We have the Right to Travel- Supreme Court Rulings

There are many of us that are put at serious odds with the system because of the biometric and full on singularity of the tracking and control paradigm via Real ID and the associated Morpho Trust international collusion. These following cites from a myriad of cases may be helpful to us in protecting the rights that are supposed to be secured by a just government. This is long…And hopefully helpful! Many thanks to Eric Vimont for sending this to me!

Supreme-Court-Justices-2

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

 

OG article

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supreme-court-says-license-necessary-drive-public-letennier

GMO Rice Reduces Methane Output

On it’s face, the following story about genetically engineered rice seems much more innocuous than the vast majority of genetic engineering schemes. But one still has to question the wisdom of splicing different species of genes together. Maybe methane is necessary in order for rice to be digestible? Perhaps we don’t know all that we think we know about the biological processes of life? I mean, if I actually knew half as much as I thought I knew when I was sixteen, it would be amazing. It seems as though in our efforts to run full steam ahead into a Brave New World, we probably getting ahead of ourselves. Anyway, here is the article about a different type of GMO rice:

Genetic engineering creates rice strain that makes less methane

Rice agriculture has become one of the most powerful anthropogenic sources of methane, due to continuously growing world population. “We would get more starch, more food, and less methane”, explains Dr Jansson, now director of plant sciences at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

“Until now, nobody actually achieved success in altering rice plants” the Dutch scientist said.

Already in 2002, scientists reported that the more grain carried by rice plants, the less methane they emitted. Chuanxin Sun of the Swedish university and senior author of the study added a single gene from barley to rice, then planted it in a field next to a conventional rice field in China. By reducing the size of the rice plants’ roots, the scientists hoped that they could curb the amount of methane produced in the fields. As a result, the world’s rice paddies emit between 25 million and 100 million metric tons of methane every year. Since the low-methane strain of rice isn’t bred to be herbicide or pesticide resistant, this most likely won’t be an issue with this particular strain – though the way that its root-system interacts with microbes in the soil is something to watch. With less carbon in the roots, there is less raw material for the microbes to work on, the researchers explain. Without more trials, Bodelier wrote, it’s hard to know how the genetic modification impacts the rice cultivar’s long-term chances for survival. Far fewer methane-producing bacteria hugged the roots of the new rice. Crops like Roundup-resistant soy or corn have led to a marked increase in the use of herbicides in the United States, though some studies have also shown that genetically modified crops have led to a decrease in the use of some pesticides.

The methane is a natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic matter in the rice paddies. The reduction in methane emissions was particularly effective during the summers, when they were down to 0.3 percent of total emissions from the plant’s decomposition, compared to 10 percent emissions in the conventional crop.

Unlike golden rice where a totally alien gene was introduced into the group, here the change is not major but still could have unintended consequences, Paul Bodelier, a microbial ecologist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology in Wageningen told CSM. Therefore, a need for developing a new rice variety that reduces methane emissions was recognized. Genetically engineered rice isn’t commercially cultivated anywhere in the world, in part because of ethical and biological concerns about the spread of engineered rice pollen, experts said.

Go Green Festival— October 17th and 18th

Go Green Ozarks
Self-Reliance Festival
October 17 and 18,  2015 
Saturday 9 am – 6 pm
Sunday 10 am – 6 pm
 
FREE ADMISSION
VENDORS WELCOME,
VENDORS FREE!!
Donations appreciated!
Thayer City Park by the Rodeo Arena, Thayer, Missouri
 
Supporting Preparedness, Celebrating Heritage,
Growing Our Local Economy, Promoting Self-Reliance,
Learning How to Save Lives During Disasters
 
Featuring 16 Expert Speakers On:
Preparing for Disasters and Emergencies, Modern Homesteading, Food Freedom, Making Your Own Biodiesel or Alcohol Fuel, Niche Farming Profits,  Steam Engines to Make  Electricity for Your Home, Solar Energy, Geothermal, Wind Power, Steam Engines for Electricity
Draft Horses, Wool Spinning Demonstrations, Herbal Medicines, Heritage Breed Hogs, Dairy & Meat Goats, Sheep, Organic Gardening, Bee Keeping, Scottish Highland Cattle, Petting Zoo, Sheep, Chickens, Turkeys, Aquaponics, Learn how to make a rocket stove
Explore How To Be Self-Reliant, Self-Sufficient and Be Prepared!
Don’t just survive, THRIVE! Strengthen family bonds through self-sufficiency, stay alive, and live a better life!
Attend This Event To Make Sure You & Your Family Will Be Prepared for:
MAN-MADE DISASTERS:    Terrorist threats, social collapse, nuclear reactor
NATURAL DISASTERS:  Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Pandemic
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE:   Do you have cash, gold, silver, barter items?
Special Outdoor Exhibits Including ATVs!
Special demonstrations covering Archery with both modern compound bows and handmade Native American style long bows, Atlatl spear throwing sticks, hunting slingshots, tactical shooting demos and self-defense tactics!
Live Music – Bluegrass, Country & Western, Gospel, Blues Performances
Carnival for the Kids with Ferris Wheel and Other Rides!!!!
Free Money in the Hay Bale Activity for Kids
Activities for the Kids
FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY
Call (417) 264-2435
email mike65807@yahoo.com
 
Go Green Ozarks Self Reliance Festival
The Go Green Self  Reliance Festival is  dedicated to promoting and supporting the local economy, sustainable living, agriculture, alternative renewable energy, preparedness,  and positive community activities, held in Thayer, Missouri in the Ozarks on the Missouri Arkansas border. The festival averages 16 speakers, 150 vendors and 3,000 or more in attendance.
Mike Slack, the organizer is a homesteader, a writer and veteran of    US Army Intelligence. His articles on preparedness topics have appeared in several issues of The Survivalist magazine.

Cannabis Legalization on Missouri Ballot: Two Paths from Which to Choose…Freedom, or Feudalism?

Cannabis Legalization on Missouri Ballot:

Two Paths from Which to Choose…Freedom, or Feudalism?

©Doreen Hannes

(((Look, I want to be very clear here. I don’t even use cannabis, because it IS illegal, and the seizure aspects are waaaay too high of a price to consider for something I would only rarely do if it were indeed legal….so I am not trying to get protections for my habit in position.)))

