BLACKWATER AND OBAMA (AND CLINTON and ROMNEY and MCCAIN)

IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT BLACKWATER IS SETTING UP IN ILLINOIS. WHHYYY?  WHO IS IN CHARGE IN ILLINOIS? THE ZIP CODE OF 60606. BOEING!  OBAMA! 

I heard he wrote a letter to Blackwater asking some questions. AFTER THEY SET UP SHOP?

Blackwater Rising

Tuesday, October 02, 2007 | 4:25 PM

The world’s most controversial security service is now open for business in Illinois. But is Blackwater, Inc. looking to make Illinois an outpost for what has been called the world’s largest private army?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP_m4m62IfI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8&feature=related

from :   www.alternet.org   (search romney and blackwater)

 Meanwhile, Blackwater is deep in the camp of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Cofer Black is Romney’s senior adviser on counterterrorism. At the recent CNN/YouTube debate, when Romney refused to call waterboarding torture, he said, “I’m not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we’re able to do and what things we’re not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some thirty-five years.” That was an exaggeration of Black’s career at the CIA (he was there twenty-eight years and head of counterterrorism for only three), but a Romney presidency could make Blackwater’s business under Bush look like a church bake sale.

 http://www.countercurrents.org/weitzel191207.htm

In 2005, Cofer Black became the vice-chairman of Blackwater Worldwide, the largest mercenary army in the United States. He also heads their intelligence division known as Total Intelligence Solutions.Blackwater received its first government contract worth $5 million in 2002 for operations in Afghanistan. Since then it has received an estimated $800 million in U.S. government contracts, many of these “black contracts” with no public oversight.As of 2006, Blackwater counted over 2300 private soldiers in its ranks. It has an air force, a fleet of attack helicopters and armored personnel vehicles and is building a navy. Most importantly, it has the green light from the Bush administration to carry out its contracts in the “war on terror” with impunity.Before sneaking out of Iraq in June 2004, America’s viceroy Paul Bremer issued Order 17, which granted immunity to Blackwater and other contractors for crimes committed against the Iraqi people . . . either swindle or murder. It is still the law of the land.

This September, Blackwater soldiers killed 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded 24 in an unprovoked firefight during a convoy mission. It was such an egregious crime against humanity that even the U.S. controlled government in Baghdad had the courage to call it murder. Under Order 17, Blackwater walks.

But September’s war crime is not Blackwater’s only black mark. According to Scahill in a December 24 Nation article, Blackwater is currently facing multiple Congressional investigations, a federal grand jury and allegations of illegal arms smuggling and “significant tax evasion,” to name a few.

Despite this, Blackwater was recently awarded a $92 million Pentagon contract to operate flights in Central Asia and is in line to receive part of a $15 billion contract in the war on drugs. Times are good in the private army business.

Keep in mind that Cofer Black, Romney’s personal advisor, is second in command of a private army in need of a public commander-in-chief. As Jeremy Scahill warns, “Blackwater appears to have its own presidential candidate [Romney] . . . one whose presidency could make the company’s profitable business under Bush look like a church bake sale.”

But there is more at stake than unconscionable profits when the president of the United States has a private—publicly funded—army and intelligence service at his disposal.

Mike Huckabee almost got it right. There seems to be at least one Mormon who does believe that Jesus and the devil can be brothers.

Robert Weitzel is a freelance writer and contributing editor to Media With a Conscience. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He has been published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Skeptic Magazine, Freethought Today, and on popular liberal websites. He can be contacted at: robertweitzel@mac.com

The Washington Star for July 23, 1975, reported the following:

Almost from its inception in 1947, the CIA has used religious groups both as a source of information and as a conduit for funds. CIA spokesmen declined to discuss the CIA-church connection in any detail . . .

Sources said the CIA dealt with religious groups in Latin America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

A spokesman for the Senate select intelligence committee said the panel’s staff is investigating complaints that the CIA has had improper dealings with missionaries.

In the Salt Lake City Messenger for Jan. 1975, we suggested that the Mormon Church could provide a perfect cover for the CIA agents:

Since the Mullen Company [the firm which handled the Mormon Church’s public relations] was used as a cover for the CIA, a question concerning the involvement of the Mormon Church with the CIA naturally arises . . .

