.

Huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides were also used, creating additional markets for the oil and chemical giants. As one analyst put it, in effect, the Green Revolution was merely a chemical revolution. At no point could developing nations pay for the huge amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

They would get the credit courtesy of the World Bank and special loans by Chase Bank and other large New York banks, backed by US Government guarantees.

Applied in a large number of developing countries, those loans went mostly to the large landowners. For the smaller peasants the situation worked differently. Small peasant farmers could not afford the chemical and other modern inputs and had to borrow money.
Initially various government programs tried to provide some loans to farmers so that they could purchase seeds and fertilizers.

 Farmers who could not participate in this kind of program had to borrow from the private sector. Because of the exorbitant interest rates for informal loans, many small farmers did not even get the benefits of the initial higher yields. After harvest, they had to sell most if not all of their produce to pay off loans and interest. They became dependent on money-lenders and traders and often lost their land. Even with soft loans from government agencies, growing subsistence crops gave way to the production of cash crops

5  Since decades the same interests including the Rockefeller Foundation which backed the initial Green Revolution, have worked to promote a second ‘Gene Revolution’ as Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway termed it several years ago, the spread of industrial agriculture and commercial inputs including GMO patented seeds.

Gates, Rockefeller and a Green Revolution in Africa

With the true background of the 1950’s Rockefeller Foundation Green Revolution clear in mind, it becomes especially curious that the same Rockefeller Foundation along with the Gates Foundation which are now investing millions of dollars in preserving every seed against a possible “doomsday” scenario are also investing millions in a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.

AGRA, as it calls itself, is an alliance again with the same Rockefeller Foundation which created the “Gene Revolution.” A look at the AGRA Board of Directors confirms this.
It includes none other than former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as chairman. In his acceptance speech in a World Economic Forum event in Cape Town South Africa in June 2007, Kofi Annan stated,

 ‘I accept this challenge with gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.’

In addition the AGRA board numbers a South African, Strive Masiyiwa who is a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. It includes Sylvia M. Mathews of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Mamphela Ramphele, former Managing Director of the World Bank (2000 – 2006); Rajiv J. Shah of the Gates Foundation; Nadya K. Shmavonian of the Rockefeller Foundation; Roy Steiner of the Gates Foundation. In addition, an Alliance for AGRA includes Gary Toenniessen the Managing Director of the Rockefeller Foundation and Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation.

To fill out the lineup, the Programmes for AGRA includes Peter Matlon, Managing Director, Rockefeller Foundation; Joseph De Vries, Director of the Programme for Africa’s Seed Systems and Associate Director, Rockefeller foundation; Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation. Like the old failed Green Revolution in India and Mexico, the new Africa Green Revolution is clearly a high priority of the Rockefeller Foundation.

While to date they are keeping a low profile, Monsanto and the major GMO agribusiness giants are believed at the heart of using Kofi Annan’s AGRA to spread their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, ‘bio-technology,’ the new euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds.

 To date South Africa is the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan’s Ghana drafted bio-safety legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research into GMO crops.

Africa is the next target in the US-government campaign to spread GMO worldwide. Its rich soils make it an ideal candidate. Not surprisingly many African governments suspect the worst from the GMO sponsors as a multitude of genetic engineering and biosafety projects have been initiated in Africa, with the aim of introducing GMOs into Africa’s agricultural systems.

These include sponsorships offered by the US government to train African scientists in genetic engineering in the US, biosafety projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank; GMO research involving African indigenous food crops.


Monsanto, who has a strong foothold in South Africa’s seed industry, both GMO and hybrid, has conceived of an ingenious smallholders’ programme known as the ‘Seeds of Hope’ Campaign, which is introducing a green revolution package to small scale poor farmers, followed, of course, by Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds.

6  Syngenta AG of Switzerland, one of the ‘Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse’ is pouring millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi, to develop GMO insect resistant maize. Syngenta is a part of CGIAR as well.7

Move on to Svalbard
Now is it simply philosophical sloppiness? What leads the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to at one and the same time to back proliferation of patented and soon-to-be Terminator patented seeds across Africa, a process which, as it has in every other place on earth, destroys the plant seed varieties as monoculture industrialized agribusiness is introduced?

 At the same time they invest tens of millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday vault near the remote Arctic Circle ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future’ to restate their official release?

It is no accident that the Rockefeller and Gates foundations are teaming up to push a GMO-style Green Revolution in Africa at the same time they are quietly financing the ‘doomsday seed vault’ on Svalbard. The GMO agribusiness giants are up to their ears in the Svalbard project.

Indeed, the entire Svalbard enterprise and the people involved call up the worst catastrophe images of the Michael Crichton bestseller, Andromeda Strain, a sci-fi thriller where a deadly disease of extraterrestrial origin causes rapid, fatal clotting of the blood threatening the entire human species. In Svalbard, the future world’s most secure seed repository will be guarded by the policemen of the GMO Green Revolution–the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, Syngenta, DuPont and CGIAR.

The Svalbard project will be run by an organization called the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT). Who are they to hold such an awesome trust over the planet’s entire seed varieties? The GCDT was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), an offshoot of the CGIAR.

The Global Crop Diversity Trust is based in Rome. Its Board is chaired by Margaret Catley-Carlson a Canadian also on the advisory board of Group Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, one of the world’s largest private water companies. Catley-Carlson was also president until 1998 of the New York-based Population Council, John D. Rockefeller’s population reduction organization, set up in 1952 to advance the Rockefeller family’s eugenics program under the cover of promoting “family planning,” birth control devices, sterilization and “population control” in developing countries.

Other GCDT board members include former Bank of America executive presently head of the Hollywood DreamWorks Animation, Lewis Coleman. Coleman is also the lead Board Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation, one of America’s largest military industry Pentagon contractors.

Jorio Dauster (Brazil) is also Board Chairman of Brasil Ecodiesel. He is a former Ambassador of Brazil to the European Union, and Chief Negotiator of Brazil’s foreign debt for the Ministry of Finance. Dauster has also served as President of the Brazilian Coffee Institute and as Coordinator of the Project for the Modernization of Brazil’s Patent System, which involves legalizing patents on seeds which are genetically modified, something until recently forbidden by Brazil’s laws.

Cary Fowler is the Trust’s Executive Director. Fowler was Professor and Director of Research in the Department for International Environment & Development Studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. He was also a Senior Advisor to the Director General of Bioversity International.

There he represented the Future Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in negotiations on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In the 1990s, he headed the International Program on Plant Genetic Resources at the FAO. He drafted and supervised negotiations of FAO’s Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources, adopted by 150 countries in 1996. He is a past-member of the National Plant Genetic Resources Board of the US and the Board of Trustees of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico, another Rockefeller Foundation and CGIAR project.
GCDT board member Dr. Mangala Rai of India is the Secretary of India’s Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), and Director General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR). He is also a Board Member of the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which promoted the world’s first major GMO experiment, the much-hyped ‘Golden Rice’ which proved a failure. Rai has served as Board Member for CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), and a Member of the Executive Council of the CGIAR.

Global Crop Diversity Trust Donors or financial angels include as well, in the words of the Humphrey Bogart Casablanca classic, ‘all the usual suspects.’ As well as the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, the Donors include GMO giants DuPont-Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta of Basle Switzerland, CGIAR and the State Department’s energetically pro-GMO agency for development aid, USAID. Indeed it seems we have the GMO and population reduction foxes guarding the hen-house of mankind, the global seed diversity store in Svalbard.

8  Why now Svalbard?
We can legitimately ask why Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation along with the major genetic engineering agribusiness giants such as DuPont and Syngenta, along with CGIAR are building the Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic.

Who uses such a seed bank in the first place? Plant breeders and researchers are the major users of gene banks. Today’s largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants.

Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called ‘Terminator’ or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits ‘suicide’ after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind existed.