Over the course of the past few months I’ve been doing a fair amount of investigation on the issue of cannabis and various efforts to legalize the plant for the general benefit of humanity. Initially, I looked at the issue of legalizing cannabis as a simple matter of civil liberties with a massive pseudo criminal front propped up by drug court fees, seizure laws, probation and the expenses paid to the system in that, cheap prison labor and increased family court revenues due to foster care and custody issues…And yes, it also incidentally had benefits for people with serious medical issues.

Honestly, I have had a complete paradigm shift. Complete.

Not that the prison industry complex and costs to society associated with those issues are irrelevant, but there is a much larger, and much more evil truth about the control of cannabis that absolutely must become common knowledge. It’s particularly important that those who largely identify with conservative and Christian principles, or strong Constitutionalist ideologies become fully aware of the collusion between government and corporations to remove a beneficial plant from our access. Cannabis actually heals. And it restores life to people who are very ill. Hundreds of studies show this to be true, and also that cannabis is tremendously beneficial for our overall health.

The reason this has come to the forefront for many of us is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold to the idea that “Reefer Madness” has any basis in fact. It simply isn’t factual. Sometimes there are people that use cannabis that are just literally criminals and have no regard for their fellow man. These same criminals may also consume carrots, but the carrots are not the cause of their deficient characters. With or without cannabis, these people would be violent. Cannabis does not cause crime. Violent cartels exist because of cannabis being illegal. So in effect, the only violence that can truly be attributed to cannabis is state sanctioned violence through unjust laws. Simply put, the controls on this plant are the reason for violence associated with the plant or it’s distribution.

The tipping point on the truth around cannabis being put into the status of a Schedule One controlled substance (the Schedule One designation means it has NO medicinal value) has been achieved among the people. For those who have some qualms about whether or not this plant needs to be flatly legalized, please watch this video about Rick Simpson oil. This man has given people -as in freely given- cannabis oil, and they have been cured of all manners of disease including multiple types of cancer and terminal cancer. If you watch that video and still have any uncertainty left in you, watch this video, and forgive the one instance of yelling at the very beginning. The facts are that corporate interests paid to have cannabis categorized as a Schedule One controlled substance. Corporate interests, violent cartels, the prison industry and tyrannical seizure laws fattening the wallets of a few, have been the only beneficiaries of cannabis control.

Multitudes of people have died from being denied the best thing on earth to beat cancer. And the people in the corporations, the politicians that continue to be bought off from taking right action, and the pharmaceutical companies, are complicit in their deaths. Yes, I said complicit. The facts are in. Cannabis prohibition must end and will end very soon. Just look at this list of the plethora of studies that show the benefits of cannabis in treating human ailments. There are hundreds of studies on the effectiveness of cannabis, not just in treating symptoms of disease, but actually curing the disease in many instances. It can’t be covered up any longer. However, we do have some questions that we need to answer for ourselves as we move forward on cannabis.

The first question is whether or not we are happy with the current state of controlled and declining health and access to alternative/natural treatments? Currently, the FDA -who took 30 years to admit that vitamin C is helpful in thwarting the common cold- is in control of our food and our medicine. On average, FDA approved medications kill 100,000 people per year. Those are their own reports on the FDA’s website. The FDA has stated they are justified in exercising authority to control what we consume because the Almighty gave commands on dietary laws in Scripture. They think they have as much authority as the Creator of the Universe. Seriously. Check it out here. (page 26 of 30)The FDA also holds the position that “raw milk is inherently dangerous and should never be consumed by any one for any reason.” Never mind the fact that if that were a true statement, there would never have been a second generation of human beings.

Honestly, I could go on for a full-length book about the criminal behavior of the FDA in relation to our food and medicines, but I’ll restrain myself. Just watch network tv for one night, count up the recalls and suits being advertised along with all the new medications you should talk to your doctor about, then ask yourself if you think they are doing work that is truly beneficial for humanity. If you can truthfully say that you are pleased with the quality of our nutrition, not knowing whether or not you are consuming genetically modified organisms, and the health care system in this country, then you need do nothing. If you are not satisfied with the status quo of chronic pain, disease and debilitation, and lack of personal control, then it’s time to do things differently.

The next series of questions we must answer is what kind of business model “We the People” want to follow as we end prohibition on this plant? Do we want to stick with the controlled access, medical industrial cartel dialectic, where production, distribution, and access are licensed and heavily regulated, and keep fascism growing? Or do we want to seek free market enterprise and let everyone who is interested put their own money on the line and succeed or fail on their own merits? Have layers of bureaucrats proven themselves to be beneficial to our literal wellbeing? Do we think we personally should have the ability and choice to make decisions about what we consume? Or do we believe the bureaucrats, paper pushers and corporations have proven themselves to have a legitimate and beneficial hand in securing our health?

Once we’ve answered these questions to our satisfaction, then we must decide how we move forward on the issue of cannabis legalization and access. In Missouri, we will have two very different initiatives on the ballot in 2016 for a proposed Constitutional amendment.

Since I’m from the Show Me state, and these two initiatives are responsible for bringing me to the paradigm shift I mentioned above, I bring you “The Tale of Two Initiatives”. One is very short and flatly legalizes it. The other is 4 pages of small print and proposes to regulate cannabis within the Constitution of the state.

From that short overview, it is very likely that those who know me have already determined which initiative has won my support. But it’s necessary for everyone to make up their own minds about this, so the remainder of this rather lengthy article is going to focus on the nuts and bolts of these two initiatives. Other states have similar proposals in position.

Let’s deal with the short one first. This initiative, identified as 2016-013, was written by Mark Pedersen formerly of the Kansas City NORML group. Even many major proponents of legalizing cannabis have said it was too radical. Notably, the national level of the KC group that worked with Pedersen, NORML (the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws) is reported to be the biggest opponent of this initiative. We’ll have to deal with the reasons behind NORML opposing this amendment in a subsequent article. For now, we’ll just look at the “radical” amendment first and talk about possible pros and cons related to it.

2016-013 is currently being circulated for the collection of signatures to get onto the 2016 November ballot. It proposes to remove cannabis from the controlled substances list. It doesn’t place limits on the amount one person may possess or grow. It also doesn’t have any age limits set within the confines of the proposed amendment to the Constitution. It secures the right of people to grow enough for their personal use and prevents extra regulatory controls on farmers and processors of all cannabis products, including all strains, cannabis sativa, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, and crosses of these cannabis strains. It prohibits the mere presence of cannabis and cannabis products from serving as cause to charge with impaired driving. And I do admit that it does indeed seem radical on its face. But let’s examine the issues so we can make determinations with solid information.

