If the founding fathers were reincarnated today, they'd probably start another revolution, this time to break away from an American government that has become far too imperial for its own good.And as such, they'd be labeled "extremists" by those who mean to rule us.In fact, the nation's founders are considered extremists by the Pentagon, according to a new "training manual" that explicitly labels the framers as such.Discovered by legal watchdog Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act request, the manual was part of 133 documents provided by the Air Force. The January 2013 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute "student guide" is entitled "Extremism." The document says that it is "for training purposes only" and "do not use on the job."Believe in freedom? You're an extremist...The manual defines an "extremist" as "a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights."In addition, it says, "Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place."So, if ye love liberty and freedom more than ye love a big, powerful central government that has grown well beyond its constitutional boundaries, you're an extremist. If ye dare to take care of yourself, to be an individual who grows his own food (weren't there a number of farmers and plantation owners in the group of founding fathers?) ye are an enemy of the state.Under the section, "Extremist Ideologies," the manual states, "In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples."Though the document released today by Judicial Watch was obtained from the Air Force, it originated in a DOD office and is, therefore, thought to likely be used in other agency components, said Judicial Watch."The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today's military," long-serving JW president Tom Fitton said."And it is striking that some [of] the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can't help but worry for the future and morale of our nation's armed forces," he added.This isn't the first time the federal government, one of its agencies or some other "official" source has equated freedom-loving Americans who have an originalist view of the Constitution and its meaning with extremists.Continue Reading Here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/041864_Department_of_Defense_farmers_extremists.html#ixzz2dcPV2VNn
In 1999, The Independent published an article entitled "World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria," which revealed that Monsanto was knowingly adding aspartame to soft drinks in the United States - and that aspartame is made from GM bacteria. This report, which remains one of the earliest disclosures on aspartame in a mainstream newspaper, received little attention after its publication - possibly because its implications were underestimated at the time - and it has long been forgotten.
Since 1999, the world has become a little more attentive to Monsanto and aspartame, but ignorance still abounds about the latter's genesis. While more and more people are starting to awaken to aspartame's destructive effects on our health, do they know how it is actually made? Fortunately, a 1981 patent for aspartame production, once confined to the drawers of patent offices, is now available online for everyone to see - and it confirms everything that Monsanto was happy to tell us in 1999 before their meteoric growth necessitated greater prudence.
The production process
The patent, which is entitled Process for producing aspartame and is credited to Bahl, Rose, and White, summarizes the process as follows:
"The artificial sweetener aspartame, a dipeptide with the formula Asp-Phe-me, is produced using a cloned micrcorganism [sic]. A DNA which codes for a large stable peptide comprised of the repeating amino acid sequence (Asp-Phe)n is inserted into a cloning vehicle which in turn is introduced into a suitable host microorganism. The host microorganism is cultured and the large peptide containing the repeating Asp-Phe sequence is harvested therefrom. The free carboxyl group of the large peptide is benzylated and then hydrolysed to benzyl Asp-Phe dipeptides. This dipeptide is methylated and then debenzylated to form aspartame."
This scientific jargon obfuscates (perhaps deliberately) a truly disturbing process:
1.) 'Cloned microorganisms' (which the patent later reveals to be genetically modified E. coli) are cultivated in tanks whose environments are tailored to help them thrive.
2.) The well-fed E. coli cultures defecate the proteins that contain the aspartic acid-phenylalanine amino acid segment needed to make aspartame.
3.) The proteins containing the Asp-Phe segments are 'harvested' (i.e. lab assistants collect the bacteria's feces).
4.) The feces are then treated. This includes a process of methylation (adding an excess of the toxic alcohol, methanol, to the protected dipeptide).
While common sense dictates that this abomination doesn't belong anywhere near our bodies, the patent's authors made no secret about their belief that aspartame constitutes a safe and nutritious sweetener:
"Aspartame is not only sweeter than sucrose, but is preferable as a food to sucrose. While sucrose can provide the body with little more than energy, aspartame is composed of amino acids, the building blocks of body proteins, and like other proteins is broken down by the digestive enzymes in the stomach to its constituent amino acids thus providing nutritive value. [...] For these reasons, aspartame holds significant promise in replacing sugar as a sweetener."
So there we have it: An official document that not only reveals the shocking truth behind aspartame production, but also freely admits that it was intended for mass consumption as a sucrose substitute. Therefore, the next time someone claims that your reservations about this sweetener are unfounded, direct them to this patent - the truth behind aspartame is now in plain view.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.independent.co.uk
http://www.freepatentsonline.com
http://science.naturalnews.com
Originally Posted On:
http://www.naturalnews.com/041766_aspartame_GM_bacteria_patent.html#ixzz2dI5N2lma
This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood. I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.
 |
| Image: Raw For Beauty |
For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.
But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this: “Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”
As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.
Bittman explains: “…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”
As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically: “In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”
Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.
“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.
Just as the weeds developed resistance and immunity to the herbicide, insects that were supposed to be killed by the toxin engineered into Monsanto’s BT crops are also surviving.
Five years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the NY Times would print such a complete rejection of GMO plant technology. Now, it’s “well, everybody knows.”
The Times sees no point in holding back any longer.
Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.
Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.
The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.
In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators.
And once the story unravels far enough, the human health hazards and destruction wreaked by GMOs will take center stage. All the bland pronouncements about “nobody has gotten sick from GMOs” will evaporate in the wind.
It won’t simply be, “Well, we never tested health dangers adequately,” it’ll be, “We knew there was trouble from the get-go.”
Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.
And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet.
Sources:
www.nytimes.com
www.rawforbeauty.com
http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com
