Total Pageviews

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Health Is A Racket

Our health has been monetized.

There are very conscientious individuals in the field, but they are fighting against those who wish to manage our lives by addressing symptoms, rather than going to the root of the issue.

Of course, one needs to understand that health care has become an industry. It's now all about keeping you and I on myriad pills and concoctions, keeping their pockets well fed as we attempt to make it from our beds and face the ongoing maladies.

There are cures for cancer.

There are cures for diabetes.

There are cures for practically everything...but that doesn't keep the health machine fed.

Cost-benefit analyses are conducted to test the viability of their concoctions, and commercials are subtexted with serene scenery and imagery to obfuscate the verbiage that warns us of the potential dangers of their offerings.

We need a reform.

Remember laetrile? It was outlawed...but it seems to now be making a comeback.

How many other outlawed cures will we see, now that the mythology is being challenged?

I'm going to re-post the honorable General Smedley Darlington Butler's speech, War Is A Racket, following shortly.

Please listen to Ted and Austin Broer's broadcast from yesterday. If you can't wait for it, go to minute 51, and listen to the actions designed to nullify the GMO labeling laws passed in Vermont.

We need to be constantly vigilant. The bastards want for us to consume their FrankenFoods and slowly wither away mentally, physically and psychologically, while they enjoy REAL FOOD. We are actually losing the right to grow our own foods!

In this day and age, can you believe that?!?

Prejudiced against Italians...but I digress.

                              War Is A Racket

                      By Major General Smedley Butler


                    Chapter 1: War Is A Racket

                    Chapter 2: Who Makes The Profits?

                    Chapter 3: Who Pays The Bills?

                    Chapter 4: How To Smash This Racket!

                    Chapter 5: To Hell With War!

     Smedley Darlington Butler

        * Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
        * Educated: Haverford School
        * Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905
        * Awarded two congressional medals of honor:
            1. capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914
            2. capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917
        * Distinguished service medal, 1919
        * Major General - United States Marine Corps
        * Retired Oct. 1, 1931
        * On leave of absence to act as
          director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932
        * Lecturer -- 1930's
        * Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932
        * Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940
        * For more information about Major General Butler,
          contact the United States Marine Corps.


     War Is A Racket

     WAR is a racket. It always has been.

     It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the
     most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the
     only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
     losses in lives.

     A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not
     what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside"
     group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of
     the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few
     people make huge fortunes.

     In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the
     conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were
     made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted
     their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other
     war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

     How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of
     them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go
     hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent
     sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and
     machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of
     an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

     Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are
     victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory
     promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung
     dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the

     And what is this bill?

     This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones.
     Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic
     instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries.
     Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

     For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war
     was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully
     realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering,
     as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

     Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to
     stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar
     agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other,
     forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over
     the Polish Corridor.

     The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia]
     complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies,
     were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in.
     But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are
     looking ahead to war. Not the people -- not those who fight and
     pay and die -- only those who foment wars and remain safely at
     home to profit.

     There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our
     statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not
     in the making.

     Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be

     Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are
     being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out.
     Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the
     publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

          "And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and
          observes the future and the development of humanity
          quite apart from political considerations of the moment,
          believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of
          perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to its
          highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of
          nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet

     Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained
     army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for
     war -- anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of
     Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And
     the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border
     after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are
     others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or

     Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands
     for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to
     peace. France only recently increased the term of military service
     for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

     Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of
     Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more
     adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out
     our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very
     generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend
     is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door"
     policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about
     $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about
     $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our
     bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private
     investments there of less than $200,000,000.

     Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect
     these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the
     Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to
     war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars,
     hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more
     hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced

     Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit --
     fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be
     piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
     Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

     Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they?
     It pays high dividends.

     But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it
     profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their
     sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

     What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means
     huge profits?

     Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

     Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory
     outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national
     debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became
     "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice
     of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's
     warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired
     outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct
     result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt
     had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade
     balance during the twenty-five-year period was about
     $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran
     a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well
     have been ours without the wars.

     It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average
     American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements.
     For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld
     rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is
     always transferred to the people -- who do not profit.


     Who Makes The Profits?

     The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the
     United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400
     to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the
     debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our
     children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that

     The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are
     six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time
     profits -- ah! that is another matter -- twenty, sixty, one
     hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent -- the
     sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the
     money. Let's get it.

     Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed
     into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all
     put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and
     skyrocket -- and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few

     Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people -- didn't one of
     them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder
     won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How
     did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well,
     the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914
     were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed
     to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit
     during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a
     year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and
     the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in
     profits of more than 950 per cent.

     Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted
     aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture
     war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged
     $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem
     Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump
     -- or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their
     1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

     Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the
     five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not
     bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average
     yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

     There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look
     at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well
     in war times.

     Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war
     years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918
     profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

     Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the
     1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly
     profits for the war period.

     Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total
     yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were
     $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits
     for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

     A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

     Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There
     are still others. Let's take leather.

     For the three-year period before the war the total profits of
     Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately
     $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit
     of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all.
     The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years
     before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and
     the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

     International Nickel Company -- and you can't have a war without
     nickel -- showed an increase in profits from a mere average of
     $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of
     more than 1,700 per cent.

     American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the
     three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was

     Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress,
     reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues.
     Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton
     manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal
     producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were
     exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per
     cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The
     Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

     And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If
     anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being
     partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not
     have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret
     as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and
     their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never
     become public -- even before a Senate investigatory body.

     But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and
     speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

     Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with
     abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our
     allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament
     makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar
     whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by
     Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs
     of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight
     pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only
     one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in
     existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle
     Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought -- and paid
     for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

     There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold
     your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the
     cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody
     had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a
     profit in it -- so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we
     probably have those yet.

     Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle
     Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas.
     I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried
     to sleep in muddy trenches -- one hand scratching cooties on their
     backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one
     of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

     Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no
     soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000
     additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

     There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days,
     even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war
     had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting
     manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of
     consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more
     mosquito netting would be in order.

     Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their
     just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting
     theirs. So $1,000,000,000 -- count them if you live long enough --
     was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never
     left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion
     dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the
     same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or
     perhaps 300 per cent.

     Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam
     paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them -- a nice little profit for the
     undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the
     uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel
     helmet manufacturers -- all got theirs.

     Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment --
     knapsacks and the things that go to fill them -- crammed
     warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the
     regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers
     collected their wartime profits on them -- and they will do it all
     over again the next time.

     There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the

     One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch
     wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was
     that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for
     these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara
     Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer
     had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and
     shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use
     for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow
     to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to
     fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your
     Uncle Sam.

     Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride
     in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has
     probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard.
     Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of
     colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer
     got his war profit.

     The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They
     built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than
     $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But
     $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float!
     The seams opened up -- and they sank. We paid for them, though.
     And somebody pocketed the profits.

     It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and
     researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of
     this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself.
     This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how
     the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This
     $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a
     tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

     The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its
     wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has
     scratched the surface.

     Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been
     studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War
     Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The
     Administration names a committee -- with the War and Navy
     Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall
     Street speculator -- to limit profits in war time. To what extent
     isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and
     1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World
     War would be limited to some smaller figure.

     Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of
     losses -- that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far
     as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to
     limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to
     limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of

     There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more
     than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that
     not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

     Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling


     Who Pays The Bills?

     Who provides the profits -- these nice little profits of 20, 100,
     300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them -- in taxation. We
     paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at
     $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These
     bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The
     bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to
     depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us -- the people --
     got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers
     bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and
     government bonds went to par -- and above. Then the bankers
     collected their profits.

     But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

     If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the
     battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in
     the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which
     I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen
     government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about
     50,000 destroyed men -- men who were the pick of the nation
     eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government
     hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead,
     told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as
     among those who stayed at home.

     Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and
     offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There
     they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about
     face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put
     shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were
     entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained
     them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

     Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another
     "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment,
     sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and
     sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we
     scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan"
     speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are
     eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that
     final "about face" alone.

     In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys
     are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars
     and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches.
     These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even
     look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically,
     they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

     There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and
     more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the
     war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement -- the young boys
     couldn't stand it.

     That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead -- they have paid
     their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and
     physically wounded -- they are paying now their share of the war
     profits. But the others paid, too -- they paid with heartbreaks
     when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their
     families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam -- on which a profit had
     been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they
     were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their
     places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the
     trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for
     days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in
     the rain -- with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible

     But don't forget -- the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents
     bill too.

     Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize
     system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the
     Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they
     went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as
     $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave
     prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got
     their share -- at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found
     that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize
     money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier
     anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone
     else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

     Napoleon once said,

          "All men are enamored of decorations . . . they
          positively hunger for them."

     So by developing the Napoleonic system -- the medal business --
     the government learned it could get soldiers for less money,
     because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there
     were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed
     out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals
     were issued until the Spanish-American War.

     In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept
     conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join
     the army.

     So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into
     it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to
     kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side . . . it
     is His will that the Germans be killed.

     And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill
     the allies . . . to please the same God. That was a part of the
     general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and
     murder conscious.

     Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to
     die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make
     the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they
     marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war
     profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be
     shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told
     them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be
     torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They
     were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

     Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided
     to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large
     salary of $30 a month.

     All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear
     ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat
     canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill .
     . . and be killed.

     But wait!

     Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard
     or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day)
     was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that
     they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made
     him pay what amounted to accident insurance -- something the
     employer pays for in an enlightened state -- and that cost him $6
     a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

     Then, the most crowning insolence of all -- he was virtually
     blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food
     by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at
     all on pay days.

     We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them
     back -- when they came back from the war and couldn't find work --
     at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth
     of these bonds!

     Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family
     pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he
     suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and
     watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and
     tossed sleeplessly -- his father, his mother, his wife, his
     sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

     When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his
     mind broken, they suffered too -- as much as and even sometimes
     more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the
     profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and
     the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought
     Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after
     the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond

     And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally
     broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are
     still suffering and still paying.


     How To Smash This Racket!

     WELL, it's a racket, all right.

     A few profit -- and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it.
     You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate
     it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups
     can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively
     only by taking the profit out of war.

     The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and
     industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted.
     One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the
     nation -- it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let
     the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of
     our armament factories and our munitions makers and our
     shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of
     all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as
     the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted -- to get $30 a
     month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

     Let the workers in these plants get the same wages -- all the
     workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all
     managers, all bankers -- yes, and all generals and all admirals
     and all officers and all politicians and all government office
     holders -- everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly
     income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

     Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all
     those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and
     majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and
     pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

     Why shouldn't they?

     They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their
     bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in
     muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

     Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over
     and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will
     smash the war racket -- that and nothing else.

     Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So
     capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the
     people -- those who do the suffering and still pay the price --
     make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their
     bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

     Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is
     the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be
     declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those
     who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There
     wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a
     munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international
     banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing
     plant -- all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the
     event of war -- voting on whether the nation should go to war or
     not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms -- to sleep
     in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to
     risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of
     voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

     There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those
     affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted
     to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write
     before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a
     simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to
     register in their communities as they did in the draft during the
     World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who
     would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war
     would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be
     the ones to have the power to decide -- and not a Congress few of
     whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are
     in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer
     should have the right to vote.

     A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to
     make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense

     At each session of Congress the question of further naval
     appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington
     (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists.
     And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of
     battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of
     all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval
     power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great
     fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate
     125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a
     larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For
     defense purposes only.

     Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For
     defense. Uh, huh.

     The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline
     on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three
     hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes,
     perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

     The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond
     expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's
     shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California
     were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese
     fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

     The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically
     limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that
     been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana
     Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been
     no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred
     miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes.
     Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go
     further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be
     permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of
     reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial
     limits of our nation.