First up, let’s look at the “radical” idea of not limiting the amount that an individual may grow. This is terrifically important. If you watched the Rick Simpson “Run From the Cure” video I linked earlier, you are aware that a single full treatment for cancer or serious health issues requires a pound of cannabis. The oil from the plant is extracted and a pound will render about 2 ounces of oil. It’s a lot of cannabis. What’s more, if a person has received chemo or radiation, they will need at least 2 full protocols of the cannabis oil to fully heal. It can take a lot of plants to get those amounts of cannabis. The street value of a single treatment amount bought by the ounce is about $4800.00 right now. If you can get the entire pound and buy it all at once you might be able to get a discount and get it as low as $3400. Is that too high of a price to cure cancer? Certainly not, but what if you don’t have $3400 to $4800? Does your ability to pay for a treatment make you worthy of having it? Conversely, does the inability to pay make you a less valuable human being? If there aren’t limits placed on the number of plants one may have, it opens the door for people to be better able to heal themselves and to take personal responsibility for their own well being.

Next let’s look at the thing that really struck me personally about the 2016-013 initiative. There is no age limit set forth for possessing or using cannabis. I thought that was pretty over the top, and I told the people who contacted me about the initiative that it was my opinion that it needed an age limit. They made some pretty good arguments against it. One of those arguments was very basic from a freedom advocate’s point of view. The age of majority isn’t stipulated in the Bill of Rights. Also, it isn’t a static thing. It is 21 for some things and 18 for other things and it isn’t something that should be ensconced in our Constitution to secure a right. Even more importantly, in light of the healing potential of cannabis oil, would anyone with any compassion in them want to prohibit a parent faced with a seriously ill child from being able to help that child? I wouldn’t. It would be unconscionable to put anyone in that position, and instead run them through a bureaucratic and medical industrial complex maze to do what every parent must do to be right in the eyes of their Creator and provide for the child help in a time of trouble. Also, it is emphatically evident that parents have a duty to protect their children from ingesting things that they shouldn’t be ingesting. If you are going to have cannabis in the house, you have to be responsible and not allow your children to use it on their own. In other words, BE A PARENT!

Next let’s take an actual look at the issue of THC in the system and driving under the influence. THC being present in the system is simply not at all equal to impairment. Yes, THC is the psychoactive chemical in cannabis, but its presence within a person’s system doesn’t mean that the person is impaired. It isn’t like blood alcohol content, in that a person could have high levels of THC in their system, but still not be impaired. If someone is using cannabis to treat themselves for health reasons, THC will be high, but they are not likely to be impaired if they have been following a protocol for any length of time at all. There is a lot of science behind this fact, and it is important to look at the science and make logical decisions about THC as opposed to emotional decisions predicated on a faulty basis. In no way shape or form am I saying that you cannot be impaired by cannabis consumption. You certainly can be impaired. That impairment would be evident in a motor skills test that was video taped and witnessed by at least two witnesses. Whether people like it or not, that would be evidence of impairment, but THC levels are not a credible assessment of impairment.

Here is an excerpt from a paper on this issue:

A study using coordination testing showed inevitable failure on field sobriety testing if blood THC levels were 25 to 30 ng/ml. But, many failed testing at 90 and 150 minutes after smoking even though plasma concentrations were rather low. The researchers had the foresight to conclude that “establishing a clear relation between THC plasma concentrations and clinical impairment will be much more difficult than for alcohol”. This is because alcohol and THC are chemically different and are metabolized differently inside the body.

Now we are ready to take a look at the “Show Me Cannabis” (aka Mo NORML) initiative proposition.

First off, this initiative, 2016-009, isn’t being circulated for signatures yet because the proponents of the initiative have reportedly “gone back to the drawing board”. However, it is available from the Missouri Secretary of State’s office at this link. I have put in a couple of emails asking for a conversation with the gentleman heading up this initiative and have received no replies, so I cannot relate any responses to questions I have regarding this initiative.

In the first sentence, this initiative is providing for regulatory control of cannabis to Missourians over the age of 21. It stipulates that regulations are to be promulgated for many purposes. Here are a few of those. Promulgate regulations to allow for state licensed producers, retailers, and distributors of cannabis. It states that revenue generated by cannabis will be used to fund police and firefighter pensions and retirement plans as well as elementary and secondary schools. That the revenue will be used to prevent: the establishment of cartels, under age 21 use, and to prevent advertising cannabis to those under the age of 21. It allows for households to grow up to six plants, have up to 16 ounces of dried cannabis, or 20 ounces of liquid cannabis. It proposes to expunge nonviolent cannabis convictions. Also to require a person to get a license to purchase, sell, manufacture, deliver or process cannabis. It requires the labeling of the THC content on all cannabis products, and provides for limitation on the level of THC allowed in cannabis that may be sold. It provides for a 25% excise tax on the first “fair market sale” of all marijuana….And more. Lots more, actually.

Let’s start with the 25% excise tax on the first “fair market sale” of any cannabis. Well, right there we have a problem. “Fair market sale” is defined in this proposed amendment as “means with respect to the sale of a product, a sale in which the purchase price of the product is not less than the price that a willing seller would accept and a willing buyer would pay in the open market and in competition with other similar products.” Hmmm.

If this is absolutely constrained to the FINAL sale of the product to the consumer of the product, that means that if you are buying from a “licensed retail establishment” that you will be paying approximately 33% in taxes to the State. (The 25% excise and the 8% sales tax) It doesn’t state that it is on the final sale though. It says it is on the “first sale in an open market”. So…does that mean when the grower sells to someone for either distribution or manufacturing that the grower has to collect the 25% for the state? Here is the definition of an excise tax. (It’s rather complex, and this article is already very long, so please read the link) It certainly sounds to me as though the tax is something that is supposed to be collected on the sale by the grower after he pays the license fee to be able to sell the product at all.

He must then increase the down line cost of the product by adding an additional 25% cost to the next in line. Then when you get to the retail portion, the cost of goods is further increased by the state sales tax. So, let’s say the licensed grower sells an ounce for $100 for his labor and upkeep, and has to collect $125 from the licensed wholesaler/distributor or manufacturer to whom he sells. The distributor or wholesaler then has to mark up the product by whatever percentage will allow him to pay his license fee and make a living wage to the retailer, who then must again mark up what he sells the product for in order to cover his own living wage. Presume you do typical mark up of 30% for the distributor/wholesaler (more for the manufacturer as there are additional processes involved) as the distributor/wholesaler is supposed to be moving volumes. Now you’re looking at $125 + $37.50= $162.50. Then the retailer usually has to double as they have more insurance liability by having people come in and out of their location, and they have to deal with displays and such. Now you’re looking at $325 per ounce before the typical 8% sales tax ,which is another $26, so the cannabis consumer pays $351 per ounce and the state makes $51 plus licensing fees every step of the way. Mind you, $100 an ounce as a starting price is terrifically low. But is this really going to help out the average person a whole lot? I’m all for the State making money on the retail, but my rule of thumb is what did Yahweh ask for a tithe? Only 10%. Why does the State deserve more than 2 and half times what He requests? Maybe I’m the only one who thinks this way…I kind of doubt it though.