This clever genetically engineered terminator trait forces farmers to return every year to Monsanto or other GMO seed suppliers to get new seeds for rice, soybeans, corn, wheat whatever major crops they need to feed their population. If broadly introduced around the world, it could within perhaps a decade or so make the world’s majority of food producers new feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed companies such as Monsanto or DuPont or Dow Chemical.

That, of course, could also open the door to have those private companies, perhaps under orders from their host government, Washington, deny seeds to one or another developing country whose politics happened to go against Washington’s. Those who say ‘It can’t happen here’ should look more closely at current global events. The mere existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not.

These private companies, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical hardly have an unsullied record in terms of stewardship of human life. They developed and proliferated such innovations as dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange. They covered up for decades clear evidence of carcinogenic and other severe human health consequences of use of the toxic chemicals.

 They have buried serious scientific reports that the world’s most widespread herbicide, glyphosate, the essential ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that is tied to purchase of most Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, is toxic when it seeps into drinking water.9 Denmark banned glyphosate in 2003 when it confirmed it has contaminated the country’s groundwater.

10  The diversity stored in seed gene banks is the raw material for plant breeding and for a great deal of basic biological research. Several hundred thousand samples are distributed annually for such purposes. The UN’s FAO lists some 1400 seed banks around the world, the largest being held by the United States Government.

Other large banks are held by China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany and Canada in descending order of size. In addition, CGIAR operates a chain of seed banks in select centers around the world.

CGIAR, set up in 1972 by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation to spread their Green Revolution agribusiness model, controls most of the private seed banks from the Philippines to Syria to Kenya. In all these present seed banks hold more than six and a half million seed varieties, almost two million of which are ‘distinct.’ Svalbard’s Doomsday Vault will have a capacity to house four and a half million different seeds.

GMO as a weapon of biowarfare?
Now we come to the heart of the danger and the potential for misuse inherent in the Svalbard project of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundation. Can the development of patented seeds for most of the world’s major sustenance crops such as rice, corn, wheat, and feed grains such as soybeans ultimately be used in a horrible form of biological warfare?

The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy elite families such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920’s, has embodied what they termed ‘negative eugenics,’ the systematic killing off of undesired bloodlines. Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was all about the fact that, as she put it, ‘we want to exterminate the Negro population.’

11 A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile.

At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.

In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.

Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.

None of the women vaccinated were told.It   later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine.

12  Is it a coincidence that these same organizations, from Norway to the Rockefeller Foundation to the World Bank are also involved in the Svalbard seed bank project?

According to Prof. Francis Boyle who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, the Pentagon is ‘now gearing up to fight and win biological warfare’ as part of two Bush national strategy directives adopted, he notes, ‘without public knowledge and review’ in 2002.

 Boyle adds that in 2001-2004 alone the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work, a staggering sum.  Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright estimates that over 300 scientific institutions and some 12,000 individuals in the USA today have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare. Alone there are 497 US Government NIH grants for research into infectious diseases with biowarfare potential.

 Of course this is being justified under the rubric of defending against possible terror attack as so much is today. Many of the US Government dollars spent on biowarfare research involve genetic engineering. MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the ‘growing bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population.’ King adds, ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’

13  Time will tell whether, God Forbid, the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Bank of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution, this involving the extinction of the Late, Great Planet Earth.

The Real Reasons & Motivation For Banning Cannabis

Hemp  ~(Cannabis sativa)   has flourished for thousands of years and enjoys a rich history as a traditional herbal medicine.   First domesticated by the Chinese around 2800 BC.

Hemp was so useful and important as a medicinal plant, and with numerous industrial uses, that the early American Colonists enacted a Virgina law in 1619 which required hemp production for all farmers.    George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were hemp farmers.

How we've slipped from those earlier enlightened times when Hemp was the world's leading crop, to the dismal state of falsehoods spread about this herbal plant today is a twisted, winding true tale of intrigue, lies and special interests which include William Randolph Hearst, Dupont Chemicals, Timber and petroleum interests.

Politics And Corruption As Usual
The House Ways and Means Committee secretly slipped the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act Bill into effect.    Believe it or not, the American Medical Association was so outraged that they aggressively fought this legislation for two years before realizing the special interests, who gained from this tax, were too strong for them.

At that time Hemp was considered one of the most important medicinal plants with amazing healing properties.   It still is today.

The long history and battles over Hemp offers many threads of intrigue and suspense for another time and place.

Hemp products such as hemp textiles, fabrics, hemp protein, hemp shakes, hemp oil and hulled hemp seeds are legal to purchase and use in the United States, but current federal laws prohibit growing it because of protected special interests.

While our economy collapes, or is that taken down, some states are passing laws to grow and sell all forms of Cannabis sativa within their state in order to boost their sagging economies.

We can anticipate a stormy battle over this medicinal plant for some time to come.    But nothing to stop us from enjoying it's superfood benefits now.

Unrefined, organic or virgin Hemp is the only type of oil to consider.    Hemp seed oils offers a delicious, slightly tangy, nutty flavor when used over salads, veggies, rice, in dips, salsa, smoothies, or on bread.    The rich green color of Hemp seed oil is due to the high level of chlorophyll.

This super food truly deserves it's renowned reputation, it is protein rich, contains all 20 known amino acids, Vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, C, D, and E, and is possibly the richest source of polyunsaturated fats.    Hemp contains all of the essential fatty acids, which must be ingested as our body can't manufacture them.

Hemp Seed And Essential Fatty Acids

The typical American diet is too heavy in Omega 6 fatty acids which are found mostly in vegetable oils such as Soy, Corn or Canola.   Remember that up to 95% of those vegetable oils are now genetically modified!

Even worse is that up to 98% of those oils use hexane, a toxic petroleum industrial solvent in their processing methods.

These vegetable oils are not healthy cooking oils, nor do we use them on or in anything.    They are cheap and found in junk foods and other products such as salad dressings, Mayonnaise, margarine or other artificial spreads and all soy products.

Read your labels and if you'd like to improve your health, throw these things out of your house and don't buy them again.    It's not always easy to find all natural foods, but it's worth the extra effort.

For the best natural health we should be eating about 4 times the amount of Omega 3 compared to Omega 6. Instead we typically eat about 15 to one.   Not good.    Eating too much Omega 6 versus Omega 3 contributes to many disorders including hormone imbalances, overweight, heart disease and skin problems.


Superfood Nutrition In Hemp
*    rich in Omega fatty acids
*    correct ratio of Omega 3's to Omega 6's
*    high antioxidants, 3 times greater than flax seed oil
*    contains GLA (gamma linoleic acid)anti-inflammatory
*    nutrient dense satisfying food
*    high protein, Omega fats and essential minerals
*    easily digested
*    hypoallergenic
*    no chemical processing, we buy  Hemp Products only from    select ethical companies
*    tastes great

It is said that you would not suffer any nutritional deficiencies if you ate nothing but hemp products... and that is quite a statement!


Other Traditional Uses For Hemp Seed Oil
*     wounds
*     dry skin
*     pain relief
*     skin lesions
*     cholesterol
*     enhances energy and stamina
*     burns
*     digestion problems
*     eczema
*     psoriasis
*     Multiple Sclerosis
*     supports kidney function
*     relieve painful conditions
*     circulatory imbalances
*     softer skin and nails
*     damaged or dry hair
*     anti inflammatory
*     anti aging properties
*     low energy levels
*     slow metabolism
*     acne
*     supports immune system
*     vitamin deficiencies
*     cancer management
*     PMS
*     menopause
*     osteoporosis
*     arthritis
*     tuberculosis
*     irregular hormone levels
*     cardiovascular disorders
*     relieve menopausal symptoms
*     promotes softer skin
*     high blood pressure
*     cholesterol imbalances
*     body lotions and body butters
*     hair Oiling



Nothing Is Perfect
About the only thing Hemp seed oil isn't suitable for is cooking due to the low heat threshold that will cause it to smoke.    It also requires a little extra care storing in cool, dark, oxygen free conditions, such as in a cupboard or drawer.

Unrefined Hemp seed oil is a delicious edible oil. 

