Talk about psyops. If you can’t get the people to eat your dangerous, unwanted frankenfoods, just lie and say the Pope approves it. On November 30, the magazine, New Scientist, published “Vatican scientists urge support for engineered crops,” which the Vatican immediately denied.
“The Vatican did not endorse an 11-page final statement in favor of easing restrictions on and allowing more widespread use of genetically modified crops, especially in poorer nations,” a Vatican official said in a statement published by Catholic News Service.
In fact, “the Vatican has never taken a formal position supporting or opposing genetically modified foods,” reported CNS.
The study group who issued the report mostly include people with financial ties to genetically modified foods. Four employees of Monsanto graced that panel.
There are an estimated 1.2 billion Catholics in the world who now have more reason to distrust biotech scientists.
The New Scientist also quoted an outrageous lie by one of the report scientists:
“There has not been a single documented case of harm to consumers or the environment,” says Potrykus.
It then links to a 2005 article which says the opposite. Whatever. Ingo Potrykus is a Swiss scientist who developed a variety of GM rice.
There are numerous scientific studies condemning the use of GM foods which have been linked to organ damage and sterility in mammals, while others correlate rising diabetes and obesity rates with GMO introduction. There’s also the question of allergic reaction to GM foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling.
GM crops (trees, too) are genetically modified to produce or tolerate pesticides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, has been linked to birth defects, cancer and miscarriages in humans. Pesticides are suspected in causing or contributing to mass bee, bat and butterfly die-off, as well as a pandemic amphibian decline. Their use is also linked to 11 million acres of superweeds in the U.S.
Finally, GM crops cannot be contained. They’ve spread in nations all over the world, even becoming established in the wild.
For any scientist to say that no environmental damage is linked to GM crops is unconscionable. Given the biotech industry’s penchant for suppressing science, it’s not surprising to find them extending their lies to the social realm.
Confronting the oft-quoted malarky that GM crops can solve world hunger, CNS reported:
“The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said earlier this year that it was not a coincidence that in 2009 the use of genetically modified food crops grew by 13 percent in developing countries and that GM crops covered almost half of the world’s total arable land. And yet ‘the number of hungry people in the world has for the first time reached 1 billion people,’ the paper said.”
CNS further noted that, “Pope Benedict XVI has denounced the continued scandal of hunger in the world, saying its root causes have more to do with problems of distribution and sharing than with there not being enough food in the world.”
SEATTLE, WA — The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-WA) today called on an Oregon community college to replace a leader of an anti-Muslim hate group who is scheduled to begin teaching a course on Islam in January.
CAIR-WA reported that Barry Sommer, president of an Oregon chapter of the hate group ACT! for America, will teach a course called “What is Islam” at Lane Community College in Eugene, Ore. (1) Sommer also produces a weekly local cable access program “Islam Today” on Comcast’s CTV29. The contact e-mail for the program is “firstname.lastname@example.org.” His personal blog features one of the infamous Danish cartoons mocking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.
Sommer has a history of making false and misleading statements about Islam.
The preface to Sommer’s online book, “From the Mouths of Our Enemies,” states: “Our enemies want us destroyed not because of our riches, or our liberties, although they say that is so. No, they want us gone because Allah told them so. Foundational Islam demands that ALL citizens of planet earth convert to Islam, pay a tax (jizya) or die. It is now demanded of us that we make a stand, draw the line and decide who wins this clash once and for all. If it means war, so be it.”
In a July 16, 2010 letter to Eugene’s Register-Guard newspaper, Sommer wrote: “Until Islam changes its 1,400 years of subjugation and conquest by the sword, the atrocities will continue to escalate.”
In a letter to Lane Community College President Mary Spilde, CAIR-WA Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari wrote: “Unless the goal of this course is to promote anti-Muslim bigotry, Lane Community College should replace Mr. Sommer with someone who will offer students a balanced and objective analysis of the subject matter.”