Someone will say, “But you can grow up to six plants, and that surely is enough for a household!” Well, let’s look at the six plant limit. Below you’ll find a little scenario that is not at all unreasonable. Just ask anyone who has ever gardened.

So you decide you like to garden and you’ll grow your own cannabis and therefore bring down the cost of making cannabis available for your household. You order seeds and spend $90 for ten seeds. Really. That’s a pretty good price, too. So you very carefully germinate your seeds and 9 out of ten germinate. Now you have to throw three down the toilet or you’ll be over your six plant limit. You carefully place these in small pots. They begin to put on leaves and now you have your six plants! You’re all legal and looking forward to excellent yields…Then you come home from work and two of your seedlings wilted on you. You mist them and hope they’ll recover. Well, they don’t. So now you have four plants and no more seeds to germinate. You figure that’s all fine because the advertisement said this was a high yielding variety and you can only have 16 ounces of dried product anyway. So when they get to be about 15 inches tall you put them outside into the best area of your backyard for good sun, but not too much, and you check on them daily. You patiently wait for September when you should be able to harvest. In the end of June, you and your family go away for the weekend and when you come home, one of your plants has simply disappeared. And the Japanese beetles picked that weekend to hatch out and eat your remaining plants up like crazy. So you set about making a protective enclosure for them and that involves shade cloth and posts and a gate and it takes you the rest of the week to get that done. You only have a couple of hours to work on it every night because this endeavor isn’t one that actually pays the bills. At this point you’re thinking it’s probably a lot easier to just buy the stuff, but you’re stubborn and keep after it until September. They’re looking okay, but the yields in the advertisement don’t look attainable…Harvest time comes and you get a total of three ounces from your three plants. Probably because the Japanese beetles hit right at flowering time…So you have three ounces after 6 months of tending and you’re scratching your head to figure out if it’s even worth trying again.

Imagine going through that when you are ever so hopeful that you will get a good yield on a strain that will help your child with epilepsy, or a parent with debilitating arthritis, diabetes, or cancer. Six plants? At what stage of maturity? And what happens if you are over that level and get caught by Code Enforcers or the police? Well, we can’t answer that other than to say the legislature will authorize fines and penalties for going over the “Household Exemption” level. It does limit it to up to $1000 or a year in jail. Does that sound good? Does it count toward the retirement funds and school funds prescribed in this amendment proposal? The proposed amendment says “revenue”. Do the enforcement fines and penalties count toward revenue?

Let’s consider the issue of using the amendment to aid law enforcement and firefighters pensions and retirements, and helping out the public school system with additional funds. While I am pro-education and pro-firefighter and all for peace officers, don’t we already spend a fair amount of tax money on these things? Are these funds being managed well? Isn’t this what various lottery proceeds are supposed to enhance as well? If we throw more money at them, do the actual students and the actual public servants ever really benefit? With the seizure laws that have been so onerously used, I have a really hard time thinking the public needs to give more money to police so that they can get more money by citing more people for regulatory violations as promoted in this proposed amendment.

There are some good things that are done in this proposed amendment. One is expunging of nonviolent cannabis offenses. But when you compare these two initiatives that, on their face, are supposed to legalize cannabis in Missouri, one flatly does so, and the other creates a plethora of bureaucracies and potential regulatory abuses along with continued legal system fines and penalties.

Let me be very clear here, while there is no part of me that wants to tolerate minors “getting stoned” or people driving while impaired, it is apparent that the ability to control those things still exist within our legal construct. Minors do NOT have the same rights as adults. Nor do they have the same responsibilities. People who drive while they are chemically/physically impaired by cannabis to the point that they cannot properly react to the hazards on the road are not being responsible, and should be charged with driving under the influence. Video evidence should be sufficient for the enforcement of driving while impaired.

Please check out all the links I posted in this incredibly long article. It’s very important that when we have amendments to consider on the ballot that we are wise in our decisions about them. We cannot be reactive and responsible at the same time. Study it out and be certain of your decisions.

I encourage you to read these amendments again, and if you have concerns, please feel free to voice them and let’s see if we the people can positively, and responsibly, disentangle ourselves from the corporately controlled nanny state on this issue.

 

http://www.truthfarmer.com

Monsanto Knowingly Killing You with Glyphosate Since 1981

Admittedly, I find it unbelievable that people can still defend Round Up or GMO’s in any way. The evidence that they are completely unsafe is overwhelming and to believe otherwise requires such a huge denial of reality it is akin to believing the earth is flat and the center of our galaxy.

If you know anyone who is still in that camp, please have them read the following article. Unless they are brain dead, it is compelling:

Researcher Reveals Monsanto Has Known Since 1981 That Glyphosate Promotes Cancer

By Dr. Mercola

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, is one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world.

An estimated one billion pounds a year is sprayed on our food crops,1,2 resulting in the average American eating several hundred pounds of glyphosate-contaminated food every year.

How might that affect your health? Dr. Anthony Samsel is an expert in this area, and in this interview, he reveals a number of glyphosate’s adverse effects.

Armed with this understanding, you’ll likely be far more motivated to eliminate this pernicious toxin from your diet—and to take action to get it out of our food supply so that everyone can be protected.

Dr. Samsel is a research scientist who is passionate about farming, gardening, and agriculture, making him particularly suitable for investigating glyphosate.

“I was with the ‘think tank,’ Arthur D. Little (ADL) in Cambridge, Massachusetts for many years working as a research scientist on many types of projects, from product development to environmental sciences to later switching to health sciences,” he says.

He’s also done contract work for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and as a hazardous materials expert, he’s worked for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the United States Navy (USN), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).

For example, Dr. Samsel was one of the authors of the Chemical Hazard Response Information System (CHRIS) manual for the US Coast Guard.  He is also a valuable contributor to our article comments section (Vital Votes).

