Bill Gates Dodges Questions on Why He Owns 500,000 Shares of Monsanto

Bill Gates is primarily known as the multi-billionaire who created Microsoft, the company behind the most popular computer operating system known as Windows.

With this massive wealth, he has retired from leading Microsoft and now instead focuses his money and time on furthering genetically modified technology, geoengineering, experimental vaccinations, and preaching about how Monsanto is the answer to world hunger.

 

It should come as no surprise, then, that Gates owns 500,000 shares worth 23 million US dollars (or more) of Monsanto stock. The very same company that has been caught running slave rings in Argentina in which workers were forced to work 14+ hours a day while withholding payment, has used their massive finances to fund organizations that literally fake FDA quotes to support GMOs, and of course peddling through GMOs that have been linked to numerous health concerns.

This is not even taking into account the farmer suicides that occur around every 30 minutes due to Monsanto’s failing GMO crop yield bankrupting small-time farmers in India’s notorious ‘suicide belt‘.

Bill Gates Funding Corporations Caught in Child Slave Rings

And if that’s not enough, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has even teamed up with Cargill to pump GMO soy into the third world. Cargill, of course, is the the 133 billion dollar corporation that also has been found in direct violation of human rights laws. Cargill was sued by the International Labor Rights Fund for trafficking children from Mali and forcing them to work on cocoa bean plantations for around 12 to 14 hours each day without pay, food, or sleep. The company even continues to purchase cotton from Uzbekistan, where it is well known that child slave labor is used in the cultivation.

Bill Gates himself even filmed commercials for Monsanto’s GMOs, propping them up as the ‘solution’ to world hunger despite even the United Nations admitting that GMOs cannot fight hunger as effectively as traditional farming. Headed by an entity known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a team of 900 scientists and researchers studied the issue of world hunger. The results of the major study were very simple: 900 scientists agreed that GMO crops were not the answer to the world hunger, and revealed this in 2008 — long before Bill Gates began claiming that GMOs were the answer while ignoring this readily available information.

Even the Union of Concerned Scientists examined the true yield of GMO crops, only to find that the GM crops do not produce increased yields over the long run — despite their excessive cost and extreme danger to health and environment. The lack of scientific support behind the GMO crops was so startling to the Union that they documented all the details in a 2009 report entitled ”Failure to Yield.”

Watchdog groups have criticized Gates’ support of these corporations after finding out about his massive funding. One such group, a part of the Community Alliance for Global Justice, stated:

“Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well being of small farmers around the world… [This] casts serious doubt on the foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa…”

So why is Bill Gates, a man who is propped up by the media as an angel of philanthropy, pumping millions (if not billions) into these operations? And why is he claiming that GMOs can fight world hunger when we know this is not true due to decreased yields and other problems?

I Asked Bill Gates Why

In a unique opportunity to ask Bill Gates himself why he has purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto behind the scenes (expelled into the news thanks to tax information) and teamed up with Cargill to expand GMOs worldwide, myself and several others asked him ourselves.

Yesterday Gates opened himself up to questions from online users via the social sharing site Reddit, in which he posted an open interview of sorts known as an ‘Ask me Anything’ post. This is essentially an invitation for questions that the subject will answer via text. While I had a large number of questions for Gates, such as if he actually eats GMOs himself, I simply asked him:

"Why did you buy 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock?

Unsurprisingly, the comment received a large degree of feedback. Users asked Gates to please respond to the question, and several others posed similar variations to Gates that all went unanswered (as to be expected). Some quotes from users in response to my question included:

User Lawfairy replied: “I wish he’d answered this one — to me, this is one of the most curious things about Mr. Gates, whom I otherwise respect as one of the foremost humanists of our generation… Mr. Gates’ relationship with Monsanto is, in my mind, simultaneously the most morally troubling thing about Mr. Gates”

Another user posted (with links intact): “Would you be willing to take some time to give us some insight with your investments in Monsanto? Despite having the headlines of “ending world hunger”, this company has done some despicable things in the past 100 years and I don’t believe they have the public’s best interest in mind. Having a single company or entity trying to “control”, “manipulate” or “own” the world’s food supply, in my opinion, is not the way to end world hunger."