Enjoy  http://astore.amazon.com/hemp-world-20

 Hemp seed oil  for Hair oiling, on the salad and some on you!

Talk about priceless versatility!

Does Cannabis Stop Cancer From Spreading

The data is very strong and there’s no toxicity associated with A compound found in cannabis could halt the spread of many forms of aggressive cancer, scientists say. The first research to show marijuana’s anti-tumor properties was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Los Angeles in 2007 demonstrating that THC may activate biological pathways that halt cancer cell division or block development of blood vessels that feed tumors. It then became a target of synthetic research into THC for drugs such as ImClone System Inc.’s Erbitux and Amgen Inc.’s Vectibix. Researchers have now found that the compound, called cannabidiol, had the ability to ‘switch off’ the gene responsible for metastasis in an aggressive form of breast cancer. Importantly, this substance does not produce the psychoactive properties of the cannabis plant. The team from the California Pacific Medical Center, in San Francisco, first spotted its potential five years ago, after it stopped the proliferation of human breast cancer cells in the lab. Last year they published a study that found a similar effect in mice. Now they say they are on the verge of publishing further animal study results that expand these results further. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. CBD (Cannabidiol), one of the main constituents of the cannabis plant has been proven medically to relieve many diseases including the inhibition of cancer cell growth. Recent studies have shown it to be an effective atypical anti-psychotic in treating schizophrenia. CBD also interferes with the amount of THC your brain processes, balancing the psychotropic effect of marijuana. That is precisely why the power of raw cannabis is turning heads. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, study co-leader Dr Sean McAllister, said: ‘The preclinical trial data is very strong, and there’s no toxicity. There’s really a lot or research to move ahead with and to get people excited.’ While he, along with colleague Dr Pierre Desprez acknowledge that they are some way off from turning their finding into a pill, they are already developing human trial models. They hope to eventually test the drug in combination with current chemotherapies. Professor Desprez had previously found that a protein called ID-1 seemed to play a role in causing breast cancer to spread. Meanwhile Dr McAllister had discovered the cannabidiol had anti-cancer potential. The pair teamed up to see if they could treat a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer called ‘triple negative.’ This form, which affects 15 per cent of patients, doesn’t have three hormone receptors that the most successful therapies target. Cells from this cancer have high levels of ID-1. When they exposed cells from this cancer to cannabidiol they were shocked to find the cells not only stopped acting ‘crazy’ but also returned to a healthy normal state. They discovered that the compound had turned off the overexpression of ID-1, stopping them from travelling to distant tissues. Other potentially treatable cancers are forms of leukaemia, lung, ovarian and brain cancers, which also have high levels of ID-1. Dr Desprez has a particular reason for wanting to create a treatment as quickly as possible – his sister was recently diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer at the age of 41. Her condition is currently receptive to hormone therapies but Professor Desprez fears it could recur in a form that lacks hormone receptors. He said: ‘I want to be ready for that. There is a deadline.’ Cannabis is a Class B drug that is illegal to have, give away or sell. “If cannabis were discovered in an Amazon rainforests today, people would be clambering to make as much use as they could out of the potential benefits of the plant,” said Donald L. Abrams, MD, Chief of Hematology and Oncology at San Francisco General Hospital and Professor of Medicine at the University California. Dr. Abrams is widely known for his research on medical cannabis applications. “Unfortunately, it carries with it a long and not so long history of being a persecuted plant,” he added.

Does 100% Natural Mean GMO Free?

When you purchase shampoo or cosmetics and it has a sticker on it that claims it is “natural”, what’s your impression? You think the ingredients are all-natural, right? Naturally, you are not alone. However, the agency who is in charge of certifying personal care items as “natural” seems to think GMO ingredients fit under this umbrella. No matter what product it is, 100% natural does NOT also mean GMO-free. The Question of 100% Natural The Natural Products Association (NPA) claims its role in regards to personal care items is to help consumers choose those products that contain only safe and natural ingredients. They say their job is “to protect and equip consumers to maximize their well being.” As a result, they developed a set of guidelines and a certification process for personal care creators. The “essence” of their labeling process is that the product must contain only 100% natural ingredients, be safe and free of ingredients with any suspected human health risk, be free from animal testing, and be packaged in environmentally friendly materials. But not only do they ignore the negative effects of GMOs, they do not even mention genetically modified ingredients on their “positive list” of ingredients. They act as if they don’t exist. In other words—they allow GMO ingredients to receive the “natural” certification. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is leading a charge to have this changed. Ronnie Cummins, the Executive Director of the agency says the NPA is deceiving consumers “by leading them to believe that the products they buy, stamped with the NPA Natural Seal, are truly natural. There is nothing natural about GMOs.” Incidentally, the NPA recently came out in opposition to Prop 37, the proposed legislation in California that would require GMO labeling. So, perhaps their goal isn't to “protect and equip” consumers as they allege. Perhaps, like so many other corporations, their goal is to increase profits, maximize the bottom line, and pull the wool over our eyes. Admittedly, products claiming to be 100% natural do have a higher chance of being better than products not carrying the label, but it’s important to know what the label really means. The definition of a ‘natural’ product has no defined parameters in law or regulation, so essentially these products can be — and many times are — as contaminated as what the consumer may have originally tried to avoid. Under federal regulations, it’s entirely acceptable to include additives that are not even deemed as ‘natural’, or use unnatural preparation methods like genetic modification or pasteurization. The product only has to be part ‘natural’. What can you Do? The OCA has begun a petition campaign and you can contribute. Soon after receiving thousands of emails, the NPA began blocking them. But the campaign is now being waged on social media sites. You can find the drafted email here on the OCA website and also find links to the NPA’s Facebook and LinkedIn pages. It takes about two minutes to do your part. Tell the NPA to wise up about GMOs and stand by their promise to “protect” consumers. And of course, we recommend buying 100% organic as much as possible, and purchasing items that contain the NON-GMO Project seal.

TSA To Implement Molecular Body Scanners

If you thought the x-ray scanners at the airport were bad, wait until you find out that TSA employees will soon know what you had for breakfast and how pumped you are to sit on a plane for twelve hours. Unfortunately, you won’t know what they know, because Homeland Security’s new toy is capable of detecting every molecule on your person from over 164 feet (50 meters) away—without your permission. CIA-Backed Company Develops New Scanners “Within the next year or two, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will instantly know everything about your body, clothes, and luggage with a new laser-based molecular scanner fired from 164 feet (50 meters) away. From traces of drugs or gun powder on your clothes to what you had for breakfast to the adrenaline level in your body—agents will be able to get any information they want without even touching you,” reports Gizmodo. The scanner was developed by Genia Photonics before being subcontracted by In-Q-Tel, a company founded in 1999 “by a group of private citizens at the request of the Director of the CIA and the support of the U.S. Congress.” Although the technology is not new, In-Q-Tel made it exponentially faster and more convenient to use—which has its own implications. Blatant Violation of Privacy Although the TSA says this technology would be used to detect explosive material, the scanners are capable of detecting countless types of molecules. Which ones will be tagged for further surveillance? The cocaine on a dollar bill you received in change after buying coffee? The used joint you unwittingly stepped on at the bus stop? (Let’s not forget Keith Brown, a father of three who had a sugar-grain-sized speck of cannabis under his shoe and was sentenced to four years in a Dubai prison.) Because of the device’s portability and ease of use, it may even begin to show up at athletic events, movie theaters, traffic lights, and bus and train stations. While this may, for whatever reason, seem like a welcome sense of security to some, it’s a blatant breach of the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. This manner of surveillance too closely resembles that of the dystopian narratives of Phillip K. Dick, and will likely do little more than result in false positives, delayed human and automobile traffic in already busy areas, and cluttered minds. You choose—should this manner of privacy invasion be the norm? It will be unless we make noise about it today, while we still can. “Use it or lose it. The First Amendment is under attack across the board and unless we re-assert our right to speak up when our basic human dignity is being eviscerated by uniformed goons on a daily basis, not only at airports but also subways, highways, political events, music concerts and even high school prom nights, we can kiss our liberty goodbye.” –