Besides his career in science, he also owned and operated several farms in New England, and it was this first-hand experience that led him to begin investigating the effects of glyphosate in the first place.

“I started using glyphosate myself commercially around the farm and my properties back in the late ’70s or early ’80s, when it first came on the market,” he says.

“I believed the hype like all the other farmers and people around the world do, that glyphosate is as safe as salt and that it broke down into harmless chemicals that did no harm. I believed all that stuff until I started studying the chemical.

Being a research scientist, a chemist, I knew what to look for. Having worked in public health, I was familiar with how chemicals had effects on the human body and on animals. So I started approaching it from that aspect.

As far as my own health, it started to suffer. That’s what put me on the road to take a look at this chemical because I was using it.”

Human Urine Turning into Herbicide…

One interesting experience that got him thinking was when he tried to deter deer from eating his crops. He’d run out of coyote urine, which is an effective deterrent, so he used his own urine.

Curiously, he noticed the weeds where he’d sprayed his urine were dying, despite the fact he’d not sprayed any Roundup there. He then realized his own urine was acting like an herbicide!

“I did some controlled experiments in the greenhouse with some plants and the same thing happened. Those plants died. Then, I started looking at my diet,” he says.

“The only organic food I was eating was out of my own garden and the stuff that I would can and preserve. But for everything else, I’d go to the supermarket and I ate boxed food and what-not. I started to put two and two together; that maybe this was the reason why I wasn’t feeling good.

Then I started looking into glyphosate because I was using it. That was my primary chemical exposure other than my food.

Then I realized they were using [glyphosate] on genetically engineered crops, and I started looking at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to see what food would have glyphosate or glufosinate in them.

[Glufosinate] is similar to glyphosate and used in genetically engineered crops. It’s not as widely used as glyphosate, but that’s still a problem to public health. All herbicides are ‘a’ problem to public health. There should be no herbicides in our food supply. None.”

90 Percent of Soybeans Found to Contain Glyphosate Residues

Unfortunately, testing for glyphosate and glufosinate is expensive and is the excuse the USDA uses for not  testing for it, and no contamination data was available for Dr. Samsel to review.

Eventually, he convinced the USDA to release the results of a series of tests in 2011. In all, they tested 400 samples of soybeans, and they found more than 90 percent of the soybeans had glyphosate residues in them.

However, when the agency sent him a pre-publication copy of the report, he noticed they were only reporting on 300 out of the 400 samples.

“I started looking at the data. I noticed that the amount of aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which is the metabolite of glyphosate, was greater than that of the glyphosate itself.

If you analyze the glyphosate, you’re going to get glyphosate if the residue is in the crop, but you’re also going to get the metabolite AMPA. But looking at the numbers, they just didn’t make sense. I believed they’ve cherry-picked the data so that the data didn’t exceed the EPA residue limits,” he says.

Unfortunately, when he tried to get an explanation for the discrepancy in the data, his USDA contact was no longer working there, and he hasn’t been able to find him since.

Advocacy Group Now Offers Testing for Glyphosate in US

While the USDA does not test food for glyphosate residues, this may soon change. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced US regulators may start testing for glyphosate residues in the near future3,4,5 due to rising consumer concerns about the health impact of this chemical.

Meanwhile, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has joined forces with the Feed the World Project, launching the world’s first glyphosate testing for the general public.6,7,8,9 As reported by the OCA:

“The project, with specific focus on women and children in the US, is offering the first-ever validated public LC/MS/MS glyphosate testing for urine, water and soon breast milk… The testing OCA, Feed the World and many other organizations will begin offering [on April 22] will allow everyone who wants to know whether or not, and to what extent, they personally have been exposed to glyphosate.

We expect that once the public learns how widespread the exposure has been—in the context of the recent report from the World Health Organization that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen—public pressure will eventually force governments worldwide to finally ban Roundup.”

The Importance of Bacteria for Optimal Health

Dr. Samsel understood that his gut problems were related to bacteria and that just as healthy soil needs beneficial microbes, so does your gut. This was something instilled in him by his grandfather, who taught him that healthy bacteria in the soil help grow healthy crops. Not surprisingly, when he cleaned up his diet, his gut dysbiosis cleared up, as did a number of neurological problems he’d started experiencing.

At that point, he began delving deeper into the science of the human microbiome. Many are unaware of the fact that glyphosate is patented as an antibiotic. It’s designed to kill bacteria, which is one of the primary ways it harms both soils and human health. Recent research has even concluded that Roundup (and other pesticides) promotes antibiotic resistance. Dr. Samsel was actually the person who dug up the patents showing glyphosate is a biocide and an antibiotic.

“Some of the pathogens, like Salmonella and Pseudomonas, are resistant to glyphosate. When we ingest residues of glyphosate, glyphosate in the acidic environment dissociates. The acid glyphosate then is able to do a number on the bacteria, the same as it does in plants. It kills plants and bacteria in our plants.

Our gut has a beautiful ‘lawn’ of upwards of a thousand various species. Each species of bacteria has a specific function. We might liken the bacteria of our microbiome to mining and manufacturing companies. You might visualize the bacteria with mining helmets and pick axes. They mine the minerals in your biology that your body needs as co-factors for various biochemical processes. Your bacteria also manufacture vitamins and other biomolecules that are essential.

Even some of your fatty acids, which serve as signaling molecules, are manufactured by your bacteria. Our bacteria manufacture most of our B vitamins – B6, B9, and B12, which is cobalamin – essential to our neurology. Bacteria also manufacture vitamin K and some of your vitamin C. We have a symbiotic relationship with these bacteria. We help them and they help us. They take the food and they don’t just break it down and obliterate it to unrecognizable things. They dismantle the food, and they utilize everything that’s in the food.”

Bacteria Also Produce Essential Amino Acids and More

Bacteria are also responsible for producing essential amino acids such as tryptophan, phenylalanine, and tyrosine. So in addition to chelating out various vitamins and other important elements, glyphosate also disrupts bacteria manufacturing aromatic amino acids. It also disrupts methionine, a sulfur amino acid crucial for detoxification, and glutamate. All of this can have a profound influence on your biology. For example, as Dr. Samsel explains:

“Glyphosate disrupts the aromatic amino acid tryptophan, and tryptophan is necessary for the production of serotonin. Of course, from serotonin, we make melatonin and from melatonin, we make melanin. There are several biomolecules that are very important to your health and biology. Serotonin regulates and controls blood sugar. It also regulates IGF-1, which is insulin-like growth factor. IGF-1 is necessary for neurogenesis, for your ability to produce new neurons throughout life, and also for regulation of your physiology. Serotonin also activates the enzyme endothelial-derived nitric oxide synthases (eNOS), which is responsible for insulin secretion.”