The Mormon Church’s world-wide activities and mission program could provide a perfect cover for CIA agents, but at the present time we have no evidence that this is actually the case. We do know, however, that the Church provides many men for the CIA. Writing in the New York Times for September 16, 1974, Wallace Turner states: “Many Mormon scholars work on contracts for the C.I.A.” We recently asked a man who had taught at Brigham Young University if he had any reason to believe that the Mormon missionary program is used as a cover for CIA agents. He replied that he did not, but he went on to state that many missionaries are later recruited to CIA work. He felt that the missionary program provided good training for CIA agents. The missionaries are taught absolute obedience to authority and many of them learn foreign languages as well.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no38.htm  THIS IS A MUST READ ARTICLE !!!

Advertisements

PROZAC AND THE WATER SUPPLY

And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies — which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public — have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.

“We recognize it is a growing concern and we’re taking it very seriously,” said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

YA GOTTA SEE THIS:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_us/pharmawater_i

The Hidden Jesus

The Lost Years of Jesus:
 

The Life of Saint Issa
 

Translation by Notovitch http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

The Best of the Sons of Men

  • Ancient scrolls reveal that Jesus spent seventeen years in India and Tibet
  • From age thirteen to age twenty-nine, he was both a student and teacher of Buddhist and Hindu holy men
  • The story of his journey from Jerusalem to Benares was recorded by Brahman historians
  • Today they still know him and love him as St. Issa. Their ‘buddha’ In 1894 Nicolas Notovitch published a book called The Unknown Life of Christ. He was a Russian doctor who journeyed extensively throughout Afghanistan, India, and Tibet. Notovitch journeyed through the lovely passes of Bolan, over the Punjab, down into the arid rocky land of Ladak, and into the majestic Vale of Kashmir of the Himalayas. During one of his jouneys he was visiting Leh, the capital of Ladak, near where the buddhist convent Himis is. He had an accident that resulted in his leg being broken. This gave him the unscheduled opportunity to stay awhile at the Himis convent. Notovitch learned, while he was there, that there existed ancient records of the life of Jesus Christ. In the course of his visit at the great convent, he located a Tibetan translation of the legend and carefully noted in his carnet de voyage over two hundred verses from the curious document known as “The Life of St. Issa.”

    He was shown two large yellowed volumes containing the biography of St. Issa. Notovitch enlisted a member of his party to translate the Tibetan volumes while he carefully noted each verse in the back pages of his journal.

    When he returned to the western world there was much controversy as to the authenticity of the document. He was accused of creating a hoax and was ridiculed as an imposter. In his defense he encouraged a scientific expedition to prove the original tibetan documents existed.

    One of his skeptics was Swami Abhedananda. Abhedananda journeyed into the arctic region of the Himalayas, determined to find a copy of the Himis manuscript or to expose the fraud. His book of travels, entitled Kashmir O Tibetti, tells of a visit to the Himis gonpa and includes a Bengali translation of two hundred twenty-four verses essentially the same as the Notovitch text. Abhedananda was thereby convinced of the authenticity of the Issa legend.

    Map of Jesus’s eastern travels
    Source: Summit University Press
    In 1925, another Russian named Nicholas Roerich arrived at Himis. Roerich, was a philosopher and a distinguished scientist. He apparently saw the same documents as Notovitch and Abhedananda. And he recorded in his own travel diary the same legend of St. Issa. Speaking of Issa, Roerich quotes legends which have the estimated antiquity of many centuries.

    … He passed his time in several ancient cities of India such as Benares. All loved him because Issa dwelt in peace with Vaishas and Shudras whom he instructed and helped. But the Brahmins and Kshatriyas told him that Brahma forbade those to approach who were created out of his womb and feet. The Vaishas were allowed to listen to the Vedas only on holidays and the Shudras were forbidden not only to be present at the reading of the Vedas, but could not even look at them.Issa said that man had filled the temples with his abominations. In order to pay homage to metals and stones, man sacrificed his fellows in whom dwells a spark of the Supreme Spirit. Man demeans those who labor by the sweat of their brows, in order to gain the good will of the sluggard who sits at the lavishly set board. But they who deprive their brothers of the common blessing shall be themselves stripped of it.Vaishas and Shudras were struck with astonishment and asked what they could perform. Issa bade them “Worship not the idols. Do not consider yourself first. Do not humiliate your neighbor. Help the poor. Sustain the feeble. Do evil to no one. Do not covet that which you do not possess and which is possessed by others.”