     To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

       1. We must take the profit out of war.

       2. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to
          decide whether or not there should be war.

       3. We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.


     To Hell With War!

     I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I
     know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we
     cannot be pushed into another war.

     Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a
     platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied
     promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later
     he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

     In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether
     they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on
     uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they
     wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

     Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?


     An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before
     the war declaration and called on the President. The President
     summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke.
     Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the
     President and his group:

          "There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause
          of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers,
          American munitions makers, American manufacturers,
          American speculators, American exporters) five or six
          billion dollars.

          If we lose (and without the help of the United States we
          must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay
          back this money . . . and Germany won't.

          So . . . "

     Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were
     concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that
     conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the
     proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But
     this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost
     secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was
     a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all

     Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than
     it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia
     or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under
     democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or
     Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

     And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us
     that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

     Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms
     conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the
     results of another have been nullified. We send our professional
     soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to
     these conferences. And what happens?

     The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No
     admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without
     a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for
     disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all
     these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful,
     just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war.
     They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously
     limit armaments.

     The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not
     been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more
     armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

     There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of
     practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap
     every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane.
     Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

     The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with
     battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with
     machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

     Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and
     ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships
     will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their
     profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles
     will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge
     profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the
     manufacturer must make their war profits too.

     But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and
     ingenuity of our scientists.

     If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more
     fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they
     will have no time for the constructive job of building greater
     prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we
     can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war --
     even the munitions makers.

     So...I say,


 (hypertext)  (text only) (print ready)

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

FrankenWeed? Say It Isn't So!

I saw this not too long ago, but figured that there's no bloody way this could happen...but considering that I've read that the DEA was changing the classification of marijuana as of August 1, I guess hell could freeze over before then:

What a Looming Patent War Could Mean for the Future of the Marijuana Industry

On August 4, 2015, US officials quietly made history by approving the first-ever patent for a plant containing significant amounts of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, according to the patent's holders, their lawyers, and outside experts in intellectual property law.
Patent No. 9095554, issued to a group of breeders in California, "relates to specialty cannabis plants, compositions and methods for making and using said cannabis plants and compositions derived thereof," according to the 145-page document, which is filled with charts, graphs, and reams of scientific jargon describing a range of hybrid strains with distinctive ratios of cannabinoids.
"There is a real need for cannabis varieties for potential medical use that produce modulated THC concentrations and varying concentrations of other pharmacologically active substances," the patent says. "There is also a need for healthier cannabis for recreational use with reduced negative side effects from THC. The inventions described herein meet that long-felt need."
But while the patent may inaugurate a new era of acceptance for marijuana in the US, it also opens up a new source of turmoil for the fast-growing industry: disputes over the intellectual property rights to America's most potent and innovative marijuana strains.
"It's going to be a mess," said Tim Blake, a longtime grower and activist who founded California's annual Emerald Cup cannabis competition. Marijuana growers developing new varieties, he added, "are going to have to spend a lot of money on attorneys."
When big corporations eventually decide to enter the market and compete with smaller growers, the stakes will be even higher — and the competition even fiercer.
Yes, You Can Patent PotA spokesperson for the US Patent and Trade Office confirmed that officials are now accepting and processing patent applications for individual varieties of cannabis, along with innovative medical uses for the plant and other associated inventions.
"In general, the [patent] office issues both utility and plant patents to all types of plants, including cannabis and poppy, provided the applications meet and comply with the applicable patent statutes," said the spokesperson, who asked not to be named. "There are no special statutory requirements or restrictions applied to marijuana plants."
Though American cannabis cultivators have long had bigger legal problems to worry about than the question of who owned the rights to potent strains like Green Crack, Strawberry Cough, Trainwreck, Girl Scout Cookies, or Alaskan Thunderfuck, Patent No. 9095554 may be the opening salvo in a new series of legal battles over innovations in marijuana breeding.
The prize could be nothing less than the commanding heights of an industry that's projected to soon top $40 billion, with the exclusive rights to produce, sell, or license designer varieties of pot. Over the next few years, the contest could take the form of a gold rush for patents.
"A well-written patent is like a declaration of war — you write a patent in a way that covers those who can sue you, and those you can sue," said Reggie Gaudino, a Ph.D. in molecular genetics who works as director of intellectual property for Steep Hill Labs, a US firm that analyzes medical and recreational marijuana for compliance with public safety standards.
'These people aren't worried about the Department of Justice anymore. Now they're worried about Monsanto.'
Concern is rising among legal-pot pioneers about the need to lawyer up to defend their creations from imitators and patent trolls, as well as from multinational corporations in the agriculture, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries that are thought to be watching the fast-growing industry from the sidelines, despite overt denials.
"If the laws change and the big companies move in, I think we'll have a period of turmoil around ownership, patenting, the whole business," said Erich Veitenheimer, a patent lawyer and partner at Cooley LLP in Washington, DC, who represented the patent holders of No. 9095554.
Some worry that confusion surrounding intellectual property rights for different marijuana strains could create an opportunity for companies like American agricultural behemoth Monsanto to stomp the industry by taking advantage of patenting techniques that the firm has already used to dominate the seed trade in other crops, such as soybeans and corn.
Many small pot farmers are more scared of corporate competition than they are of criminal prosecution, according to Hilary Bricken, a Seattle lawyer who chairs the Canna Law Group of the firm Harris Moure, which supports marijuana businesses.
"These people aren't worried about the Department of Justice anymore," said Bricken, who has represented cannabis enterprises in commercial litigation and has consulted on intellectual property issues. "Now they're worried about Monsanto."
A number of patents for the medical use of cannabis already exist, but Patent No. 9095554 is the first to be issued for a plant that contains significant amounts of THC, according to Veitenheimer, Gaudino, and Jonathan Page, a botanist who co-founded the cannabis biotech company Anandia Labs and who co-led the team that sequenced the first cannabis genome.
"Our patent lawyers were really, really surprised that there weren't more applications" for individual strains or classes of cannabis, said Michael Backes, one of the patent's three listed inventors and the author of Cannabis Pharmacy: The Practical Guide to Medical Marijuana. His lawyers, he noted, "expected a ton of them, and there weren't any. Ours was the first."
Cannabis seeds. (Photo vis Flickr)
In America, new varieties of plants, produced either through traditional breeding or as genetically modified organisms (GMO), can be considered intellectual property just like music, art, books, software, and architectural design — a fact that has allowed Monsanto to sue farmers for planting patented seeds that weren't purchased from licensed vendors.
So far, marijuana breeders are working in the traditional way, and nobody is known to be attempting to produce GMO marijuana.
Rumors that Monsanto had started doing so forced the company to post a standing denial on its website. "Monsanto has not and is not working on GMO marijuana," the company says. "This allegation is an Internet rumor."
The firm "has no plans for working on cultivating cannabis," said Charla Lord, a spokesperson for Monsanto.
Representatives of big tobacco companies also said that their businesses aren't interested in pot. Brian May, spokesperson for Altria, which controls the Marlboro and Parliament brands through its subsidiary Philip Morris USA, said, "Our position is marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and Altria's companies have no plans to sell marijuana-based products."
Those denials haven't been enough to quiet concern in the American marijuana industry about what may happen on the intellectual property frontier if and when legalization spreads across the country.
"There are all sorts of problems on the horizon if something doesn't happen," said Steep Hill's Gaudino. "This kind of confusion is exactly what Monsanto wants. They want their access unfettered so they can take over without having to pay anybody."
'These small farmers think they're going to compete against these big brands. But they're either going to have to scale up or be satisfied being the little honey stand on the side of the road.'
Recent decades have seen an explosion of powerful strains of pot bred by small-time growers with names like Blue Dream, Northern Lights, Death Star, God's Gift, Purple Urkle, Skywalker, White Rhino, Chemdawg, and Blue Cheese.
Breeders who long toiled in the shadows are now beginning to seek patents for their innovative strains the way any other horticulturalist might seek a patent for a new type of rose, green bean, or sugar beet.
"We're being approached by quite a few of these so-called underground breeders who have come to the surface and are now interested in patenting," Veitenheimer said. "But they understand it's only for their new varieties, which are different from anything else out there."
A marijuana grow operation in Colorado. (Photo via Pixabay)
"To obtain a utility patent, the claimed strain must be new and unobvious over existing strains," the spokesperson for the US Patent and Trade Office explained. "The strain must also exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state."
This "novelty" requirement means marijuana varieties that already exist in the public domain should, in theory, be safe from patent trolls, lawyers said — although it may also mean that the true inventors of celebrated pot strains may not be able to stake claims through the patent office for their inventions.
But just because you can't patent something that's already in the public sphere doesn't mean people won't try.
"It wouldn't surprise me if someone, knowingly or unknowingly, tried to gain a patent on something that's already in the public domain," said Veitenheimer.
The Open Cannabis ProjectSome in the sector are attempting to turn the novelty requirement into an impediment for big business, or anyone else, to seek patents for existing strains of marijuana.
The Open Cannabis Project is an organization that is collecting DNA samples of cannabis strains in order to publish them in a massive database. The aim is to have a large catalog that can be used to properly classify strains and prove, on a genetic basis, that a given strain was available to the public before someone tries to take out a patent on it.
"We're sequencing the DNA of thousands of strains of cannabis," said Mowgli Holmes, a board member of the Open Cannabis Project who has a Ph.D. in microbiology from Columbia University. "You can't use that data to patent plants. But you can use it to show that something is in the public domain."
"A lot of people are worried about what's going to happen with patents," he added. "There's a polarization in the grower community between people who are terrified of Monsanto and who want to stop them from patenting things, and other people who are terrified of Monsanto but want to patent their own strains before Monsanto does."
Holmes is also chief scientific officer at Phylos Bioscience, a biotechnology firm that is working to extensively map the cannabis genome. Phylos, which has pledged to give its data to the Open Cannabis Project when complete, unveiled an interactive map illustrating an array of genetic links between different strains of marijuana on Wednesday.
"We've been generally taking the stance that patents are stupid, and they're not going to help anybody," he remarked.
Holmes expressed surprise, however, that many small-time growers he spoke to were hesitant to share samples with the Open Cannabis Project because they themselves plan to secure patents someday.
"We figured everyone would love this," he said. "But in northern California, we've gotten a lot of pushback. People say, 'No, I don't want my stuff to be in the public domain. I want to patent it.'"
Marijuana, Software, and Craft Beer
The pot world might follow the path of other new industries, like software or semiconductors, in which an early spirit of collaboration eventually gave way to corporate secrecy.
Early IT engineers from different companies used to meet up in the bar after work to swap ideas and share stories at a time when software was thought to be "unpatentable," recalled Thomas Schneck, patent attorney and owner of the firm Patent Valley.
"As the industry started to mature, it became more competitive, and all of a sudden secrets developed," Schneck said. "As marijuana becomes more widely used and the big guys get involved, things will change. We'll see more patents in this area."
Many close observers of the American pot industry expect it to end up looking a lot like the beer market, with a few large players dominating mass production and distribution while smaller craft producers produce high quality, artisanal buds.
"I think we'll have our Nordstroms of cannabis, our Walmart of cannabis, whatever that looks like," said Bricken. "I do think it will become a commodity."
Tim Blake of the Emerald Cup agreed.
"Big business is coming in from all sides," he said. "These small farmers think they're going to compete against these big brands. But they're either going to have to scale up or be satisfied being the little honey stand on the side of the road."
Blake has watched his Emerald Cup expand enormously since it started 13 years ago, when some entrants showed up in masks or disguises, afraid to be observed by law enforcement.
"People thought we'd get busted," he said.
Today, the Emerald Cup has become so mainstream that Blake has moved the event from his own property to the sprawling Sonoma County Fairgrounds in Santa Rosa, California. This year, he expects 25,000 visitors.
The expansion of the Emerald Cup has mirrored the rapid legalization of cannabis in many states. Marijuana is now legal for medical use in 24 states and the District of Columbia, and legal for recreational use in four. Recreational pot smoking could be allowed in as many as 10 more states, including California, after the next round of ballot initiatives this November.
Bipartisan legislation pending in Congress called the CARERS Act, co-sponsored by Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), would also reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to Schedule II and allow greater access to medical marijuana — a change that would begin to bridge the gap between federal and state law as the federal government acknowledges certain medicinal uses.
"This bill takes the threat of federal prosecution away from families that are complying with the laws of their state, but depending on federal government intervention, could legitimately end up being arrested and prosecuted," Booker told VICE News. "This is a bill that will allow states to control their own destinies, to create their own laws when it comes to medical marijuana."
But as marijuana legalization gains momentum in the US, the trappings of corporate America are close behind.
The question many growers now face is whether to make use of corporate tools or seek out alternative methods to thwart the system, according to Dale Hunt, a San Diego attorney who focuses on intellectual property in life sciences, including cannabis.
"Once cannabis is legal, no one will be able to stop the patent office from granting patents on it," including to big firms and small farmers alike, he said. "The question is, do you want to be on the sharp end of that spear, or do you want to be on the handle?"
Follow VICE News on Twitter: @vicenews
I'm aware that every new innovation doesn't necessarily correlate to new steps forward, but I'm fairly certain that no one but Monsanto is looking forward to the new scourge; well, they and the Nervous Nellies who believe the nonsense of Reefer Madness.