Serotonin also catalyzes nitric oxide (NO) production in the vasculature providing airway tone and smooth muscle relaxation, and 90 percent of your serotonin—which is known as a neurotransmitter—is actually produced in your gut by certain bacteria, not in your brain.

Today, millions of prescriptions are being written for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are designed to increase serotonin in your brain. Yet 90 percent of it is manufactured in our gut! Dr. Samsel gave another excellent interview with Zen Honeycutt10 in 2013, in which he describes the impact glyphosate has on your gut bacteria, so for more information, please listen to the following helpful interview as well.

Monsanto Has Known for Nearly 35 Years That GMOs Promote Cancer

Dr. Samsel eventually asked the EPA for Monsanto’s trade secret documentation, as most of the approval process for glyphosate was based on studies Monsanto had done by outside contractors. That process began in the late 1970s and concluded around 1983 with the registration of the chemical. Since then, it’s gone through a couple of re-reviews. But Dr. Samsel wanted access to those documents to investigate what the EPA and Monsanto really knew about glyphosate from the very beginning.

“I asked EPA, as a research scientist, to be able to access those documents in my research. I was denied by the Environmental Protection Agency, initially,” he says. “It finally took Senator Shaheen’s office, here in New Hampshire, to move the EPA… They sent [the documents] to me on a disc. I had to sign for them. I was also told that I could not share them with foreign nationals under a penalty of law…

However, I’ve been going through 12 to 14 of these documents in the file. They represent thousands and thousands of pages of data on studies that were done on laboratory animals. What amazed me was that Monsanto knew in 1981 that glyphosate caused adenomas and carcinomas in the rats that they’ve studied The highest incidence of tumorigenic growth occurred in the pituitary glandthe second highest levels were in the breasts of the female rats, in the mammary glands… Thirdly, the next highest tumorigenic growth was found in the testicles of male rats..”

In essence, Monsanto’s research of glyphosate showed similar findings as Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini, whose damning lifetime GMO feeding study11 was wrongfully retracted12,13,14,15largely due to Monsanto’s influence. (Séralini’s paper was later re-published with open access in the Springer Group journal Environmental Sciences Europe.16)

Monsanto’s own research also supports the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determination that glyphosate is a Class 2 A “probable human carcinogen.”17,18,19 –a determination Monsanto is now trying to get retracted. What’s more, the research shows that lower doses of glyphosate tend to have a greater effect than higher doses, and the doses at which damage was found to occur are comparable to the glyphosate levels found in wheat, sugar, corn and soy in the American diet.

Monsanto Never Published These Negative Findings

So how did Monsanto and Biodynamics—the company doing the research—hide these inconvenient facts? According to Dr. Samsel, they cancelled out the controls and the damning findings by using historical control data from unrelated studies. It’s also worth noting that these negative findings were never published in the peer-reviewed literature or submitted to the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Cancer was clearly shown in their 26-month long feeding study, but the only studies Monsanto has published are studies done in less than three months, which hides the consequences of eating glyphosate and genetically engineered foods over the course of a lifetime.

“I’m looking at a Biodynamics report here as Project number 77-2062, ‘A Lifetime Feeding Study of Glyphosate in Rats,’ and every page of this document says, ‘Contains trade secret or otherwise confidential information of Monsanto Company.’ I have a letter here from Monsanto’s health and safety officer. He was the head guy at Monsanto at the time, back in 1981. In his letter, he asked the US EPA to seal the documents and to treat them as trade secret. I personally feel that this is a violation of the public review process…

Now that I’ve looked at Monsanto’s trade secret documents that the public doesn’t have access to, I’m in the process of writing the Environmental Protection Agency and I’m asking them to release those. They have no right to withhold that information from the public. Because what I’ve seen in those documents, it clearly shows that Monsanto knew in 1981 that glyphosate caused tumorigenic growth and carcinomas in multiple organs and tissues… At the rate we’re going, we’re going to kill billions of people,” Dr. Samsel says.

Removing Glyphosate Is Imperative to Protect Human Health and Future Generations

According to Dr. Samsel, we’re seeing the effects of glyphosate in human disease statistics now. His work with Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Dr. Nancy Swanson show that chronic disease rates are at an all-time high, including the specific tumors found in Monsanto’s 26-month feeding study, as well as the Séralini study and others—specifically pituitary, kidney, breast, testicular, thyroid tumors, and thymic hyperplasia.

“There was some work that was recently done where they looked at the CT scans of patients who had thyroid disease and also found that they had thymic hyperplasia. Well, guess what? In the rat study, they found high incidence of thymic hyperplasia as well as thyroid adenomas and carcinomas,” Dr. Samsel says. “If we don’t take this chemical out of the food supply, everybody will be affected. Everybody that is eating the Western diet. Everybody.

Now, for some diseases, the incidence rate among rats were slightly less than 50 percent—some were as high as 80 percent of the treated group. Obviously, we’re not seeing 80 percent of people in Western populations coming down with tumors. But we might eventually… Rats have an average lifespan of two to two and a half years, whereas the human lifespan is around 80. We’ve only been eating GMOs for about 15 years, but already disease statistics are clearly rising, and rising dramatically. Dr. Samsel believes there’s no doubt genetically engineered (GE) foods will shorten the human lifespan.

“In the 20th month, the rats had an 80 to 90 percent survival rate. But when we got to around 24 months, more than 50 percent of the rats had died. When we got to month 26, I think they only had 30 percent left.”

While correlation is not causation, were we to extrapolate, it would suggest that unless we stop eating glyphosate and genetically engineered foods, the vast majority of us will contract a life-threatening disease in our late senior years, and few will die from plain old age. Other non-life threatening diseases are also cropping up at a furious rate—neurological disorders such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and a wide variety of behavioral problems.

When I began practicing medicine in the early ’80s, the autism rate was one in 10,000. Now it’s as low as one in 30, according to some estimates. According to Drs. Samsel and Seneff’s estimations, in the next decade, half of all people born will have some form of autism! “That’s correct, if we continue on the same trajectory, it will be one in two, which is frightening,” Dr. Samsel says.