How To Stop Obsessive Thoughts

If you want to learn how to stop obsessive thoughts, the first step involves understanding exactly what's happening to you right now. It's like you're spinning on a hamster wheel. Like a treadmill that just runs in circles without ever getting anywhere. Why? Because you lack TRACTION. You spin because there's nothing to grab hold of. I know; it's obvious. But it's important to really let it in: you lack traction. That's why you can't stop the obsessive thoughts. Fortunately, you can easily gain the traction you need to end those thoughts. You can end the obsession with unwanted thoughts by following a few simple steps. Years ago, as I studied the finer points of riding a bicycle, I learned a simple but profound truth: the bicycle follows the eyes. The bicycle follows the path I choose to focus on, on the road ahead of me. If there's a pothole up ahead, and I keep staring at it; I'm liable to end up riding right through it. Not good. (But since we tend to shift our gaze away from the pothole, we miss it.) The bike follows the path we gaze upon. Same here. When you have obsessive thoughts, it's like you're staring at that pothole and you can't stop staring. It's like a deer frozen by the headlights of a car. You just can't stop. Again, I know; it's obvious. You're thinking about something because you HAVE to think about it. You have to think about it because you ARE thinking about it. A catch-22. Can't stop... can't stop... can't stop... those obsessive thoughts. Spinning away on a hamster wheel... So where lies the traction? With your FEELINGS. Because what happens when you're thinking your obsessive thoughts? You are NOT in touch with your true feelings. Your TRUE feelings. Oh, you might be feeling something. Most likely, though, what you feel lacks realness. Take blame, for example. Blame lubricates the hamster wheel. You can blame all day long and not move ahead one inch. True feelings - REAL feelings - give you something to push off from. Blame gives you nothing. It only takes. Or how about righteousness? If you have the 'right' to be angry (and when you think about it, WHO DOESN'T?!!) you will sit and spin for days, weeks, years. The price you pay for righteousness: you must keep thinking the same thoughts over and over and over. Obsessing. Because you really are 'right'. Look, everybody thinks they're right. It's not a question of who's *really* right. No. Here's the true question: do you want to learn how to stop obsessive thoughts, or don't you? Which holds greater value? Peace of mind; happiness; resolution; balance; realness? Or spinning in righteousness; blame; pity; avoiding responsibility? If you're truly ready to stop the obsessive thoughts, here's how to do it: First, write down those obsessive thoughts on paper. It probably won't take more than a sentence or two. Maybe a paragraph. Then, DIG DEEPLY into what those thoughts make you feel. It always starts with righteousness or blame or pity or judgments or something similar. That's fine. Whichever lubricant comes up - write it down. "It really is their fault!" "I really am right!" "I am such an idiot!" Whatever. And then recognize: this is the lubricant that won't let me stop those obsessive thoughts. Next, gut-check time. Which holds greater importance? Going deeper into the realness; the real feelings underneath? Or obsessing over this little statement I just wrote down? It's not a question of who's right. It's not a function of who's to blame. It's not a matter of judging yourself or others harshly. The real question: what's more important to you? You can always dig deeper and deeper into your TRUE feelings if you want to. You can feel without the slimy lubrication. Simply focus on your HEART instead of your HEAD. Stop looking at the pothole in your head. Change your focus. Imagine a hamster wheel spinning in your head. See it spinning and spinning away. Think the agonizing, obsessive thoughts. Then imagine it slowly turns into a sphere of light. Let it slowly sink down to the middle of your body. Feel it sinking down through your head, into your neck, then into your chest and then maybe all the way to your stomach or where ever feels right to you. Let it becomes a gyroscope, if you absolutely must have motion! Focus on either the gyroscope or the sphere of light in the middle of your body instead of the hamster wheel in your head. Repeat this little exercise whenever you feel the obsessive thoughts coming back. Seek out the feelings that come from your BODY. Not the so-called feelings that come out of your head. Focus on your body. And stop focusing all your attention in your head. All the while, taking the time to write things down. And FEEL what those statements feel like... not THINK what they feel like! That's the key to gaining traction. Get out of your head and into your body. That's the key to truly learning how to stop obsessive thoughts: focus on the feelings that you feel in your body.

Don't Open The Door

Washington State Joins California With Label GMO Initiative For Nov Ballot

In news out earlier this week, food and farming leaders from the Evergreen State are taking up the issue of labeling genetically engineered foods on the state’s ballot. Despite the fact that federal and state governments have largely either ignored or assiduously avoided the issue, Washington joins California in taking the matter directly to the voters. This should be no surprise, as ballot initiatives have proven the last resort when other policy arenas fail to take up or take action on public issues.The Food and Drug Agency (FDA) has failed to add labeling to everyday grocery products, despite repeated requests by millions of Americans. Earlier this year, over 500 organizations across the country in the Just Label It coalition, including PAN, sent a million petition signatures to FDA. Their response? “Don’t call us, we’ll call you,” reports Grist’s Tom Laskawy. After more than 19 state legislatures rejected measures mothers, farmers and farmworkers had no other recourse than to take the issue to the ballot. And they are in good standing. A majority of Americans support labeling in general and a statewide poll out this week by the Los Angeles Times, demonstrates that more than 60% of Californians support labeling. Eyes on the prize…California All eyes are on California. The stakes are high as labeling in the populous state with the ninth largest economy in the world promises to shift the entire marketplace. That’s why the opposition to the “Right to Know” Proposition 37, funded largely by the “Big 6” GE seed/pesticide corporations, is pumping millions more into PR efforts in the weeks leading up to the election. California's precedent-setting potential is likely also why other states are following suit. "Don't make any mistake, this is chemical companies" opposing labeling, said Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs at Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets and one of the lead groups taking up the measure in Washington. "It's the same people who brought us Agent Orange, DDT and PCBs, and they're saying now, 'Trust us with your food.'" Shining a light on industry’s 'dirty little secret' As PAN’s senior scientist Marcia Ishii-Eiteman points out on Civil Eats, the public is now seeing through industry’s “dirty little secret,” given new information out from scientists in the Evergreen State. In a report out this week drawn from USDA data, Washington State’s Chuck Benbrook documents the increased pesticide use as a result of GE crops. The treadmill of weed and insect resistance, and more pesticide use, presents challenges for farmers, rural communities and consumers alike. Benbrook had this to say: "Things are getting worse, fast. In order to deal with rapidly spreading resistant weeds, farmers are being forced to expand use of older, higher-risk herbicides." But if both California and Washington state used their purchasing power to push pause on the pesticide treadmill, what then?

Legalized Plunder Of Americans

Did Bankers Kill JFK?

Slave To The System?

Are You Smart Enough To Not Be A Science Experiment? Share Info On California Prop 37 Requiring GMO Labels

GMO Ticking Time Bomb Documentary

GMO Ticking Time Bomb is a must-see video offering an information-rich overview of the situation with GMOs. It features interviews with people like Jeffrey Smith, Ronnie Cummins, David Murphy and more. In the film, Rima Laibow also explains how Monsanto and DuPont formed a joint venture to create the "Epicyte gene" that causes permanent, irreversible infertility in both men and women. Watch it here, if you dare: There is a conspiracy of oppression taking place right now against free speech about GMOs. Just this week, YouTube censored a whistleblower video that exposed Whole Foods employees lying about the fact that Whole Foods sells masses of genetically modified foods and is therefore a significant financial supporter of Monsanto. It is now perfectly clear that this video was censored because of its truthful message, not because it actually violated any real terms of service with YouTube. That's the reality in which we now live: Telling the truth about GMOs is practically a crime. The mainstream media, meanwhile, refuses to cover the truth about GMO dangers. And the U.S. government itself is, of course, completely sold out to corporate interests and thus won't warn the American people about GMOs, either. We quite literally live in an age so bizarre and irrational that the simple act of warning fellow citizens about poison in the food is now systematically suppressed. The status quo wants you to eat your poison, shut up, stop asking questions and check yourself in at the nearest for-profit cancer center once those tumors start to show up. That's the new system of oppression and slavery in America: It's medical slavery, economic slavery and even thought slavery.