    Many, learning of such words, decided to kill Issa. But Issa, forewarned, departed from this place by night.

    Afterward, Issa went into Nepal and into the Himalayan mountains ….

    “Well, perform for us a miracle,” demanded the servitors of the Temple. Then Issa replied to them: “Miracles made their appearance from the very day when the world was created. He who cannot behold them is deprived of the greatest gift of life. But woe to you, enemies of men, woe unto you, if you await that He should attest his power by miracle.”

    Issa taught that men should not strive to behold the Eternal Spirit with one’s own eyes but to feel it with the heart, and to become a pure and worthy soul….

    “Not only shall you not make human offerings, but you must not slaughter animals, because all is given for the use of man. Do not steal the goods of others, because that would be usurpation from your near one. Do not cheat, that you may in turn not be cheated ….

    “Beware, ye, who divert men from the true path and who fill the people with superstitions and prejudices, who blind the vision of the seeing ones, and who preach subservience to material things. “…

    Then Pilate, ruler of Jerusalem, gave orders to lay hands upon the preacher Issa and to deliver him to the judges, without however, arousing the displeasure of the people.

    But Issa taught: “Do not seek straight paths in darkness, possessed by fear. But gather force and support each other. He who supports his neighbor strengthens himself

    “I tried to revive the laws of Moses in the hearts of the people. And I say unto you that you do not understand their true meaning because they do not teach revenge but forgiveness. But the meaning of these laws is distorted.”

    Then the ruler sent to Issa his disguised servants that they should watch his actions and report to him about his words to the people.

    “Thou just man, “said the disguised servant of the ruler of Jerusalem approaching Issa, “Teach us, should we fulfill the will of Caesar or await the approaching deliverance?”

    But Issa, recognizing the disguised servants, said, “I did not foretell unto you that you would be delivered from Caesar; but I said that the soul which was immersed in sin would be delivered from sin.”

    At this time, an old woman approached the crowd, but was pushed back. Then Issa said, “Reverence Woman, mother of the universe,’ in her lies the truth of creation. She is the foundation of all that is good and beautiful. She is the source of life and death. Upon her depends the existence of man, because she is the sustenance of his labors. She gives birth to you in travail, she watches over your growth. Bless her. Honor her. Defend her. Love your wives and honor them, because tomorrow they shall be mothers, and later-progenitors of a whole race. Their love ennobles man, soothes the embittered heart and tames the beast. Wife and mother-they are the adornments of the universe.”

    “As light divides itself from darkness, so does woman possess the gift to divide in man good intent from the thought of evil. Your best thoughts must belong to woman. Gather from them your moral strength, which you must possess to sustain your near ones. Do not humiliate her, for therein you will humiliate yourselves. And all which you will do to mother, to wife, to widow or to another woman in sorrow-that shall you also do for the Spirit.”

    So taught Issa; but the ruler Pilate ordered one of his servants to make accusation against him.

    Said Issa: “Not far hence is the time when by the Highest Will the people will become purified and united into one family.”

    And then turning to the ruler, he said, “Why demean thy dignity and teach thy subordinates to live in deceit when even without this thou couldst also have had the means of accusing an innocent one?”

    From another version of the legend, Roerich quotes fragments of thought and evidence of the miraculous.

    Near Lhasa was a temple of teaching with a wealth of manuscripts. Jesus was to acquaint himself with them. Meng-ste, a great sage of all the East, was in this temple. Finally Jesus reached a mountain pass and in the chief city of Ladak, Leh, he was joyously accepted by monks and people of the lower class …. And Jesus taught in the monasteries and in the bazaars (the market places); wherever the simple people gathered–there he taught.Not far from this place lived a woman whose son had died and she brought him to Jesus. And in the presence of a multitude, Jesus laid his hand on the child, and the child rose healed. And many brought their children and Jesus laid his hands upon them, healing them.

    Among the Ladakis, Jesus passed many days, teaching them. And they loved him and when the time of his departure came they sorrowed as children.