Studies May Be Using Contaminated Controls…

On a side note, it’s important to realize that when studies are done, they do not test the control diet for the presence of glyphosate, which may dramatically skew results and effectively hide harmful effects. According to Dr. Samsel:

“They are continuing to do that. As I look deeper into the studies, they didn’t analyze the water. They did not analyze the feed for other contaminants. I contacted Purina and asked them for a comment about their animal chows and their laboratory feed. They do analyze for some of the basic pesticides and fungicides, like malathion, some of the other organophosphates, and some of the fungicides.

But they don’t analyze for glyphosate in those feeds. Going back to when they did these studies back in 1978 and 1980, they didn’t analyze the feed, but the most popular pesticides used at the time in growing corn and soy for those animal feeds, were the organophosphates. Some of the organophosphates were carbaryl and lannate.

What’s interesting is that I also turfed up many synergy patents. I’ve read all of Monsanto’s patents, plus patents from other companies that have also done work with glyphosate. Glyphosate is a synergist with other antibiotics, with fungicides, and with most of the chemicals that I’ve seen it used in combination.

I even wrote about it being synergistic with imidacloprid, the systemic pesticide that’s been implicated in harming the bees. The effects they saw in the Biodynamics studies in the controls, they were feeding contaminated feed to these animals…which are known to induce some of the tumorigenic growths. But the fact that the glyphosate-dosed animals had higher incidences…shows that there was a synergy with whatever was in that feed.”

Clearly, this is something the EPA and FDA must address. When laboratory tests with animals are done, they really need to look at the residue levels of glyphosate and other chemicals in the animal chow because it’s skewing all the laboratory results, and making the risks appear non-existent.

The Problem with Genetically Engineered Plants

According to Dr. Samsel, glyphosate is only one-half of a two-part problem. The other half is the genetically engineered plants. For the past two years, he’s been conducting field experiments and laboratory analysis of 33 varieties of genetically engineered corn. This year, he’s branching into soy. Not only are there Roundup-resistant GE crops, there are also Bt crops, which produce their own internal pesticide called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). But there are also glyphosate and glufosinate toxins involved, because in many GM crops, the genes are stacked.

“I’m looking at the untreated [genetically engineered corn], and then I’m spraying it with the herbicide [glyphosate]. I’m analyzing the fatty acids and the mineral content. I’m also looking at the isomers of the vitamins. What I’m finding is that there’s a difference between those treated with the herbicide and those that are not treated. The herbicide influences the mineral content of even the genetically engineered resistant varieties, making them particularly more deficient in manganese, cobalt, and copper, but particularly manganese. I’m also finding that the fatty acids are being skewed slightly but also the vitamins, particularly the isomers of vitamin E, tocopherol.”

He’s found that GE varieties of soy, canola, and corn oil contain mostly gamma-tocopherol opposed to alpha-tocopherol (types of vitamin E). Alpha-tocopherol is really beneficial to our biology whereas gamma-tocopherol induces inflammation, particularly in your lungs. Hence Dr. Samsel believes these GE oils may influence rates of asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). On the whole, it seems clear that hundreds of millions of people could improve their health simply by avoiding glyphosate and genetically engineered foods.

The Good News: You Can Get Glyphosate Out of Your System Fairly Quickly

One important question many are likely to have is, once you decide to avoid glyphosate-contaminated foods, how do you detoxify? Here, there’s good news because glyphosate is fairly quickly eliminated via urine and feces—provided you’re not continuously putting more in. And if you need any more reasons to stop eating glyphosate contaminated food, consider this: one secret study Dr. Samsel reviewed found that glyphosate quickly went into the bone marrow, which is where the formation of blood cells takes place. The glyphosate remained stable in the bone marrow for at least 10 hours.

The white blood cells produced during that time go to the thymus and tonsils, where they mature. So glyphosate really works on the molecular level, affecting not only your bacteria, but also your blood cells. Importantly, glyphosate also both up and down regulates genes. For example, in E.coli bacteria, glyphosate up and down regulates about 1,040 genes, many of which are involved with cytochrome P450 enzymes, as well as glutathione S transferase, which is another first line of defense your cells employ to detoxify.

How to Reduce Your Family’s Exposure to Pesticides

Your toxic load is closely linked to your diet, as so many of the chemicals you’re exposed to on a daily basis are contaminants in foods and/or its packaging. Non-organic processed foods will expose you to the greatest amounts of chemicals and potential toxins, including pesticides and genetically engineered organisms (GMOs), but virtually all non-GMO whole foods will tend to be contaminated with pesticides to some degree as well. To reduce your family’s exposure to glyphosate and other toxic chemicals, please consider the following advice:

  1. Buy organic fruits and vegetables. Non-organic fruits and vegetables most likely to be grown using pesticides include apples, peaches, celery, and potatoes. For a full list of the most and least contaminated produce, please see the Environmental Working Group’s shopper’s Guide to Pesticides.20
  2. Add fermented foods to your diet. The lactic acid bacteria formed during the fermentation of kimchi may help your body break down pesticides, so including fermented foods can be a wise strategy to help your body’s natural detoxification processes. Also make sure you’re getting enough fiber in your diet, as it too plays an important role in detoxification.
  3. Choose seafood wisely. Opt for low-mercury fish varieties, such as wild caught Alaskan salmon, anchovies, and sardines, and avoid farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury. To optimize your omega-3, you may also consider taking a krill oil supplement.
  4. Filter your tap water.Municipal water supplies can be contaminated with any number of potential toxins, so filtering your water is always a wise idea. Be particularly mindful of avoiding fluoridated water when preparing infant formula.
  5. Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
  6. Avoid plastic food containers, bottles, and mugs.Instead, opt for glass, ceramic, or stainless steel varieties.
  7. Avoid using dangerous chemicals on your lawn. If you have a lawn care service, make sure they’re not using organophosphate pesticides.
  8. Check your school’s/employer’s pest control policy. If they have not already done so, encourage your school district/employer to move to Integrated Pest Management, which uses less toxic alternatives.
  9. Switch to organic personal care products,and avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners, or other synthetic fragrances. Any product containing “fragrance” will typically contain high levels of endocrine-disrupting phthalates.

Dr. Samsel has also set up a Go Fund Me page to allow him to continue to fund his important research on glyphosate.  Click on the button below to learn more and make a donation.

More Educated Idiocy- Cloud Whitening

Since chemtrails have helped so much with the geoengineering, Bill Gates gave $300k to a group of retired Silicon Valley people to study the feasibility of lightening clouds to fix global warming. And they are ready to give it a go in the real world now.