Monsanto Fails To Explain Away Tumors Caused From Eating GMO

Monsanto's efforts to dismiss new evidence linking its genetically modified (GM) corn to tumors has been thoroughly debunked in a public briefing by the food sustainability nonprofit Earth Open Source.

"NK603 must be immediately withdrawn from the market and all GMOs must be subjected to long-term testing," the briefing concludes.

In a two-year study, a team of French researchers led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini found that rats fed Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group not fed GM corn. The rats fed a GM diet also developed tumors that appeared earlier and behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group.

The study found similar effects in rats exposed to Roundup herbicide at levels currently considered safe by most regulators.

"Roundup Ready" crops have been engineered for resistance to Monsanto's top-selling herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name Roundup. In the scientific literature, Roundup Ready corn is also known as NK603.

Monsanto's faulty defenses

Responding to the study, Monsanto claimed that the findings were not significant because tumor rates in the rats fed GM corn were "within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors." In other words, the company has claimed that the rats developed tumors simply because of their genetics, and that the tumor rates seen in the rats fed GM corn were similar to tumor rates in rats not fed GM corn in other studies.

In response to Monsanto's "tumor prone rats" argument, the briefing notes that while tumors did in fact occur in both groups of rats, they were both more common and more aggressive in the experimental group - and it is the difference between the two groups that is relevant for scientific study.

"This is a basic principle of science and it is worrying that attempts are being made by pro-GM lobbyists to override it in the interests of keeping the products of powerful multinational biotechnology companies on the market," the briefing reads.

The briefing also debunks Monsanto's "historical data" argument. First of all, the historical tumor data cited by Monsanto actually comes from a completely different strain of rats (Charles River Labs SD rats) than those used in the study (Harlan SD rats).

In fact, the researchers did compare their findings to historical tumor rates in Harlan SD rats, and found that all their results remained statistically significant. For example, the rate of tumors in rats fed GM corn was three times higher than the historical average tumor rates for the same strain of rats.

The briefing further notes that the very idea of using "historical data" to dismiss statistically significant findings is shoddy science, and the technique is rejected by serious scientists. Any legitimate scientific study includes a control group that is tested at the same time as the experimental group, because this is the best way to actually control as many variables as possible and make sure any differences observed are due to the variable being tested (in this case, consumption of GM corn).

 Rats in other studies may have been fed different diets, been at different phases of their life cycles, been exposed to other environmental pollutants, had a different genetic background, or been exposed to any number of other potentially relevant factors.

"The use of historical control data is an unscientific strategy used by industry and some regulators to dismiss statistically significant findings of toxicity in ... studies intended to evaluate safety of pesticides, chemicals, and GMOs," the briefing notes.

Monsanto Tumor Growth Products

Monsanto Does do something quickly and thoroughly, it's products grow tumors!

Ban Monsanto's Birth Defect/Cancer Causing ROUNDUP

Ban Monsanto's Birth-Defect-&-Cancer-Causing RoundUp! Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate Take Action Now! The EPA is currently conducting a "Registration Review" of glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide RoundUp. The EPA will be making a final decision no earlier than 2015. The EPA has the power to ban glyphosate, and it should, given glyphosate is: linked to cancer causing birth defects worse than DDT spawning super-weeds that reduce yields, and responsible for a deadly new pathogen that is plaguing plants with new diseases and animals (including humans) with infertility. A new peer-reviewed research paper by the French group of Gilles-Eric Seralini reveals devastating effects on rats fed diets containing genetically modified corn, with and without the herbicide Roundup, as well as Roundup alone. Rats that spent their lives drinking water contaminated with RoundUp (at levels allowed in U.S. drinking water) developed enormous cancerous tumors and died prematurely. Seralini's study extends the work of others which have demonstrated the toxicity and/or endocrine-based impacts of Roundup. This peer-reviewed study has been criticized by scientists with ties to the biotech industry whose views have been widely reported in the popular press, but independent scientists back the study.

Is Whole Foods Being Sincere About Their Stance On GMO?

After months of pressure from the organic community, including thousands of its customers, the leadership of Whole Foods Market on September 11 endorsed Proposition 37, the California Ballot Initiative to require mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods.

 But the endorsement came with "reservations" and inaccuracies. It also included the false claim that company policy precludes Whole Foods and its executives from providing much-needed financial support to Prop 37, a campaign that consumers - the very people who have made WFM and its executives wildly profitable - overwhelmingly support.

Is it possible that Whole Foods wants to ride the GMO labeling popularity wave while it quietly works behind the scenes to prevent Prop 37, or any other GMO labeling law, from passing? Could it be that a GMO labeling law - especially one like Prop 37 that prohibits the use of the word "natural" on any food containing GMOs - would cut too deeply into the company's $9.8 billion in sales and $245 million in profits?

Right up until the company announced its lukewarm endorsement, Vice President of Global Communications and Quality Standards Margaret Wittenberg and other WFM top brass repeatedly stated that they would not endorse Prop 37. CEO John Mackey has reportedly claimed that "the jury is still out" on whether genetically engineered crops and foods are unhealthy for people or the environment. (Mackey also has stated that "no scientific consensus exists" to support global warming or climate change)

DEMAND GMO Labels On Your Foods

Prop 37 Ad Wars: Monsanto's $ vs. The Truth About GMOs According to the latest Los Angeles Times poll, California supporters of Prop 37 – the November 6th ballot initiative that will mandate labeling for genetically engineered food – outnumber our foes almost three to one. We’re going to have to fight hard to hold onto this lead. Opponents of our Right to Know – Monsanto, DuPont and their allies – are currently outspending us seven to one, and we expect that margin to grow to ten to one before election day. Big Food Inc. and the Biotech Bullies have $35 million to spend on TV ads, and they're already bombing the airwaves. We're not raising enough money to get our ads on TV as often as theirs, but we've got something else they don't. The truth! And people like you. If you share our Right to Know TV ads with your friends, the videos are sure to go viral. Also, please sign up to volunteer for the campaign – you don't have to be in California to contact the state's voters via phone, email or social media.

Vegan Ice Cream You Can Easily Make

Who says you have to use dairy products or eggs to make a delicious "ice cream"? Or sugar? This completely vegan recipe is super easy and fast to make as well as healthy and oh so yummy. The ice cream recipe doesn't call for much of the non-dairy milks. Play around with it and you will soon learn just how much non-dairy milk you need. As an added plus, you can thin the recipe down a bit and make a delicious all-vegan "shake." Use the accompanying recipe for classic sweet almond milk for a super healthy version of this recipe. Enjoy!

Best ever all-vegan 'ice cream'

Ingredients (use vegan versions):

• One cup of frozen fruit, such as strawberries, peaches or blueberries
• One medium to large sliced and frozen banana
• Raw, organic honey or vegan maple syrup to taste
• Coconut, almond or rice milk to preferred consistency

Directions:

1. Slice your bananas and place in a baggy before freezing. If your fruit choice is peaches or a similar fruit, slice and freeze the same as the bananas.
2. Use a food processor to blend the fruits and make the mixture creamy. If the fruit does not blend well at first, add 1/4 cup of the non-dairy milk at the beginning.
3. If need be, the mix can be chilled for several minutes to harden.
4. For easier mixing, blend the honey or maple syrup with your non-dairy milk prior to adding it in with the other ingredients.
5. Always freeze any left over peaches or bananas.

Suggestions:

For a chunkier version, cut some of the frozen fruit in bits and add after you have blended the ice cream. You can also add healthy almonds, pecans or walnuts for a nutty version. For a healthy and crunchy version, add wheat germ on the top when you put the ice cream in bowls.

Healthy notes:

For the very healthiest recipe, use organic ingredients as much as possible. Do NOT use soy milk, despite the soy industry's false promotions about soy milk being healthy. Chances are that it contains GMO soy and many believe that non-fermented soy is unhealthy even if it is not made with GMO soy.