    Click here to read ‘The Life of Saint Issa’ Translation by Notovitch


    Chapters
    Introduction | I-V | VI-VIII | IX-XI | XII-XIV

    Research Links

  • The Aquarian Gospel of Christ
  • The Lost Years of Jesus, Heart magazine, Spring 1983
  • Excerpt from Chapter 4 of In Search of the Loving God
  • Re-examination of the “Lost Years” evidence
  • Nicolas Notovitch
  • The Missing Years of Jesus (Urantia Book)
  • Tibetan Gospel
  • The Life of Saint Issa
  • Jesus’ Missing Years (Opposing View)
  • The Jesus of the New Age Movement (Opposing View)
  • Christian Research Journal (Opposing View)
  • Did Jesus go to India? (Opposing View)
  • The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus’ 17-Year Journey to the East
  • The Lost Years of Jesus

    Related Links

  • Traditions of Jesus
  • Tomb of Jesus Website
  • Jesus Messiah, Isha Masih, Issa Mashiha, Hazrat Issa, Yuzu Asaph, Yesu, Esus
  • Where did Jesus go?
  • Jesus lived in India
  • Did Jesus survive the crucifixion?
  • Jesus in India
  • The Crucifixion of Jesus in View of Muslim Theology
  • Qur’an does not categorically say; Jesus was substituted with another man
  • Jesus in the Quran and Bible
  • Jesus(pbuh): Dead or Alive?

    Really wild stuff

  • The Talmud of Jmmanuel
  • Parents: The Tough Decision To Homeschool Just Got Easier

     

    Monsanto U: Agribusiness’s Takeover of Public Schools

     

    By Nancy Scola, AlterNet
    Posted on February 15, 2008, Printed on February 15, 2008
    http://www.alternet.org/story/76804/

    I’ve startled a bug scientist. “Yeah, now I’m nervous,” said Mike Hoffmann, a Cornell University entomologist and crop specialist who spends his days with cucumber beetles and small wasps. But he’s also in charge of keeping the research funding flowing at Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. What have I done to alarm him? I’ve drawn his attention to the newly released FY 2009 Presidential Budget.

    Like more than a hundred public institutions of higher learning, Cornell is what’s known as a “land grant.” Dotting the United States from Ithaca, N.Y., to Pullman, Wash., such schools were established by a Civil War-era act of Congress to provide universities centered around, “the agriculture and mechanic arts.” Congress handed each U.S. state a chunk of federal land to be sold for start-up monies, and for the last 150 years, it has funded ground-breaking research on all things agriculture, from dirt to crops to cattle.

    The land-grant system has been, in short, a high-yield investment. The scientific research that has come out of land-grant labs and fields have aided millions of farmers and fed millions of Americans. And the land-grant reach doesn’t stop at ocean’s edge. Oklahoma State, the Sooner State’s land grant, says that the public funding of land-grant research “has benefited every man, woman and child in the United States and much of the world.”

    That was until America’s land-grant system met George W. Bush. Tucked into the appendix of his latest national budget is a nearly one-third cut in the public funding for agriculture research at the land grants. The size of the cut is surprising, but not its existence — it’s part of a multiyear drive by the Bush administration to completely eliminate regular public research funding. In a press briefing last week, a USDA deputy secretary illuminated the Bush administration’s rationale for the transition to competitive grant making: “That’s how you get the most bang for the buck.”

    Wallace Huffman, an Iowa State agro-economist, is deeply unimpressed with Bush’s “bang” approach to land-grant research. “There’s a sense in the president’s office that you invest in research like you invest in building cars,” Huffman told me last week. Land-grant school officials are similarly skeptical. In a survey, Kansas State argued that the loss of regular funding would upend education. Minnesota complained that cuts would undermine ongoing research projects. North Dakota simply asked, “What is the future of ag research?”

    Good question. A reasonable answer? The future of agricultural research at America’s land-grant institutions belongs to biotech conglomerates like Monsanto. And it seems likely that it’s a future of chemical-dependent, genetically modified, bio-engineered agriculture.

    In stark contrast to how the federal government and many states are wallowing in red ink, the St. Louis-based Monsanto boasted more than $7 billion in annual sales in 2007 — simply the latest in four years of record-smashing profits. And so when our president says that the time has come for public land-grant institutions to get cracking at “leveraging nonfederal resources,” you can be sure that Monsanto’s ears perk.