Another user answered with: “Because he is supporting the Bilderberg group!”

None of these received a response nor did the many others I could not include in this article. The answer, it seems, is to bring this topic to the mainstream. The very same mainstream that seems to think Bill Gates is some sort of philanthropic super star that can do no evil. I am opposed to all wrongdoing at every level, and I find it absolutely disturbing that someone funding the GMO agenda and slave-labor-linked companies has been met with applause.

Source: 

Natural Society

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Why Gluten is Bad For you and your Children

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

If you have not read my previous article titled "200 Clinically Confirmed Reasons Not To Eat It"  you can click and read it.

Gluten is a protein molecule commonly found in grains like rye, wheat, and barley. It is found in almost every variety of bread, cereal, or grain. Most types of bread contain this protein. People who prefer to avoid gluten fall in two categories–either they’re allergic (this is known as Celiac disease) or because they believe it will lead to health problems. Problem is that so many people are allergic against gluten and they don´t even know it!
This is why we as The Rawfoodfamily have excluded gluten from our diet all together.
The easiest way to avoid the protein is to not eat foods that contain it, or to eat very little of them.

Why Government Should Be The First Suspect In Any Terror Attack

Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated!

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon attack, with authorities struggling to retain a coherent official narrative in the face of photos which show numerous unidentified identically dressed men wearing black backpacks at the scene of the blast, it’s necessary to revisit the evidence of why government should be the very first suspect in the event of any terrorist atrocity.

False flag terrorism – attacks manufactured or provocateured by governments and then blamed on other groups – is a tactic that stretches back almost 2,000 years.

Nero and the Great Fire of Rome

The Roman consul and historian Cassius Dio, his contemporary Suetonius and others say the Emperor Nero was responsible for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.

Legend claims Nero had one-third of the city torched as an excuse to build Domus Aurea, a 300 acre palatial complex that included a towering statue of himself, the Colossus of Nero.

Prior to the fire, the Roman Senate had rejected the emperor’s bid to level a third of the city to make way for a ‘Neropolis,’ an urban renewal project.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that when the population of Rome held Nero responsible for the fire, he shifted blame on the Christians for ‘hating the human race’  and starting the fire.

The Spanish American War: Remember the Maine

By the late 1800s, the United States was looking for an excuse to kick Spain out of Cuba. U.S. business was heavily invested in sugar, tobacco and iron on the Caribbean island.

The U.S.S. Maine was sent to Havana in January of 1898 to protect these business interests after a local insurrection broke out. Three weeks later, early on the morning of February 15, an explosion destroyed the forward third of the ship anchored in Havana’s harbor, killing more than 270 American sailors.

President McKinley blamed Spain after the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry declared that a naval mine caused the explosion.

American newspapers blamed the Spanish despite a lack of evidence. “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,”  newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst told Frederic Remington after the illustrator reported that the situation in Cuba did not warrant invasion.

A number of historians and researchers later argued that the ship was blown up by the United States to provide a false flag pretext to invade Cuba and expel Spain.

The United States occupied Cuba from 1898 until 1902, although an amendment to a joint resolution of Congress forbid the U.S. to annex the country.

Wilson’s Pretext for War: The Sinking of the Lusitania

Nearly two thousand travelers, including one hundred Americans, were killed on May 7, 1915, when a German U-boat torpedoed the RMS Lusitania, a luxury Cunard Line British ocean liner.

Prior to the sinking, the German embassy in Washington issued a warning. Newspapers in the United States refused to print the warning or acknowledge the German claim that the ship carried munitions.

Wilson’s government issued a flurry of diplomatic protests after the sinking and exploited the tragedy two years later as a pretext for America to enter the First World War.