I believe it's already been put on the market, targeted towards minorities.

Market something as "kewl", and the masses eat it up.

I may need to invest in a microscope so that I can test for GMO infection; for now, I will research as to telltale signs.

Check out DrugWarRant for further information regarding the coming scourge of FrankenWeed.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Monsanto's First Lady?

Happy Father's Day, dear readers!

First of all...why is Michelle Obama in cahoots with Monsanto in attempting to craft childrens' school  menus?

GMO Hypocrisy and Double Standards against the working Class Americans

The average consumers are becoming more and more aware of the health risks associated with foods that are contaminated with pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, growth hormones or genetically modified.

Surprisingly, many government officials and corporate elites who promote genetically modified foods publicly, eat only organic privately.

During the 2008 presidential campaign Obama mentioned that the public had the right to know if their foods are genetically modified. Now four years later, GMOs are banned in 27 different countries but the biotech industry and FDA don’t even acknowledge that there is any difference in genetically modified foods compared to traditional foods. It’s pretty amazing how Michelle Obama, the first lady, launches a campaign to fight childhood obesity and digs up the White House front lawn to plant an organic vegetable garden and on the other hand her husband shakes hands with biotech industry and appoints, Mike Taylor, the former VP and attorney of Monsanto, as FDA deputy commissioner.

Michelle Obama insisted, during Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, that their family has been on organic diet for the past few years. Yet President Obama has made no efforts to lead America towards healthier food production with temporary halt to GMO foods while conducting a comprehensive research study of its long term side effects. In fact, he has not even made any attempts to simply label GMO to protect babies, pregnant women and those with chronic diseases. Activists, minorities, women and the young who voted for Obama hoped that his policies will be different than George W Bush. During Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, his supporters got the signals that Obama will make a real difference and start reform by putting the demands of the average American ahead of few corporate elites.

So far Obama’s policies seem far away from the promises he made in 2008 presidential election. Soon after he took office he appointed Roger Beachy, the former director at Monsanto as head of USDA, Tom Vilsack, creator of Governors' Biotechnology Partnership as the commissioner of USDA and Mike Taylor, the former Monsanto’s attorney and VP as the deputy commissioner of FDA. On the other hand, Obama's opponent Mitt Romney hasn’t revealed any details about his agricultural policies like his economic and healthcare policies. But since actions speak stronger than words, let’s take a look at Mitt Romney’s romantic ties to Monsanto.

Recently Wayne Barrett, as reported on The Nation explained how Mitt Romney helped Monsanto to dominate the world’s chemical and GMO seeds.

How Mitt Romney Helped Monsanto Take Over the World

Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man

Ironically, according to Peter Alexander, Mitt Romney, a man who helped Monsanto to dominate the world’s GMO seeds and chemicals, secretly eats organic. Ann Romney, his wife is also on organic diet and sometimes eats grass fed meat.

Mitt's favorite sandwich and more food dish from Romney Air

It is quiet amazing how both presidential candidates have promoted genetically modified foods but have been privately avoiding GMOs by eating only organic and grass fed meats. Interesting enough the former presidents including both Clinton and Bush were also on organic diet according to the former White House executive chef Walter Scheib.

The Presidential Palate

The biotech and chemical companies including Monsanto are aggressively pursuing their anti-GMO labeling policies by bribing lobbyists and politicians. You would think that the staff and scientists who work for these companies don’t have a problem eating GMOs and contaminated foods with pesticides. However recently Monsanto’s canteen removed all the food items that were genetically modified because the staff in Monsanto demanded foods that weren’t sprayed with pesticides or been genetically modified. Monsanto agreed to remove all GMO items and Tony Coombes, Monsanto’s spokesman ensured Monsanto’s staff that all the GMOs were removed and publicly reassured their employees by saying, “yes, this is the case, and it is because we believe in choice."

GM food banned in Monsanto canteen

But the word “CHOICE” is quite laughable coming from Monsanto among the big “6 pesticide firms” who have been campaigning and spending 19 million dollars so far to kill Proposition No.37. What is ironic is that Monsanto believes in the choice of their staff for non-GMO or contaminated foods with pesticides but on the other hand ignores and disrespects the choice of the whole nation for non-GMO and organic foods that aren’t contaminated with pesticides. This is hypocrisy and double standards against the freedom of choice in America and against the interest of the American people.

The Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney families, and GMO scientists at Monsanto, all eat organic foods only. But American consumers who must be protected and represented by their government are gradually poisoned every day with foods that contain high levels of pesticides or are genetically modified. The whole purpose of having a government in the first place is to solve the problems that we as individuals can’t solve alone. But unfortunately GMO foods and foods that are contaminated with pesticides and growth hormones are regulated and presented as safe by the government. This corrupt political system and the Washington corporate lobbying are now causing serious consequences in the health and well being of the hard working American people and resulting in cancer and chronic diseases as well as record levels of allergies among children.

- See more at:

Lastly, an email from OCA:

Organic Consumers Association
View This Email On the Web

Eyes of the Future

The Eyes of the Future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time. – Terry Tempest Williams
Dear Vincent,
On Thursday of this past week, Monsanto’s minions in the U.S. Senate claimed they were "just inches away" from snagging the 60 votes they need to snuff out Vermont’s mandatory labeling law.
They have five more business days—until Friday, June 24—to get a bill to President Obama in time to keep Vermont's law from going into effect July 1.
That means we have five days to stop them.
This week, we kicked off our summer online fundraising campaign. Please help us raise $200,000 by midnight June 30, so we can protect Vermont's law and  take the GMO labeling battle to the next level.  You can donate online, or by U.S. mail or by phone, details here.
Win or lose the GMO labeling battle, we have our work cut out for us.
Because win or lose, labels or no labels, Monsanto’s Roundup will still be poisoning us. And factory farms will still be polluting our drinking water, killing the oceans, and contributing to a public health crisis with their reckless use of antibiotics.
So far, you’ve helped us keep Congress from snuffing out Vermont’s law. We couldn’t have come this far without you. Thank you.
Still, we haven't crossed the finish line yet. Sens. Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow will burn the midnight oil if they have to next week to hand Monsanto a victory.
Just so you know, we’ll be burning the midnight oil right along with them. Mobilizing teams of labeling advocates. Writing letters. Making phone calls. Knocking on Senate office doors.
But we’re also looking to the future.
And what we see out there is a food and farming system, labels or no labels, that is dominated by greedy, ruthless corporations whose singular focus on shareholder profits blinds them to the devastating consequences of their bad behavior.
For example: About 250 million pounds of Monsanto’s glyphosate are sprayed on food crops, lawns and parks in this country, every year.
Glyphosate—classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
Glyphosate—present in 93 percent of people who sent urine samples for testing . . . and in 100 percent of European Parliament members who were tested.
Glyphosate—250 million pounds of it—linked to everything from allergies to birth defects to kidney failure to cancer.
"It is going to be incomprehensible to future generations how our generation could have let glyphosate poison the earth's ecosystems, cause multiple species die-offs, and destroy global human health for over four decades, while standing by and doing nothing to stop the devastation.” - Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientist at MIT.
You have become the greatest threat to Monsanto and Big Food. Win or lose the GMO labeling battle, we need you to help double the size of this movement, so we can take on the factory farms, the junk food giants and the Biotech Bullies..
We need you to help create a future where our food will be real food. Nutrient-dense food. Toxin-free food. Food grown using methods that heal, not harm, the earth.
Food that doesn't need to be labeled because it's just . . . food.
Please help us raise $200,000 by midnight June 30, so we can protect Vermont's labeling law and take the GMO labeling battle to the next level.  You can donate online, or by U.S. mail or by phone, details here.
The “Eyes of the Future” are looking back at us.
In solidarity,

Ronnie Cummins
International Director
P.S. We can't wait for corporations or politicians to do the right thing. The food movement was built from the ground up. It's success depends on grassroots support. We rely on individual donors like yourself for nearly 80 percent of our budget. Every donation counts. Please know that every donation, no matter how small, is critical to this fight. Donate online here.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

A Word To The Hockey Helmet-Less

Not the most politically correct titles anyone's ever seen...but I've never pretended to be as such.

Why am I in such a mood on such a beautiful Sunday morning? Well, here in New York, at any rate - your mileage may vary.

Let's begin with:

EXCLUSIVE: Brooklyn rapper convicted of murder dies of synthetic marijuana overdose in federal prison

Michael Garrett’s death has been classified as “accidental,” due to cardiovascular disease with a contributing factor of an overdose of synthetic marijuana.

Michael Garrett’s death has been classified as “accidental,” due to cardiovascular disease with a contributing factor of an overdose of synthetic marijuana.

A gangster rapper convicted of murder and facing a life term without the possibility of parole has died of a drug overdose at a high-security federal prison in Brooklyn, the Daily News has learned.
Michael Garrett, 40, the co-leader of a Brooklyn gang called Together Forever Mafia who also doubled as a hip-hop impresario, died at the Metropolitan Detention Center on Feb. 28.
A spokeswoman for the city medical examiner said Garrett’s death has been classified as “accidental,” due to cardiovascular disease with a contributing factor of an overdose of synthetic marijuana.
“I’m incredulous,” said Garrett’s former lawyer James Lisa after the Daily News informed him Friday of the autopsy results.
Former Harlem drug dealer celebrates Columbia graduation
“He was in federal custody. That’s not like Rikers Island or a county facility.”
The U.S. Bureau of Prisons did not respond to questions about Garrett’s death or whether there is an investigation of how the drugs were smuggled inside the jail.
Cherie Nolan, a prison consultant, said it is unusual for an inmate in a federal jail to die of an illegal drug overdose, especially at a high-security facility like the Brooklyn lockup, where international terrorists are held, and where drug lord Joaquin (El Chapo) Guzman will soon reside after he is extradited from Mexico.