Serves two to three.

Classic sweet almond milk

Enjoy this classic recipe for delicious, healthy and sweet almond milk.

Ingredients:

• One cup of raw, organic almonds
• Three cups of pure, non-chlorinated water
• One medjool date* or one tablespoon of raw, organic honey

Directions:

1. Place the almonds and water in a blender and blend on high speed until the nuts are completely broken and almond milk is created.
2. Strain the almond milk through a fine sieve or a nut milk bag into a bowl or other container. Save the pulp for a dessert recipe, for dehydrating into almond flour, or for compost.
3. Rinse the blender and add back in the strained nut milk.
4. Add sweetener and blend.
5. Taste test for sweetness and add more if required.

Serve and enjoy!

Tips:

Add one teaspoon of vanilla extract or half a vanilla bean to create vanilla milk.

Add a fingernail sized scraping of coconut butter for a creamier, richer flavor.

Makes about four cups.

* Medjool dates are exceptionally large, sweet dates which are often referred to as the "king of dates" or the "crown jewel of dates." Medjool dates are available at Middle Eastern and specialty grocers and are also widely available online. If you are unable to obtain medjool dates, you can substitute one to two regular sweet dates - but note that the medjool dates are well worth the effort of finding.

Getting Arsenic OUT Of YOUR Cereal, Rice, Pasta & More

Although scientists and government regulators have long known about the ever-present threat of arsenic in our diet and water, it was unsettling when two major reports came out on the same day (Sept. 19) reminding us of the risk and the need to do what we can to minimize it. 

Yes, arsenic. It's a naturally occurring mineral with a long history as a murder weapon, and, paradoxically, as a medicine, too. In some parts of the world, contamination levels are so high in food and water as to cause epidemics of skin, bladder and lung cancer. In the United States the effects might be harder to see, but they are still there. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that people drinking arsenic-contaminated water at 10 parts per billion would have a 1-in-300 risk of developing cancer over their lifetimes. Recent research suggests that people ingest about that much arsenic in a just a half-cup serving of rice, not an unusual amount for millions of Americans.

The two new reports came from the US Food and Drug Administration and the highly regarded Consumer Reports magazine, and both focused on the worrisome amounts of arsenic in rice and popular rice-based processed foods. 

Environmental Working Group agrees that there's reason to be concerned. Many rice-based foods and some fruit juices have arsenic levels much higher than are allowed in drinking water. And contrary to some denials from the food industry, the contamination does include the form of arsenic that poses a serious risk to our health. It's long overdue for federal agencies to set health-protective limits on arsenic in food, but they are not moving quickly. 

In the meantime, here are some easy-to-use tips on how you can reduce your, and your family's, exposure:

• Limit rice consumption. Try alternative grains such as quinoa, barley, grits/polenta, couscous or bulgur wheat. 

The testing done by Consumer Reports confirmed that rice has much higher concentrations of arsenic than other grains, fruits and vegetables. That's partly because rice is sometimes grown in fields that have been treated with arsenic-based pesticides in the past, but in many cases it's because rice plants have a natural tendency to take up and concentrate naturally occurring arsenic in the soil and water. The FDA says it needs to test 1,000 more rice samples to clarify which rice-growing areas present the greatest risk of contamination. But consumers can take protective steps while the FDA collects data and ponders regulation - a process that could take years.

• If you're preparing rice, rinse it thoroughly. Boil brown rice in a lot of water (as you do with pasta). 

There's good research indicating that you can lower the amount of arsenic in rice by 30-to-40 percent if you take this simple step (the more water the better). Here's a recipe. Unfortunately, white rice doesn't hold up well to this kind of cooking, but you can reduce arsenic levels somewhat by rinsing white rice before you cook it. 

• Vary your diet. Look for alternatives to rice-based processed foods such as breakfast cereals, rice flour, rice pasta, rice cakes and crackers.

Growing awareness that many people are sensitive to the gluten in wheat-based processed foods has led to a proliferation of rice-based products, but they're not the only option. Good alternatives to Rice Krispies-type breakfast cereals include toasted oats, puffed corn or whole grains such as millet. You can also find flour mixes that contain no rice or gluten for baking.

• Limit products that list rice syrup as a sweetener.

You don't think of rice as a component of snack and nutrition bars, but a recent study by scientists at Dartmouth College found high arsenic levels in processed foods sweetened with brown rice syrup, which are often aimed at the "natural" foods market. EWG has concerns about the study and its interpretation in the media, the underlying issue of brown rice syrup remains. Read labels to avoid this sweetener wherever possible.

• Check your drinking water.

Arsenic taints drinking water in many parts of the United States. Check EWG's Tap Water Database to see if it's been detected in your water. If you drink well water, contact your local health department to find out if arsenic could be a problem in your well, or get it tested - it's not expensive and it's worth the investment. 

What parents can do to protect babies and children:

• Instead of rice cereal as the first solid food for babies, try orange vegetables such as sweet potatoes and squash, bananas and avocados.  

Parents were once advised to start infants with fortified rice cereals, which were touted as non-allergenic and nutritive, but nutritional guidance is shifting. With some exceptions, parents are no longer being encouraged to delay introducing potentially allergenic foods. Soft fruits, vegetables or even meats are great first sources of complementary nutrients for a breast- or formula-fed baby.

• Switch to non-rice baby cereals such as oatmeal or mixed grains.

Powdered cereals are convenient and often used to thicken baby purees, but Consumer Reports found more than 95 parts per billion of arsenic in every brand of infant rice cereals it tested, nearly ten times the legal limit for drinking water. Look for non-rice whole grain or oat cereals, or make your own by blending oats in a food processor and then cooking them with water.

• Limit certain fruit juices to a maximum of one-half to one cup a day.

Arsenic-based pesticides were used on fruit orchards in the early 1900s, and soil contamination remains an ongoing source of arsenic in tree fruits and grapes. Testing shows that some samples of apple, grape and pear juices and juice blends have moderate amounts of arsenic. And there's another reason that pediatricians recommend limiting any and all juice in children's diets: They're high in sugar and can crowd out other foods that provide essential nutrients.

• Avoid brown rice syrup as a sweetener in processed kids' foods.

The arsenic in rice is concentrated in rice syrup, which is sometimes used as a sweetener in snack bars, non-dairy beverages and one brand of toddler formula. In previous testing, the one toddler formula made with rice syrup, Nature's Gate toddler formula, had high concentrations of arsenic in its dairy- and soy-based formulas. Consumer Reports noted that the company has recently found a source of rice syrup that is processed to remove arsenic for its dairy-based formula. (Look for use-by dates of January 2014 for Dairy with DHA & ARA, or July 2015 for Dairy.) Apparently the company has not yet addressed the issue of arsenic in its soy formula. 

• Do not use rice milk as a dairy substitute for cow's milk. 

Britain's Food Safety Authority cautions parents to avoid rice milk as a dairy alternative for toddlers from age 1 to 4½. Consumer Reports tested two common brands for arsenic and found that all samples exceeded EPA's drinking water limit of 10 parts per billion. The range in rice milk was 17 to 70 parts per billion. 

Look for other non-dairy drinks and make sure they don't list rice syrup as a sweetener. In many cases, dairy-sensitive children can be given water and other dietary sources of calcium instead of a highly processed dairy substitute.

Four Simultaneous Monsanto Attacks on Organic Food in California and A Monsanto Hostage

Dees Illustration

Sam Jennings
Activist Post

There are at least four major active Monsanto attacks on food in California going on right now. The last listed exposes the iron fist Monsanto tries to hide.

1. Monsanto is pouring millions into defeating Prop 37.

Prop 37 calls for the labeling of genetically engineered (GMO) ingredients in food. Monsanto lawyer and VP, Michael Taylor, was responsible when Clinton put him in at the FDA, for the first GMO in the food chain - rBGH, a GM-bovine hormone linked to a large increase in risk of breast, colon and prostate cancer, for deregulating the approval process for GMOs, and for keeping GMOs unlabeled (even coming up with a white paper for Monsanto on how to sue farmers for attempting to label their milk as not based on rBGH. It was during this time at the FDA that 40,000 documents were hidden which showed extreme toxicity of GMOs, before Taylor arranged for GMOs to begin to be planted regardless.