Nearly a hundred years later, in 2008, divers discovered the Lusitania carried more than four million rounds of rifle ammunition.

“There were literally tons and tons of stuff stored in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters,” Gregg Bemis, an American businessman who owns the rights to the wreck and is funding its exploration, told The Daily Mail.

Hitler’s Fascist Dictatorship: The Reichstag Fire

In February of 1933, a month after convincing Germany’s president that parliament must be eliminated, Hitler and the Nazis instigated the Reichstag fire.

Hitler then urged president Hindenburg to issue an emergency decree restricting personal liberty, including the right to free expression and a free press, limitations on the rights of association and assembly, warrantless searches of homes, property confiscation, and violations of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

The Nazis used the decree to crack down on their political opponents . They worked behind the scenes to force through the Enabling Act, which legally allowed Hitler to obtain plenary powers and establish a dictatorship.

Gestapo Reichsmarschall Hermann Goring would admit that, “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Prelude to World War: The Gleiwitz Incident

Six years after the Reichstag Fire, the Nazis staged the Gleiwitz incident. Nazi commandos raided a German radio station in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany. The raid was part of Operation Himmler, a series of operations undertaken by the SS as Hitler set the stage for the invasion of Poland and the start of the Second World War.

SS operatives dressed in Polish uniforms attacked the radio station, broadcast an anti-German message in Polish, and left behind the body of a German Silesian known for sympathizing with the Poles. The corpse was then offered to the press as evidence that the Poles had attacked the radio station.

Israeli False Flag Terror: The Lavon Affair

In 1954, the Israelis activated a terrorist cell in response to the United States making friends with the Egyptian government and its pan-Arab leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser. The Israelis were worried Nasser would nationalize the Suez Canal and continue Egypt’s blockade of Israeli shipping through the canal.

Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion decided a false flag terrorist attack on American interests in Egypt would sour the new relationship. He recruited and dispatched a terror cell that pretended to be Egyptian terrorists.

The plan, however, contained a fatal flaw. Israel’s top secret cell, Unit 131, was infiltrated by Egyptian intelligence. After a member of the cell was arrested and interrogated, he revealed the plot and this led to more arrests. Israeli agents were subjected to a public trial revealing details of the plan to firebomb the U.S. Information Agency’s libraries, a British-owned Metro-Goldwyn Mayer theatre, a railway terminal, the central post office, and other targets.

In order to deflect blame, the Israeli government tried to frame its own Defense Minister, Pinhas Lavon, but the true nature of the plot was eventually made public.

Operation Northwoods: Targeting American Citizens

In the covert war against the communist regime in Cuba under the CIA’s Operation Mongoose, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism in side the United States.

The plan included shooting down hijacked American airplanes, the sinking of U.S. ships, and the shooting of Americans on the streets of Washington, D.C. The outrageous plan even included a staged NASA disaster that would claim the life of astronaut John Glenn.

Reeling under the embarrassing failure of the CIA’s botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, president Kennedy rejected the plan in March of 1962. A few months later, Kennedy denied the plan’s author, General Lyman Lemnitzer, a second term as the nation’s highest ranking military officer.

In November of 1963, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.

Gulf of Tonkin: Phantom Attack on the U.S. Military

On August 4, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson went on national television and told the nation that North Vietnam had attacked U.S. ships.

“Repeated acts of violence against the armed forces of the United States must be met not only with alert defense, but with a positive reply. That reply is being given as I speak tonight,” Johnson declared.

Congress soon passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which provided Johnson with pre-approved authority to conduct military operations against North Vietnam. By 1969, over 500,000 troops were fighting in Southeast Asia.

Johnson and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, had bamboozled Congress and the American people. In fact, North Vietnam had not attacked the USS Maddox, as the Pentagon claimed, and the “unequivocal proof” of an “unprovoked” second attack against the U.S. warship was a ruse.