Bukhari said ACT! for America national leader Brigitte Gabriel claims an American Muslim “cannot be a loyal citizen” and that Islam is the “real enemy.” She once told the Australian Jewish News: “Every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim.” She also claimed that “Islamo-fascism is a politically-correct word … it’s the vehicle for Islam … Islam is the problem.”
When asked whether Americans should “resist Muslims who want to seek political office in this nation,” Gabriel said: “Absolutely. If a Muslim who has — who is — a practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah, who abides by Islam, who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day — this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.”
Gabriel stated: “America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam.” (2)
(2) SEE: Islam’s March Against the West
Along with her stated desire to have Muslims barred from public office, Gabriel has also claimed that Arabs “have no soul” and that Muslims worship “something they call ‘Allah,’ which is very different from the God we believe [in].”
SEE: A Case Study in Sincere Hypocrisy: Brigitte Gabriel
Video: Brigitte Gabriel Says Arabs Have No Souls
Even those familiar with the long and shameful history of America’s appeasement of Israel were taken aback by the Obama administration’s extraordinary offer to Netanyahu.
In exchange for a paltry one-off 90 day freeze on illegal settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), Israel will get 20 F-35 stealth fighter jets worth $3 billion and a slew of other goodies. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly gave up to eight hours with Netanyahu trying to persuade him to accept “one of the most generous bribes ever bestowed by the United States on any foreign power.” Praising the Israeli Prime Minister for eventually agreeing to put the offer to his security cabinet, President Obama took it as “a signal that he is serious.”
But is there any reason to believe that Netanyahu is any more “serious” about consenting to the creation of a viable Palestinian state today than he was in 2001? In a video aired on Israel’s Channel 10 this summer, Netanyahu was seen during the second intifada bragging to West Bank settlers about how he had sabotaged the Oslo Accords. “I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders,” he told them. In that secretly filmed conversation, Netanyahu also revealed his dismissive attitude toward the United States. “I know what America is,” he said. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.”
And there is good reason for the Israeli leader’s arrogance. In a pre-midterm election interview with the Jewish Daily Forward, Congressman Gary Ackerman stressed that “Israel’s best bet for addressing any concerns about Obama’s policy” was for the Democrats to retain power. As evidence of their pro-Israel influence, Ackerman and other Jewish Democrats cited “the forceful criticisms they conveyed to the White House when they thought that Obama was leaning too hard on Israel.” Ackerman, who chaired the subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said that if Israel wanted “positive influence on the White House” it needed what he called the “first-class team” of Howard Berman, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Sander Levin and himself to continue chairing key House committees, because “we are all pro-Israel and we all have major, major, major influence in the executive branch.”
The Republicans’ subsequent gains in those midterms, however, are only likely to boost Netanyahu’s confidence in his ability to move America “in the right direction.” On the eve of his November 11 meeting with Hillary Clinton, the Israeli Prime Minister had what has been described as an “unusual, if not unheard of” (read: illegal) one-on-one meeting with incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. According to Cantor’s office, the Congressman assured Netanyahu that “the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration.” It wouldn’t be the first time that Cantor— set to become the highest ever ranking Jewish member of Congress—has attempted to undermine official U.S. policy in Israel’s behalf. Last year, while leading a delegation of 25 Republican congressmen to Israel, Cantor publicly criticised the Obama administration for interfering in such internal Israeli matters as the eviction of Palestinian families from their East Jerusalem homes and the ongoing 43-year Jewish colonization of the West Bank.