The truth about GMOs is out now. A scientist whom Monsanto has repeatedly attacked, to the point where the scientist went to court to stop them, has proved beyond a doubt now that Monsanto's GM-corn causes cancer, organ failure and rapid deaths. (Source) This study is having effects internationally, with Russia immediately banning the import of Monsanto's corn, and groups in Europe calling for a ban of any GMOs in Europe and of all importation.

2. Stanford University in California has attacked organic food right before the vote on Prop 37, to Monsanto's benefit, and devised plans with DHS to "subdue" organic food as a biosecurity threat.

Stanford put out a study suggesting that organic food is no better than convention (most of which is GMO and pesticide laden now). The study is a fraud. One scientist involved had previously done studies for the Tobacco industry suggesting smoking was not a problem. Money is flowing in from Cargill which sells Monsanto's GMOs.

Another scientist on the same fraudulent study has been working with Homeland Security to declare organic food a biosecurity risk, setting it up to be "subdued" - attacked by military. Monsanto benefits and may even be directly involved since Monsanto lawyer and VP, Michael Taylor, designed food "safety" laws that operate in a similar fashion.

 

 They arrange for the extermination of any agricultural threats (organic food not excluded), with Monsanto determining what constitutes those threats. (Right now the USDA has earthworms listed as an invasive species and Monsanto through either the FDA and USDA, could order the spraying of a pesticide including Agent Orange - a pesticide it is pushing hard for - sprayed on all farms to protect US agriculture. Or against any other bogus threats.)

This article is a deep education in how Taylor created "surface" language to allow for deniability as he disguised the transfer of massive power to the FDA (run by Monsanto) to destroy organic farms, organic farmers markets, organic food shops, organic food buying clubs, restaurants, and even organic gardens in the US.

3. Monsanto from the FDA, orders a recall of organic food during the Jewish Holidays 

A recall suggests that food is unsafe to eat. Organic nut butters are included with the conventional (pesticide loaded and GMO-sugar included) nut butters that are being recalled. The fraudulent Stanford study suggested to the public there is no difference in nutritional value between organic and conventional food. With a recall, Monsanto is now suggesting to the public that organic is equally dangerous to your life as conventional food containing Monsanto's GMOs and Roundup.

Most nuts in the country are grown in California so this recall would be powerfully felt there. What's more, the Monsanto-FDA recall of nut butters would have its most serious impact on small companies, and the small ones are the organic ones. They are very vulnerable both in terms of cost and lost revenue to having their products pulled but also in terms of attempting to recover their reputation. (The FDA and the state ag departments are infamous for this ploy against Amish farmers selling raw milk - declaring their milk contaminated, having media splash the story across the new, shutting farmers down for weeks, and only later declaring the milk was fine but with no media on the safety of the milk).

The early vote on Prop 37 begins in October. Monsanto did the recall during the High Holidays - Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur - with a large Jewish vote in California, and with Jews being a group most likely to vote.

4. Monsanto is behind illegal arrest and criminal attacks on the owner of an organic food co-op in Los Angeles and destruction of his life's work.

Please read the petition below which lists multiple examples of misconduct by California officials. But it leaves off the most significant piece of information- Monsanto is behind it all.

The FDA ordered the raid and set the felony arrests in motion, and Monsanto lawyer and VP Michael Taylor, runs the FDA "food safety" division. Monsanto ordered the arrest of an innocent man, the destruction of his organic food business, and one might assume they are behind his torture in jail (including questioning him as though he were a terrorist) and the fact that he faces multiple felonies for the crime of selling fresh goat milk.

Those government agents involved in the first raid, including those mentioned, had any no signed oaths of office on file, so no sworn allegiance to the law. The arrest was therefore illegal and his lawyers are seeking to have the whole case dismissed.

Stewart missed a hearing assuming he was no longer needed in court, but was rearrested,this time not be government agents without the legal right to arrest him, but this time by armed bounty hunters, with no license plates on their cars, who physically attacked out in the open. He is still in jail. This petition seeks to free him and expose what is happening in California, which is being used as a test case for Monsanto brute power over organic food and anyone who dares provide it.

An aside: 

Are you wary of raw milk? Are you thinking, maybe Stewart did something dangerous in selling raw goat milk? If so, you can thank Monsanto, the corrupt dairy industry and the corrupt CDC (which participated in the armed raid on Stewart) for your being convinced not to buy milk that is actually 35,000 times safer than any other food - by the CDC's own data. And if you have Crohn's disease, you can thank them again for your continuing to suffer for working to make what is healing, unavailable. In fact, Monsanto is working to genetically engineer milk itself.

Raw milk is the only safe milk and it is a prime Monsanto target. Raw milk means no money to the industrial food system, it means local food and adequate money to keep local farmers in business, it means money stay in the local communities, and it means healthy people who do not support the drug industry. For Monsanto, that puts a big target on it and from there one can understand the brutality against James Stewart and how important it is to get the petition out to free him.

All of the four attacks in California are different sides of the same coin - "food safety." It is a massive corporate lie to take control over the food system. Food safety law in every state needs to be nullified because all of them include a Monsanto trick - they require no evidence whatever. The state can act against people like Stewart based not on contamination or harm - he'd done neither - but merely based on technicalities and plan to destroy real food . Food laws must written that only apply to proven contamination, confirmed by independent scientists, and no prison terms can be applied unless a person or company has been proven, as the peanut company was, to have known in advance that its food was contaminated and to sell it with that knowledge.

Monsanto, is selling products it knows are lethal.

Lakota Sioux Nation Leaves America

America betrayed them and all Native Peoples. Throughout US history and earlier, genocide was policy.

Historian Ward Churchill explained four centuries of systematic slaughter. It went on from 1492 - 1892. It continues today against Native culture.

Churchill estimated around 100 million Native People throughout the Americas "hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases."

Destruction of their culture continues in new forms. "The American holocaust was and remains unparalleled, in terms of its scope, ferocity, and continuance over time."

Silence and denial suppress what happened and goes on today. Try finding coverage anywhere by America's major media. Virtually nothing is said, let alone explained.

Survivors represent a tiny fraction of original numbers. They also symbolize a longstanding US tradition of butchery and viciousness.

After centuries of systematic slaughter, Census Bureau data estimated around a quarter-million US survivors. Those living struggle to get by.

Raphael Lemkin defined genocide as:

"the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" that corresponds to other terms like "tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc." (It) does not necessarily mean the destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings....It is intended....to signify a coordinated plan (to destroy) the essential foundations of the life of national groups" with the intent to eradicate or substantially weaken or harm them."

"Genocidal plans involve the disintegration....of political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, economic existence, personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and" human lives.

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Convention defines it legally as:

"any (acts like those above) committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the national, ethnical, racial or religious group (by) killing (its) members; causing (them) serious bodily or mental harm; (or) deliberately inflicting (on them) conditions" that may destroy them in whole or in part.

Destroying peoples' cultures, preventing them from practicing their religion, speaking their language, and/or passing on their traditions to new generations are genocidal acts.

Constitutional provisions don't let government abuse people or deny them their rights. They don't authorize genocide, either within or outside the country. They don't permit theft and occupation of their lands or any others.

Nonetheless, binding principles are spurned. America, Israel, and rogue NATO partners violate them with impunity. Crimes of war, against humanity, and genocide are official policy. Millions of corpses bear testimony.

On December 17, 2007, a delegation of Lakota people went to Washington. They declared independence. They called it "the latest step in the longest running legal battle" in history.

It's not a cessation, they said. It's a lawful "unilateral withdrawal" from treaty obligations permitted under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

At the time, American Indian Movement (AIM) leader Russell Means said:

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us."