Operation Gladio: State Sponsored Terror Blamed on the Left

Following the Second World War, the CIA and Britain’s MI6 collaborated through NATO on Operation Gladio, an effort to create a “stay behind army” to fight communism in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

Gladio quickly transcended its original mission and became a covert terror network consisting of right wing militias, organized crime elements, agent provocateurs and secret military units. The so-called stay behind armies were active in France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and Switzerland.

Gladio’s “Strategy of Tension”  was designed to portray leftist political groups in Europe as terrorists and frighten the populace into voting for authoritarian governments. In order to carry out this goal, Gladio operatives conducted a number of deadly terrorists attacks that were blamed on leftists and Marxists.

In August of 1980, Gladio operatives bombed a train station in Bologna, killing 85 people. Initially blamed on the Red Brigades, it was later discovered that fascist elements within the Italian secret police and Licio Gelli, the head of the P2 Masonic Lodge, were responsible for the terror attack. Other fascist groups, including Avanguardia Nazionale and Ordine Nuovo, were mobilized and engaged in terror.

Operation Gladio ultimately claimed the lives of hundreds of people across Europe.

According to Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a Gladio terrorist serving a life-sentence for murdering policemen, the reason for Gladio was simple. It was designed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.

Terror in the modern age

In the United States, the modern age of terrorism is defined by the FBI’s policy of fomenting and provocateuring patsy terrorists to carry out attacks via entrapment.

As the New York Times reported last year, the vast majority of domestic terror plots in recent years were “facilitated by the F.B.I.”

The most infamous case of the FBI steering a terror plot was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Before the attack, the FBI planted informant Emad A. Salem within a radical Arab group in New York led by Ramzi Yousef. Salem was ordered to encourage the group to carry out a bombing targeting the World Trade Center’s twin towers. Under the illusion that the project was a sting operation, Salem asked the FBI for harmless dummy explosives which he would use to assemble the bomb and then pass on to the group.

At this point the FBI cut Salem out of the loop and provided the group with real explosives, leading to the attack on February 26 that killed six and injured over a thousand people. The FBI’s failure to prevent the bombing was reported on by the New York Times in October 1993, as well as CBS News in the clip below.

Underwear Bomber

Detroit Lawyer Kurt Haskell witnessed a well-dressed man help the “underwear bomber ” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab clear security before the attempted attack on an airliner on Christmas Day 2009 despite the fact that the bomber had no passport, in addition to the fact that his own father had warned U.S. intelligence officials of the threat posed by Abdulmutallab a month before the attempted attack.

It later emerged that the State Department was ordered not to revoke Abdulmutallab’s visa by “federal counterterrorism officials” even though the accused bomber had known terrorist ties.

Haskell maintains that Abdulmutallab was carrying a fake bomb and was the unwitting dupe in another case of government entrapment.

This is by no means an exhaustive length of cases involving false flag attacks steered or provocateured by governments – such an endeavor would fill an encyclopedia-sized book – but it is a reminder that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and only the myopically naive would fail to shine the spotlight on the state in the immediate aftermath of any terrorist attack.

Source:

INFOWARS

http://worldtruth.tv 

Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated!

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Do Boston Bombings Make a Case For More Camera Surveillance & Why Increased Spying is Bad

 

Just last month, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Americans should get used to “more visibility and less” privacy,” because in about five years “there’ll be cameras every place.” In light of the recent attack on the Boston Marathon Monday, lawmakers are making a case for more widespread use of this technology, which has concerned privacy advocates.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence and Terrorism, on MSNBC Tuesday said he thinks more cameras in public spaces are needed.

“We have to stay ahead of the terrorists and I do know in New York, the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is based on cameras, the outstanding work that results from that,” he said on the show. “So yes, I do favor more cameras. They’re a great law enforcement method and device. And again, it keeps us ahead of the terrorists, who are constantly trying to kill us.”

WTOP reported Auroa, Colo., native Juana Cerna, who is attending American University, saying she is in support of more cameras in public.