Youtube video of Together Forever Mafia or TF Mafia - "Bout My Business/Smell Murda"

Youtube video of Together Forever Mafia or TF Mafia - "Bout My Business/Smell Murda"

“The feds usually do a good job of keeping contraband out,” Nolan said. “The security in place for people going into and out of facilities, and the performance of staff, has greatly improved.”
Last spring, before his trial in Brooklyn Federal Court, Garrett had tested positive for marijuana shortly after receiving a visit from his girlfriend, according to court papers. She was removed from his visitor’s list for a period of time. Garrett and co-defendant Paul Rivera were both convicted of racketeering, murder, sex trafficking of underage prostitutes and drug trafficking.
Prosecutors said the TF Mafia music operation, based in a tattoo parlor in Brownsville, was a front for illegal activities.
Rivera, the founder of TF Mafia, is scheduled to be sentenced June 28.
EXCLUSIVE: Brooklyn drug gang's hip-hop videos OK for trial
Since Garrett hadn’t been sentenced yet, Federal Judge Kiyo Matsumoto vacated his conviction posthumously and the restitution he had to pay his victims.
The government, in turn, removed the lien on a $55,000 settlement Garrett had received from a 2011 lawsuit against the city alleging he was falsely arrested, and the money will go to the dead man’s estate.
His death is wholly due to the G.H.W. Bush-orchestrated War On Drugs. Oh, that's not correct; wasn't this championed by Nancy Reagan, right? "Just say NO?"

Nancy may have been the frontsman, but trust me, it was Poppy's black ops teams reaping the rewards of this venture.

Always follow the money...99% of crimes can be solved by simply determining WHO BENEFITS.

Who benefits here? The ones who create/grow said drugs. The opium, once grown in Mena, Arkansas (the op responsible for the taking of the lives of children Don Henry and Kevin Ives), had to be moved to Afghanistan when the murders of those boys became too hot. That opium becomes heroin, which is processed and shipped back to the various gangs and others who then add their special formulae of cut and packaging, to be distributed to waiting and hungry clients.

It's good business sense - buy low, sell high, keep a monopoly on the market. If only it didn't waste so many lives. It could be made safe, as there are now plans to have safe houses when users can safely feed the monkey...maybe wean it off and get back to a regular diet.

But safety isn't their goal - junkies are the goal.

Well, that's all well and good, but what does synthetic marijuana have to do with heroin?

Incidentally, not much at all...but do you think anyone in their right mind would even consider smoking some crap made up who bloody knows where, rather than something that grows from the ground and has such amazing medicinal qualities that it was a prime ingredient for pain relief? This is before the NSAIDs became prevalent.

It also is a proven cure for cancer. There are government patents that attest to that.

Let's see...the real deal; or some faux garbage?

This is my similar argument for real food versus FrankenFood.

The bastards want us eating their FrankenCrap, devoid of nutritional value and ultimately dangerous to our digestive systems and who knows what bloody else, while they have their pick of wholesome, tasty, REAL FOOD. I told you the employees at Monsanto don't even ingest their own creations!

Consider the opposite situation, where Henry Ford paid his employees a salary that allowed them to purchase the cars they produced; as I've stated before, the best advertising one could get...and he had already paid for it!

That's what I call money smarts. He didn't have to maneuver or leverage; he just paid his employees a fair wage, and they worked without complaint. The disparities between employee salaries and managerial compensation have grown far too wide.

The fight for the $15 minimum wage has gone off the rails, and I posit that it's because they went with fast food workers.

Why not focus upon home health aides? If anyone deserves fairer compensation, I dare say that someone who cares for others who fit the bill far better than some barely competent button pusher who may be spitting on your food, not for any good reason, but just because.

Just like that asshat who slashed a woman in her wheelchair with a razor.


It's possible that this shitlord was ingesting what's becoming known as lean, a concoction made by dropping Skittles into Mountain Dew.

If that sounds, familiar, it's because it's supposed to...but I digress.

What else?

Orlando police ID man who killed 'Voice' singer Christina Grimmie

  • Police identify killer as Kevin James Loibl, 27
  • Singer Christina Grimmie shot dead as she was signing autographs
Orlando, Florida (CNN)Florida authorities answered one of the major questions in the shooting death of Christina Grimmie, the 22-year-old singer who made her name on NBC's "The Voice."
The man who killed her was Kevin James Loibl, 27, of St. Petersburg, Florida, according to Orlando police.
But they didn't give any background on Loibl or offer a possible motive.
A handwritten note is posted on Kevin James Loibl's family home in St. Petersburg, Florida.
CNN affiliate WFTS photographed a handwritten note posted on Loibl's family home. It reads, "Deepest sorrow for lost (sic) to the family, friends and fans of the very talented, loving Christina Grimmie. No other comments."
Grimmie was signing autographs late Friday after a show at The Plaza Live theater when a man approached and opened fire, police spokeswoman Wanda Miglio said.
She was rushed to a hospital, where she died.
I got the background - he was her ex.

Were her bodyguards getting serviced in the storeroom?!? Bloody hell.

I have an ex...she has nothing whatsoever to fear from me.

What the FCUK is wrong with you butterheads?!?

If you get the urge to hurt someone, start with YOURSELF. According to government sources, people can survive a shot to the head, so that they can perform a second; at least, that's what was purported to have happened to former San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb, when he broke the story of the CIA (did I mention this in some differing capacity...hmmm...) distributing crack in order to not only finance their black ops and to facilitate arms sales during Iran-Contra, among other initiatives, to also destroy Black families who were getting things in order. The Black Panther Coloring Book didn't quite do the job, but the drug was marketed incredibly well - cheap price, quick high, immediate addiction.

It was a win-win for the boys in Black Helicopters...until Gary Webb ruined it all by getting Freeway Ricky Ross to give up the goods.

Two shots to the back of the head.

What else?

This is of a personal nature...which is why it was posted to Facebook as a status:

"I was going to post regarding the shenanigans of calling a version of HFCS "fructose", and how it affect the brain (negatively!), but my body has decided it wants to identify as a jar of YooHoo."
 Okay...but that still doesn't justify such a uncaring title, does it?