    But, it doesn’t take a presidential invitation to get Monsanto to sink its roots in the land-grant system. Those roots are already planted. Iowa State’s campus boasts a Monsanto Auditorium and the school offers students Monsanto-funded graduate fellowships on seed policy with a special focus on “the protection of intellectual property rights.” Kansas State has spun off Wildcat Genetics, a side company whose purpose is the selling of soybean seeds genetically engineered to survive the application of Roundup® — the result of a decades long relationship with Monsanto, the pesticide’s maker.

    But don’t get the wrong idea about Monsanto’s land-grant activities. By that, I mean, don’t think the company is the only multinational biotech conglomerate firmly rooted in American land-grant soil.

    Head on down to Texas A&M. There you’ll find the a chair for the “Dow Chemical Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering.” Similar chairs exist at West Virginia State and Louisiana State. The agricultural college of the University of California at Davis is funded in part by DuPont and Calgene.

    The University of California at Berkeley’s Plant and Microbiology Department entered into a $25 million/five-year quasi-exclusive research agreement with the Swiss-based Novartis, which then became Syngenta, which now funds the land-grant research group on soybean fungi. In 2005, Purdue, Indiana’s land-grant school, developed an application of the so-called Terminator gene pioneered by Delta Pine and Land Co.; school officials and researchers later took to the hustings when the public resisted the idea of self-sterilizing plants.

    But the agricultural industry’s relationship with the land-grant system is not an entirely new development. In 1973, former Texas agricultural commissioner and activist Jim Hightower lamented the situation in his landmark report, Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The Failure of America’s Land Grant College Complex.

    But the world of agriculture is today a far, far different place than when Hightower wrote.

    For one thing, in the early 1970s Monsanto was still a decade away from genetically modifying its very first plant cell. For another, back then the federal government was still committed to providing steady research funding.

    And, importantly, it was neither possible nor profitable for our nation’s bastions of higher learning to be players in the global agribusiness. But intervening tectonic shifts in American public policy help us to understand why a public institution like Purdue would fight so darn hard to defend a biotech advance like the Terminator gene: in a manner of speaking, they own the thing.

    Jump ahead to 1980, when the U.S. Supreme Court under Warren Burger decided that, as long as they’d been tweaked from their natural state, living organisms from seeds to microbes or Terminator genes could be patented just as if they were a new cotton gin or tractor blade. And in that same year, Congress gave universities a kick towards the marketplace by encouraging institutions to file patent claims on the discoveries and inventions of their faculty researchers — no matter if their work was funded in whole or in part by taxpayer dollars.

    The summed effect was that, suddenly, a public institution like Purdue had a great deal of motivation for working with Delta Pine and Land Co. to see if they might make a buck off their biotech invention in the marketplace. What’s more, the policy shift made it so individual lab geeks themselves stood to profit, eligible for a large slice of whatever windfall their discovery generated.

    As the biotech industry has since exploded, the impact on the land-grant system is perhaps not unexpected. “Researchers want to be at both the cutting edge of science and the cutting edge of the marketplace,” says Andrew Neighbour, until recently the director of UCLA’s office on the business applications of faculty research. (The entire University of California system functions as that state’s “land-grant institution.”) And so the advent of patentable and profitable plants (and animals, for that matter) has meant a shift in research focus away new knowledge and towards the creation of marketable products.

    The land-grant institutions find themselves in a pickle. “On the one hand,” says Paul Gepts, professor of agronomy and plant genetics at UC Davis, schools pushed into the free market have developed the habit of patenting research and found a taste for private business deals. But on the other hand, “they have a public role where the information they produce should be available to all.”

    As things stand, “public universities,” says Dr. Gepts, “are a contradiction.”

    This embrace of patents and profits means that land-grant agricultural research centers today are not playgrounds of academic collaboration they once were. “Things have changed enormously,” says William Folk, a plant geneticist at the University of Missouri. “When I started in the ’70s,” he recalls fondly, “meetings were filled with people criticizing each other and sharing ideas.” But today, he says “if you have an idea that has any potential commercial value, you’re reluctant to share.”