“I think it’s a good idea,” she told WTOP this week. “I come from Aurora where the shooting was and I lost a friend.”

She included that with the violent events of late, people might feel safer with more surveillance.

In addition to safety, footage is useful in investigations as well. The FBI and other law enforcement investigating Boston’s case are relying on video from various sources as they try to piece together evidence as to what happened Monday near the finish line of the marathon.

CBS News reported the ACLU recording an estimated 147 cameras in the Boston area as of 2007 and an additional 402 on the city’s buses and subways. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani told CBS that surveillance footage could be immensely useful in Boston, as it was in the investigation of London’s 7/7 bombings.

“They caught those guys by the next day because London is virtually a Hollywood studio, cameras all over the place. I went to the headquarters late that night and they had already picked the guys out, they had them in freeze frames, the guys that they thought did it,” Giuliani said.

Although surveillance in the name of public safety might not be questioned in and of itself, it is how the technology could also be used that has privacy experts concerned. TheBlaze recently reported the analysis of Washington University in St. Louis law professor Neil Richards who cautioned the “dangers of surveillance.”

He said various forms of digital and public surveillance “menaces our intellectual privacy and it gives the watcher a power advantage over the watched, which can be used for blackmail, persuasion or discrimination.”

As for these privacy concerns over pervasive surveillance held by some, King said there is not an expectation of privacy for people in public places and on the street.

“Anyone can look at you, can see you, can watch what you’re doing,” he said. “A camera just makes it more sophisticated, but it’s no different from your neighbor looking out the window at you or a police officer looking at you walking down the street.”

GPS and cellphone tracking. Facial recognition cameras. Drones that can tell if someone is armed. Digital spying. All are among emerging technologies and techniques that are increasingly being used by everyone from law enforcement to clothing stores.

Those concerned about individual privacy often have a strong reaction to the use of such technology, but privacy law expert Neil Richards said people don’t “really know why” a lot of surveillance is bad.

“We only have a vague intuition about it, which is why courts don’t protect it. We know we don’t like it, and that it has something to do with privacy, but beyond that, the details can be fuzzy,” the Washington University in St. Louis law professor said, according to the university’s newswebsite.

The main dangers are that it “menaces our intellectual privacy and it gives the watcher a power advantage over the watched, which can be used for blackmail, persuasion, or discrimination,” he said.

Richards’ thoughts in the piece titled “The Dangers of Surveillance,” which will be published in the next issue of the Harvard Law Review but are available here for download, detail how courts likely dismiss challenges brought against surveillance programs because of the idea that “mere surveillance creates no harms.”

But ultimately, society as a whole, Richards writes lacks an understanding of “why (and when) government surveillance is harmful.”

Richards believes:

• First, we must recognize that surveillance transcends the public-private divide;
• Second, we must recognize that secret surveillance is illegitimate, and prohibit the creation of any domestic surveillance programs whose existence is secret;
• Third, we should recognize that total surveillance is illegitimate and reject the idea that it is acceptable for the government to record all Internet activity without authorization; and
• Fourth, we must recognize that surveillance is harmful.

He wrote that intellectual activities can be snuffed in a surveillance society as it might deter “eccentric” or so-called deviant behavior. Calling up George Orwell’s “1984″ as an example, Richards said the classic novel shows how the “fear of being watched causes people to act and think differently from the way they might otherwise.”

In his paper, Richards writes that secret surveillance and total surveillance are both illegitimate.

“Surveillance can sometimes be necessary, even helpful. But unconstrained surveillance, especially of our intellectual activities, threatens a cognitive revolution that cuts at the core of the free minds that our political institutions presuppose,” Richards wrote in conclusion, noting though that the laws constraining it have been “whittled away” by several changes in the last two decades, of which technology is one of them. “By thus recognizing the harms of surveillance, and crafting our laws accordingly, we can obtain many of its benefits without sacrificing our vital civil liberties or upending the power balance between individuals on the one hand and companies and governments on the other.”

Source:

www.theblaze.com