Actually, it's my clumsy segue into that actual item. Dr. Ted Broer mentioned this on his HealthMasters podcast (MP3), and I've been curious as to just how that could occur just as a happenstance of HFCS production.

Ha ha ha ha ha! That was a JOKE!!!

Read this study from UCLA (the first line is GOLD):

This is your brain on sugar: UCLA study shows high-fructose diet sabotages learning, memory

Eating more omega-3 fatty acids can offset damage, researchers say


[Correction: Paragraph 5 of this release was changed from an earlier version to reflect that the study focused on fructose generally, not specifically on high-fructose corn syrup; that high-fructose corn syrup is not necessarily "six times sweeter" than cane sugar; and that Americans consume approximately 35 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup per capita annually, not "more than 40 pounds." The researcher's quote in Paragraph 6 has also been changed slightly to avoid the implication that the study focused solely on high-fructose corn syrup.]
Attention, college students cramming between midterms and finals: Binging on soda and sweets for as little as six weeks may make you stupid. 
A new UCLA rat study is the first to show how a diet steadily high in fructose slows the brain, hampering memory and learning — and how omega-3 fatty acids can counteract the disruption. The peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology publishes the findings in its May 15 edition.
"Our findings illustrate that what you eat affects how you think," said Fernando Gomez-Pinilla, a professor of neurosurgery at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a professor of integrative biology and physiology in the UCLA College of Letters and Science. "Eating a high-fructose diet over the long term alters your brain's ability to learn and remember information. But adding omega-3 fatty acids to your meals can help minimize the damage."
While earlier research has revealed how fructose harms the body through its role in diabetes, obesity and fatty liver, this study is the first to uncover how the sweetener influences the brain. 
Sources of fructose in the Western diet include cane sugar (sucrose) and high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid sweetener. The syrup is widely added to processed foods, including soft drinks, condiments, applesauce and baby food. The average American consumes roughly 47 pounds of cane sugar and 35 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup per year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"We're less concerned about naturally occurring fructose in fruits, which also contain important antioxidants," explained Gomez-Pinilla, who is also a member of UCLA's Brain Research Institute and Brain Injury Research Center. "We're more concerned about the fructose in high-fructose corn syrup, which is added to manufactured food products as a sweetener and preservative."
Gomez-Pinilla and study co-author Rahul Agrawal, a UCLA visiting postdoctoral fellow from India, studied two groups of rats that each consumed a fructose solution as drinking water for six weeks. The second group also received omega-3 fatty acids in the form of flaxseed oil and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which protects against damage to the synapses — the chemical connections between brain cells that enable memory and learning.
"DHA is essential for synaptic function — brain cells' ability to transmit signals to one another," Gomez-Pinilla said. "This is the mechanism that makes learning and memory possible. Our bodies can't produce enough DHA, so it must be supplemented through our diet."
The animals were fed standard rat chow and trained on a maze twice daily for five days before starting the experimental diet. The UCLA team tested how well the rats were able to navigate the maze, which contained numerous holes but only one exit. The scientists placed visual landmarks in the maze to help the rats learn and remember the way. 
Six weeks later, the researchers tested the rats' ability to recall the route and escape the maze. What they saw surprised them.
"The second group of rats navigated the maze much faster than the rats that did not receive omega-3 fatty acids," Gomez-Pinilla said. "The DHA-deprived animals were slower, and their brains showed a decline in synaptic activity. Their brain cells had trouble signaling each other, disrupting the rats' ability to think clearly and recall the route they'd learned six weeks earlier."
The DHA-deprived rats also developed signs of resistance to insulin, a hormone that controls blood sugar and regulates synaptic function in the brain. A closer look at the rats' brain tissue suggested that insulin had lost much of its power to influence the brain cells.
"Because insulin can penetrate the blood–brain barrier, the hormone may signal neurons to trigger reactions that disrupt learning and cause memory loss," Gomez-Pinilla said. 
He suspects that fructose is the culprit behind the DHA-deficient rats' brain dysfunction. Eating too much fructose could block insulin's ability to regulate how cells use and store sugar for the energy required for processing thoughts and emotions. 
"Insulin is important in the body for controlling blood sugar, but it may play a different role in the brain, where insulin appears to disturb memory and learning," he said. "Our study shows that a high-fructose diet harms the brain as well as the body. This is something new."
Gomez-Pinilla, a native of Chile and an exercise enthusiast who practices what he preaches, advises people to keep fructose intake to a minimum and swap sugary desserts for fresh berries and Greek yogurt, which he keeps within arm's reach in a small refrigerator in his office. An occasional bar of dark chocolate that hasn't been processed with a lot of extra sweetener is fine too, he said.
Still planning to throw caution to the wind and indulge in a hot-fudge sundae? Then also eat foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids, like salmon, walnuts and flaxseeds, or take a daily DHA capsule. Gomez-Pinilla recommends one gram of DHA per day.
"Our findings suggest that consuming DHA regularly protects the brain against fructose's harmful effects," said Gomez-Pinilla. "It's like saving money in the bank. You want to build a reserve for your brain to tap when it requires extra fuel to fight off future diseases." 
The UCLA study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Gomez-Pinilla's lab will next examine the role of diet in recovery from brain trauma.
The UCLA Department of Neurosurgery is committed to providing the most comprehensive patient care through innovative clinical programs in minimally invasive brain and spinal surgery; neuroendoscopy; neuro-oncology for both adult and pediatric brain tumors; cerebrovascular surgery; stereotactic radiosurgery for brain and spinal disorders; surgery for movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease; and epilepsy surgery. For 20 consecutive years, the department has been ranked among the top 10 neurosurgery programs in the nation by U.S. News & World Report.
 So, please understand that the title is part snark, and part please-don't-take-this-warning-for-granted, so I'm hoping that one or the other, you'll remember what I've alerted you to today.

Order your medicines from - Ted and his family do make the absolute best vitamains and minerals available.

And no - this is not a paid commercial...just thanks for what he has given to me.