"We offer citizenship to anyone provided they renounce their US citizenship."

"United States colonial rule is at an end."

Signed documents were delivered to the State Department. Sovereignty was declared. The Republic of Lakota was established. It's based on the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. It created the Great Lakota (Sioux) Nation. It states in part:

"The territory of the Sioux or Dahcotah Nation, commencing the mouth of the White Earth River, on the Missouri River; thence in a southwesterly direction to the forks of the Platte River; thence up the north fork of the Platte River to a point known as the Red Buts, or where the road leaves the river; thence along the range of mountains known as the Black Hills, to the head-waters of Heart River; thence down Heart River to its mouth; and thence down the Missouri River to the place of beginning."

It gave Lakota people portions of northern Nebraska, half of South Dakota, one-fourth of North Dakota, one-fifth of Montana, and another 20% of Wyoming.

Unilateral withdrawal from all treaties and agreements became policy. America never honored its own. More on that below.

Earlier events led to the 2007 declaration. In 1974, 5,000 International Indian Treaty Council delegates, representing 97 North and South American Indigenous People, signed a Declaration of Continuing Independence.

It was a "Manifesto representing the wisdom of thousands of people, the Ancestors, and the Great Mystery supports the rights of Indigenous Nations to live free and to take whatever actions are necessary for sovereignty."

Numerous elders approved it. They represented ancestors born to live free. They gave delegates two mandates:

(1) Gain international recognition. In September 2007, the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights affirmed it.

(2) "We must always remember that we were once a free People. If we don't, we shall cease to be Lakota."

The right to return to their original free and independent status was asserted. On December 17, 2007, they declared it formally.

In United States v. Sioux Nation (1980), the Supreme Court upheld a $105 million award to eight Sioux tribes. It was compensation for lost land. It was lawlessly taken.

The Court, however, denied what Sioux people most wanted - their land back. As a result, they refused the money. They reasserted their sovereign rights.

Thirty-two years of compound interest makes the 1980 award worth $400 million today. It's a tiny fraction of what Sioux people lost. They demand and deserve what's rightfully theirs. America's highest court has no sovereignty over their rights. Neither does political Washington.

Lakota people say US law supports them. America systematically broke treaties and stole their land. It's theirs and they want it back. The Republic of Lakota claims it.

On September 29, 2012 Means reiterated what he and others declared in December 2007, saying:

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five state area that encompasses our country are free to join us."

He cited longstanding problems and grievances. They include land theft, resource plunder, poverty, unemployment, repression, and overall human depravation. All of it remains out of sight and mind.

The Republic of Lakota described ongoing genocide as follows:

(1) Mortality

Life expectancy for Lakota men is less than 44 years. It's the lowest of all sovereign countries. It's the highest in America. Infant mortality is threefold higher than the US average. Diseases are a major problem. "Cancer is now at epidemic proportions."

Teenage suicide is150% higher than America's average. One-fourth of Lakota children are fostered or adopted by non-Native people. Doing so destroys their identity and culture. Ward Churchill calls it killing the Indian, saving the man.

(2) Disease

Tuberculosis is 800% higher than America's average. Cervical cancer is fivefold higher. Diabetes is eight times the national average. The Federal Commodity Food Program provides high-sugar foods. They contribute to poor health.

(3) Poverty

Annual median income is $2,600 - $3,500. Poverty affects 97% of Lakotans. Many families can't afford essentials most people take for granted. In winter, many use ovens for heat. Simple luxuries are unheard of. Life is hard, merciless, punishing, and unrelenting.

(4) Unemployment

It's 80% or higher. Government corruption, cronyism, and indifference destroy normal living opportunities.

(5) Housing

In winter, elderly people die from hypothermia. They freeze to death for lack of heat. One-third of homes lack clean water and sewage. About 40% have no electricity. About 60% of families have no telephone.

Another 60% of homes are infected with potentially fatal black molds. On average, 17 people reside in each household. Many have two to three rooms. Some homes built for six to eight people have up to 30 in them.

(6) Drugs and Alcohol

Over half of adults battle addiction and disease. Alcoholism affects 90% of families. Two known methamphetamine labs operate. Authorities haven't closed them.

(7) Incarceration

Indian children imprisonment exceed whites by 40%. Native People comprise 2% of South Dakota's population. They account for 21% of those imprisoned.

Indians have the second highest state prison incarceration rate in America. Most live on federal reservations. Less than 2% are where states have jurisdiction.

(8) Culture

It's threatened with extinction. It's federal policy to destroy it. Only 14% of Lakotans speak their language. It's not shared inter-generationally.

The average fluent Lakotan speaker is 65 years old. In another generation or less, perhaps few or none will remain. Lakotan language skills aren't allowed or taught in US government schools. Nor is much of anything about native history and culture. America wants it destroyed and forgotten.

Lakotan struggle began with the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. They call it "fantasy" US history. France sold America 530 million Native land acres for $15 million. Lakotans owned part of it. They and other Native people weren't consulted.

They've been systematically ignored and violated. From 1778 - 1871, Washington negotiated 372 treaties. Their provisions were systematically spurned.

America's winning the West involved invading, encroaching, stealing, and occupying their lands. That's how imperialism works. It's the same everywhere.

Throughout the 19th century (and earlier), Washington engaged in military, legal, and political battles against Native Peoples. Their rights were contemptuously denied. They were displaced and exterminated. That's how today's America was created.

The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie was systematically violated. So were provisions of all other treaties. From 1866 - 1868, Washington let the Bozeman trail go through the "Heart of the Lakota Nation."

It was a short cut to Montana's gold fields. Military forts were built on stolen land along its route. Doing so violated 1851 treaty provisions. Battles ensued. Washington negotiated peace. The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty followed. Native People thought they won. Victory was pyrrhic and illusory.

The Supreme Court's 1883 ex parte Crow Dog decision made no difference. The Court recognized Lakotah freedom and independence. It ruled that tribes held exclusive jurisdiction over their internal affairs. It didn't matter.

The transcontinental railroad facilitated development, land and resource theft.

In 1885, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act. It extended US jurisdiction into Lakota territory. The same year, the last of the great buffalo herds were exterminated. At one time, they numbered 60 million. Native People relied on them for food.

In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act (the Dawes Act). It ended communal ownership of reservation lands. It distributed 160-acre "allotments" to individual Indians. Tribes lost millions of acres. Wealthy ranchers exploit them today.

In 1888, Congress began prohibiting Indian Spiritual and Prayer Ceremonies. It was part of destroying Native culture. In 1891, a Commissioner of Indian Affairs was authorized. It was to assure Native People obeyed white man's laws.

Many more abuses followed. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), the Supreme Court extralegally recognized near absolute plenary congressional power over Indian affairs.

It let US authorities steal tribal lands and resources freely. They did so on the pretext of fulfilling federal responsibilities.

Doing so abrogated fundamental indigenous rights unilaterally. The ruling was used to violate hundreds of treaties. Like other Native Peoples, Lakotans were grievously harmed.

Their sacred Black Hills were stolen. So were valued resources on them. Lakotans want back what's rightfully theirs. Their ancestors thought the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty granted them victory. They were wrong.

Yet in 1904, even after Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, some believed the Treaty was "the only instance in the history of the United States where the government has gone to war and afterwards negotiated a peace conceding everything demanded by the enemy and exacting nothing in return."

Until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, Native People got what no one had the right to deny them in the first place. In fact, rights afforded them nominally never existed in fact.

The entire history of Native People in America reflects horrific struggles lost. From 1492 to today, they experienced promises made and broken. Disenfranchized people remain. Most are bereft of hope.

On reservations or assimilated, they're out of sight and mind. Once they lived peacefully on their own land. White settlers changed things. Western civilization destroyed their way of life. There's nothing civilized about it.

They're either ignored, mocked, or demonized in films and society. They're called drunks, beasts, primitives, and savages. America always was a white supremacist society.

Rich powerful elites run it. Native People and most others don't matter. They're systematically used and abused. They're not served. It's the American way.