Sometimes things are so foolish it just boggles the mind. This is one of those times for me. You can read the article excerpt below and click on the title to go and read the full thing.

Cloud brightening experiment tests tool to slow climate change

 

Aqua Metrology Systems’ Armand Neukermans, 73,  background left, and engineer Jack Foster, 79, right, check the operations of a cloud condensation

Aqua Metrology Systems’ Armand Neukermans, 73, background left, and engineer Jack Foster, 79, right, check the operations of a cloud condensation nuclei droplet spraying system prototype during a test to measure droplet particles at Aqua Metrology Systems in Sunnyvale, Calif., on Wednesday, June 24, 2015. (LiPo Ching/Bay Area News Group) ( LiPo Ching )

SUNNYVALE — A team of elder Silicon Valley scientists is building an audacious device that might solve one of humanity’s most profound dilemmas — a “cloud whitener” designed to cool a warming planet.

The men — retired physicists, engineers, chemists and computer experts from some of Silicon Valley’s top tech companies — have been meeting four days a week for seven years in the Sunnyvale lab of the Marine Cloud Brightening Project to design a tool that creates perfectly suspended droplets of water resembling fog.

Their goal is to launch the nation’s first open-air field trial of controversial “geoengineering” at a still-unidentified site in Moss Landing. There, they would test the ability of an energy-efficient machine to hurl tiny seawater droplets into a graceful trajectory — the first step of a research project to boost the brightness of clouds to reflect rays of sunlight back into space.

 

More Bird Flu Coming?

Bird Flu Cost the US $3.3 Billion and Worse Could Be Coming

It’s been almost a month since a case of avian influenza was detected in poultry in the central United States. So it might seem that the epidemic—which over several months caused the destruction of 49.5 million chickens and turkeys—can safely be considered over.

But in fact, it may have only taken a break. And if it returns, as some experts predict it will, what one government official calls “the largest animal-health emergency in this country’s history” may turn out to be just an opening act. At risk, the next time, will be not just the egg and turkey farms of the Midwest, but the billions of birds being raised in the poultry-producing centers on the east and west coasts—effectively, most of the poultry economy of the United States.

And attempts to prevent it, by developing a vaccine, may paradoxically turn out to be almost as devastating—because international trading partners say they will bar imports of any birds vaccinated against the disease.

The dire uncertainty that surrounds bird flu emerged last week at a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Agriculture to examine how the epidemic unfolded and why it spread. (Here’s my earlier post from when the epidemic was still going on.) Just the numbers are jaw-dropping: To stop the movement of the disease, Dr. John Clifford, deputy administrator of the federal Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, testified that 42 million chickens and 7.5 million turkeys were killed. Those numbers equal 10 percent of the egg-laying hens in the entire United States, and 3 percent of the turkeys.

The cost of those lost birds, according to economist Thomas Elam of the Indiana-based consulting group FarmEcon, was $1.57 billion—but the further costs to businesses that support farms, to egg and poultry wholesalers, and to food service firms, pushed the loss to $3.3 billion. In addition, Clifford said, the US Department of Agriculture committed $500 million to emergency efforts to block the disease, and paid out $190 million to farmers whose birds were destroyed.

Brad Moline, a third-generation turkey farmer from Manson, Iowa, used the impact of the epidemic on his family’s farm as an example of what turkey growers face from avian flu. The Molines were forced to destroy their entire flock, 56,000 turkeys housed in 12 barns, wiping out at least two-thirds of their income for the year. Once a flock is destroyed, the birds have to be composted and the barns disinfected, and farmers cannot restock with baby birds (“poults,” if they are turkeys) until they get the all-clear. That’s if they can find birds to grow at all: Unlike poultry producers, turkey farms grow just one crop per year, and the hatcheries that supply the poults aim to hatch them only when they are needed—which was much earlier in the year than now.  “If we are lucky, we will be able to salvage this year with one flock, which we hope to repopulate sometime around August 1,” he told the committee.

As I reported earlier, animal-health authorities suspected—and virus analysis is now confirming—that while the flu was originally brought to the US by wild birds migrating down from Canada, most of the spread within the US was due to people and vehicles inadvertently carrying the virus from farm to farm. Rob Knecht, president of the Michigan Allied Poultry Industries, said that preventing that from happening again if the virus returns will be complicated and costly. Some examples he ticked off: requiring farms to book the episodic crews they use for short but labor-intensive tasks such as moving large flocks from barn to barn, and not sharing them with other farms. Creating worker “locker rooms” at local hotels, with clothing and boots provided, and driving them back and forth in disinfected vans. Constructing new shower facilities on farms, for every worker to use, or procuring mobile shower units that are delivered to farms by truck. Building disinfecting troughs and tire sprayers at every farm entrance and assigning workers to monitor the gates so that every vehicle goes through disinfection. “The financial investment on these changes,” he said, “can be very high.”

Producers are looking seriously at making those investments, though, because federal authorities are predicting the flu will come back. “There is the very real possibility of another major outbreak later this year,” Elam said. Clifford expanded on that: “USDA is treating the threat of more infections in the fall with the utmost seriousness,” he said. “It’s very likely that wild birds will carry the virus with them when they begin migrating south in the fall.”

The major chicken-producing states—Georgia, and the Delaware-Maryland-Virginia peninsula—should be particularly watchful, he added: “Although states in the Atlantic flyway have not been affected by this outbreak, it’s important that our state and industry partners begin preparations should the disease occur there.” That’s true for the Pacific Flyway as well; the first 2014 cases occurred there.

Possibly the most dismaying thing is that—unlike human flu—there’s no vaccine available, and while a USDA research unit is crashing research on a formula, using it could end up losing producers just as much money as letting the flu rampage. Currently, because of the outbreak, 18 countries have blocked imports of any American poultry or eggs, and another 38 countries have blocked imports from the states that were affected. But because of suspicions of the vaccine—which can suppress birds’ symptoms while still allowing them to pass the virus along—many countries won’t accept vaccinated birds for import.

“USDA believes that if a vaccine were used, some additional trading partners would ban all U.S. exports of poultry and eggs and not necessarily just those from the states currently affected by HPAI,” Clifford testified. “The loss of these markets could cost U.S. producers at least $3 billion in trade revenue.”

With a vaccine off the table, producers may have no option but to guard their farms’ borders, watch for new outbreaks, and wait. They may not have to wait long. Last week, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources announced it had found a similar strain of virus in a chickadee, its second find in a wild bird so far—and the fall migration season hasn’t even begun.

Previous Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 94 other followers