    Not surprisingly, school administrators argue that a negative reading of the cozy relationship between agricultural researchers and biotech corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta is hogwash. When asked, Neal Van Alfen, dean of the UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, acknowledges that about 20 percent of the $165 million annual research budget is contributed by industry. But Dean Van Alfen is quick to add, “It forms just one part of who we work with.” Research conducted in conjunction with industry interests, he insists, is simply one chunk of “an awfully large amount of work.”

    But numbers and percentages don’t tell the whole story, because of the way that industry engages in the land-grant system. In short, they skim. Here’s how it works: (a) federal and state governments hand over taxpayer money to build and sustain the basic infrastructure, without which research can’t hope to take place, then (b) the biotech industry injects some smaller amount of much-needed cash into the system, and then (c) agribusinesses skim off and patent the most promising (and potentially profitable) discoveries that rise to the top.

    Still, administrators argue, scientific professionalism keeps industry in check — a researcher who fudges his or her findings to curry industry favor is in for a short career. But that line of reasoning misses the real concern. What’s alarming isn’t that global agribusiness conglomerates like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and DuPont are getting the answers they want from our land-grant entomologists, agronomists and plant geneticists.

    It’s that at public institutions, private interests are the ones asking the questions.

    What must be kept in mind is that land-grant researchers are generally expected to bring to the table their own research funding, and the situation can already be fairly dire. When UC Davis’ Paul Gepts comments on how his institution’s support is limited to a base salary, I attempt a lame joke: “They give you a desk too, right?” Yes, he responds, but a phone is another matter.

    Faculty researchers are so hungry for funding that, says Missouri’s William Folk, “if companies want to entice researchers to work on their projects, all they have to do is wave a bit of money.” “The availability of funds, he says, “makes an enormous difference in what we can do.”

    “We’re opportunists,” Folk says, with compassion, of himself and his fellow researchers, “we go after money where it might be.”

    When it comes to how industry-university relations shape academic research, UCLA’s Andrew Neighbour is the person to talk to. While an administrator at Washington University in St. Louis, Neighbour managed the school’s landmark multiyear and multimillion-dollar relationship with Monsanto. (Note: WashU is a private institution.) “There’s no question that industry money comes with strings,” Neighbour admits. “It limits what you can do, when you can do it, who it has to be approved by.”

    And so the issue at hand becomes one of the questions that are being asked at public land-grant schools. While Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, et al., are paying the bills, are agricultural researchers going to pursue such lines of scientific inquiry as “How will this new corn variety impact the independent New York farmer?” Or, “Will this new tomato make eaters healthier?”

    It seems far more likely that the questions that multinational biotech conglomerates are willing to pay to have answered run along the lines of “How can we keep growing our own bottom lines?”

    I put it to Dr. Folk. “The companies are there to make money, no doubt,” he responds.

    What suffers for falling outside the scope of industry interest? Organic farming, for one. The Organic Farming Research Foundation was founded in the 1980s after, Executive Director Bob Scowcroft tells me, farmers interested in weaning themselves from chemical dependence approached their local land-grant outreach agents for help for pest management. As Scowcroft tells it, their advice was invariably in the spirit of, “Well, sure, I can tell you what to spray.”

    OFRF began arming land-grant researchers with modest grants but found that academics interested in conducting organic-related research faced obstacles beyond funding.

    “Coming out of the organic closet could be the beginning of the end of your career,” says Scowcroft. Looking outside biotech agriculture is, he says, “like throwing 30 years of the Green Revolution in your boss’s face.” Today, says John Reganold, an OFRF grantee and apple researcher at Washington State University, academics interested in organic farming “just don’t have the money to do what we need to do.”

    Also the subject of minimal industry attention: so-called orphan crops, like sorghum and cassava, which feed millions of people in the developing world but aren’t considered patentable or profitable. UC Davis’ Paul Gepts is working to breed a disease-resistant variety of the East African common bean, an important protein source for AIDS sufferers. He’s turned to an English charitable group for funding, and all involved have agreed to resist patenting the plant — once a useful variety is developed, the science will be left in the public domain.

    While it’s clear that funding cash is the carrot used by agribusiness to entice researchers into asking the questions industry is most interested in having answered, there is a stick involved: corporately held patents used to block them from asking others.