Given who has been shaping Obama’s Middle East policy, his administration may not require that much checking though. Since 2002, he has been advised by Lee Rosenberg, a key member of “a close-knit network of Chicago Jews,” who, in the words of the Chicago Tribune, “nurtured and enabled” Obama’s political career. According to Rosenberg, the then U.S. Senate hopeful “reached out” to the jazz recording industry entrepreneur and venture capitalist “to learn more about the issues affecting Israel and Middle East, and the U.S.–Israel relationship.” Later, when Obama’s Chicago backers made it clear to him that Israel was an issue “he had to get educated on,” Rosenberg accompanied the then-senator on his first trip to Israel, where he learned “an appreciation of the security needs.” A longtime board member (and currently president) of AIPAC, Rosenberg also introduced the presidential candidate at the pro-Israel lobby’s 2008 conference, when Obama, in contradiction of international law, vowed that Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Dennis Ross, one of the principal authors of that speech, is also the originator of the incentive package. Having convinced Obama of the need “to come off as friendlier” to Netanyahu, the president’s current top adviser on the Middle East worked closely with Ehud Barak and Yitzak Molho, Netanyahu’s adviser, on preparing the original proposal which Netanyahu subsequently rejected. Ross, dubbed “Israel’s lawyer” for his over-solicitousness to Tel Aviv’s interests as President Clinton’s chief negotiator, was accused by an American government official earlier this year of being “far more sensitive to Netanyahu’s coalition politics than to U.S. interests.” A fellow at the AIPAC-sponsored think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, he also served, until his government appointment, as founding chairman of the Jerusalem-based Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, which views intermarriage with non-Jews as an “insidious” challenge. On hearing that Ross had joined Obama’s team, one Chicago-based pro-Israel activist commented, “now … we have no concerns whatsoever.”
And yet there are some who believe that Obama is anti-Israel…
Robert Grenier, CIA’s chief of station in Islamabad, Pakistan, from 1999 to 2002 and director of the CIA’s counter-terrorism center, writes in disbelief at the current Obama administration strategy with the peace process (which he considers long dead). He comments on the Al Jazeera English website about the rumored bundle of incentives the White House is offering Israel for a 90-day extension of the partial settlement freeze:
After witnessing US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians for over 30 years, I had thought I was beyond shock. This development, however, is breathtaking. In effect, along with a whole string of additional commitments, including some potentially far-reaching security guarantees which it is apparently afraid to reveal publicly, the Obama administration is willing to permanently cast aside a policy of some 40 years’ duration, under which the US has at least nominally labelled Israeli settlements on occupied territory as “obstacles to peace,”. All this in return for a highly conditional settlement pause which will permit Netanyahu to pocket what the US has given him, simply wait three months without making any good-faith effort at compromise, and know in the end that Israel will never again have to suffer the US’ annoying complaints about illegal settlements.
Leave aside the fact that as of this writing, the Israeli cabinet may yet reject this agreement – which seems even more breathtaking, until one stops to consider that virtually everything the Americans have offered the Israelis they could easily obtain in due course without the moratorium. No, what is telling here is that the American attempt to win this agreement, lopsided as it is, is an act of sheer desperation.
What gives rise to the desperation, whether it is fear of political embarrassment at a high-profile diplomatic failure or genuine concern for US security interests in the region, I cannot say. It seems crystal clear, however, that the administration sees the next three months as a last chance. Their stated hope is that if they can get the parties to the table for this brief additional period, during which they focus solely on reaching agreement on borders, success in this endeavour will obviate concerns about settlements and give both sides sufficient stake in an outcome that they will not abandon the effort.
No one familiar with the substance of the process believes agreement on borders can be reached in 90 days on the merits; consider additionally that negotiators will be attempting to reach such a pact without reference to Jerusalem, and seeking compromise on territory without recourse to off-setting concessions on other issues, and success becomes virtually impossible to contemplate.
The Obama administration is coming under heavy criticism for having no plan which extends beyond the 90 days, if they can get them. There is no plan for a 91st day because there is unlikely to be one. The Obama policy, absurd as it seems, is to somehow extend the peace process marginally, and hope for a miracle. The demise of that hope carries with it the clear and present danger that residual aspirations for a two-state solution will shortly be extinguished with it.
Grenier believes the two state solution is no longer possible (“no conceivable Israeli government could remove [the settlements] even if it wanted to”) and the long term outcome is “the progressive delegitimation of the current state, and the eventual rise of a binational state in its place.”