    That’s certainly been Paul Gepts’s experience, when he thought he might tackle the question of gene transfer in Mexican maize varieties. The question, though, is a sensitive one for Monsanto, as one of the arguments against transgenic crops is the difficulty in containing their spread — raising the specter of a threat to the world’s biodiversity. As the maize he was interested in was patented by Monsanto, Gepts asked the company for some samples. Their response: no way.

    When I asked Gepts for his take on Monsanto’s motivation for the refusal, I hadn’t yet finished the question when he answered: “Avoiding scrutiny,” he said. Missouri’s Folk seconds the contention that such private claims on science impede research, saying, “Our ability to do science is constrained by the patents held by agribusiness.”

    All this said, it’s not fair to say that there hasn’t been resistance against public land-grant schools mutating into institutions of private science. After Novartis had become involved in UC Berkeley’s Department of Plant and Microbiology, the school ordered an internal review by the academic senate, which ultimately deemed the relationship “a mistake.” Lawrence Busch, a Berkeley faculty member who headed the review said at its conclusion: “I think it is high time for serious discussions of what the devil we want our universities to be.”

    When Mike Hoffmann — the Cornell entomologist I startled by sharing Bush’s proposed budget cuts — recovers from his shock, he offers his take on “what the devil” our universities should be. The principle that should guide Cornell, Berkeley, Missouri and our other land-grant institutions is simple, he says: public funding for the public good. The mission of America’s centers of agricultural learning is, he concludes, “to produce new knowledge for the public benefit. That’s why we have the land-grant system, and I think it’s pretty important.”

    Nancy Scola is a Brooklyn-based writer who has in the past served as the chief blogger at Air America, an aide to former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, as he explored a run for the presidency, and a congressional staffer on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

    © 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
    View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/76804/

    Learn how to do the numbers (free) on MP3

    If you want to know how to do the numbers: I have 3 free MP3’s here. Listen and learn :  http://www.esnips.com/web/jcn

     It’s easy.   Double check your work. I do, but sometimes, things can still go wrong.

    Begin with your own name.

    English alphaBET

    A=1

    B = 2

    Begin with your own name.

    J    E   S   U  S

    10  5  19   21  19

     29  h

    74  v 

    103  hv

    same as Mormon – using the backwards alphabet.

    BUT, using the backwards alphabet:

    WHICH NUMBER REPRESENTS JESUS CHRIST = 666

    BWA      z= 1      y =2        x = 3    etc.

    The backwards alphabet string WHICH NUMBER REPRESENTS   is

    133    304    437      keep this

    Who would have benefitted from Reagan’s assassination?

    Assassination attempt

    On March 30, 1981, only 69 days into the new administration, Reagan, his press secretary James Brady, and two others were struck by gunfire from a deranged would-be assassin, John Hinckley, Jr. Missing Reagan’s heart by less than one inch[66] the bullet instead pierced his left lung, causing it to collapse.[66]

    Interesting that the last name of the shooter was Hinckley. Since the Leader of the Mormon church, who just died, was named Hinckley.  Why this is interesting is because of the very close relationship Bush Sr. and Jr. has with Mormons. And President Hinckley aligns exactly with WHO IS THE ANTICHRIST.

    I have come to learn the importance of names. It’s all about names. So, I ask this question, because had Reagan died, Bush would have been President sooner. 

    We have the benefit of looking back on the Bush’s reign to ponder if this is something worth questioning.

    This happened on 3/30    (the sig of 330 is very powerful)

    330 strings

    united states of america  330 hv

    twenty three hundred  (2300)  330  vh    BUSH = 23 h

    2300 hours  ?

    who worships satan = 330  hv

    the death of the human body  = 330  hv

    No, I am NOT saying he had Reagan shot.

    Just an odd thing is all.

    PRESIDENT   56 h   110 v    166  hv

    RONALD REAGAN   56  h   110 v    166 hv

    This is unusual in Jesus Christ Numerology. Stay tuned.

    Thou Shall Not Kill (the exceptions)

    Except for when we need a reason to go to war with Iraq. 

    Except for when we are fighting for oil (and dominion)  in Iraq.

    Except when women and childen get in the way of killing while fighting for oil in Iraq.

    Except when voting systems need to be adjusted so we can stay and kill in Iraq.

    Except when there is a lot of money at stake.

    Who wrote those darn commandments anyway ???????????