The quarter of a million American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal that American diplomats have a low opinion of the thuggish Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. They call him “feckless.” Equally underwhelming are the revelations that Nikolas Sarkozy is “temperamental” and Muammar al-Gaddafi likes flamenco and blondes. What is more, some of Iran’s Arab neighbors look to Tehran with fear and loathing, Afghan politicians are corrupt, and American corporations lobby the Congress.
The global media is in a tizzy, repeating the same mundane, stale information from 251,287 cables released by WikiLeaks, a media organization that claims a loosely organized network of international contributors. Curiously, such publications as The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Le Monde and Spain’s El País have carried the leaks dutifully, even though their well-policed pages are otherwise governed by highly divergent philosophies, policies and practices. Even more curiously, all news organizations repeat the same cherry-picked factoids that their ace reporters apparently culled from the documents.
No wonder that some on the Internet believe WikiLeaks to be a “false flag” operation—part of a Big Lie mounted by the American intelligence community.
Julian Assange, the curious-looking founder of WikiLeaks—a cross between Casper the Friendly Ghost and Illya Kuryakin of the 1960s TV spy series The Man from U.N.C.L.E.—has the kind of checkered, globe-trotting past that makes him a prime recruit for intelligence services.
At the same time, most Americans quickly dismiss these charges, asking why their government would covertly conspire to release information that is potentially damaging to itself.
A closer look shows the many ways that these revelations bolster the status quo in Washington. They mainly deflect public attention from far more urgent issues—including a broken economy, dysfunctional governmental services, Obama’s chimera of hope and change, and a general hollowing out of America at its core, commensurate with its imperial reach.
More than that, the leaks characterize an increasingly unaccountable United States as the “victim,” equate investigative journalism with treason, and communicate without repercussion Washington’s frank opinion of world leaders with whom it is less than pleased. (It doesn’t hurt the Obama administration a bit for the world to know that certain Arab capitals are just as opposed to the Ahmadinejad regime as Tel Aviv is.)
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of spy craft and the long history of similar false-flag operations would never question the benefits of such ruses to preserving many vested interests. This history includes the Gulf of Tonkin report, the counterproductive “war on drugs,” and “detection” of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, to name just a few.
Yet the majority of Americans would be hard pressed to name even one or two agencies in the vast, well-funded intelligence apparatus that sucks up their taxes while remaining virtually unanswerable to them and their elected representatives.
In reality, the system is composed of 16 agencies whose existence is verifiable and another six that are thought to act in total secrecy. Most Americans know about the Central Intelligence Agency, but it is among the smallest, least well-funded of the group, which is mostly under the Pentagon command with a total annual budget of nearly $50 billion. The fact that the State, Treasury and Energy departments also have covert operations will come as a surprise to many Americans. Asking people on Main Street to define the functions of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office or the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is sure to invite blank stares.
America’s covert machinery, easily the largest in world history, reaches every corner of the globe, gathering, hiding, publishing or distorting information to suit its own purposes. On its payroll are politicians and artists, scions of noble families and common gangsters, visionaries, crackpots, assassins and healers the world over.
It would not be surprising at all if WikiLeaks were being used by this intelligence network to do its bidding, knowingly or otherwise. Surely this would explain the almost comical spectacle of WikiLeaks “releasing” tons of potentially damaging information while America’s entire intelligence community merely whimpers like a whipped dog— as if the U.S. were not capable of moving the website out of civilian reach and erasing it from existence as easily as it introduced the Stuxnet virus to the computers of an Iranian nuclear plant. (Overshadowed by the WikiLeaks’s non-news was the Monday morning bombing in Tehran that killed one Iranian nuclear scientist and injured another.)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must be trying hard to keep a straight face as she “apologizes” for or otherwise “explains” the words of the bad boys and girls of American diplomacy. Equally constrained must be Attorney General Eric Holder, who speaks of an “active and ongoing criminal investigation” of WikiLeaks. Sorely missing is a voice sufficiently powerful within the government or major media to question this global spectacle, which doesn’t pass the smell test on many levels.