GMO GENIE Part IV – The Great Divide

My freshman Sociology professor was a mix between Sarumon- (the evil wizard from J.R. Tolkien’s ”The Lord of the Rings” trilogy), and Freddy Kruger.  His reputation for baiting naïve freshmen into open debate just so he could slice them to pieces with his superior intellect and advanced debating skills was legendary.  I’ll never forget that first day of class when the “good” teacher wrote the following words across the blackboard:

THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS!

Sarumon the White – From the film vesion of J.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

When this firebrand of a teacher exclaimed in his booming voice that, “THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS!” and demanded a show of hands of anybody who dared disagree, I sat there just like all the other 90+ students in the lecture hall, churning inside, but too damn scared to raise my hand to voice opposition.

The man’s shoulder length silver hair and matching beard were a common sight on campus.  He shunned automobiles and rode his bicycle everywhere he went.  This professor was an outspoken practitioner of Wicca and well known for his radical environmental views.  Back in those days, (1975), I had no qualms with the professor’s worldview and certainly none for his chosen mode of transportation. I was an agnostic myself and already a very passionate environmentalist.

As the professor scanned the room looking for victims, our eyes met just for a moment, and then I immediately looked down at my feet hoping he wouldn’t notice me.  I could feel his piercing black eyes penetrating my soul as he sized up the flock.  I wanted to raise my hand in the worst way, but I also didn’t want to be made to look like a fool in front of the entire class, especially on the first day of the new semester.   Not surprisingly, no one in the entire class raised their hand. The professor looked disdainfully about the room and said, “I thought so.”  I don’t remember anything else the man said or taught for the rest of the semester.

After that experience I promised myself that whenever the opportunity presented itself, even though I lacked training in the fine art of debating, or possessed an inferior intellect compared to those I disagreed with, or fell short in the required academic credentialing, I was never going to remain silent and let someone tell me that up was really down, and wrong was really right.  And that included anyone who called themselves an “expert” or went around parading a long list of titles or academic credentials.

I have learned that the Bible is true, God is real, and He has given us His Son, so that “whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”  [John 3:16]    I hang my hat on the fact that God will direct my steps, if I am willing, paying attention, obedient, and not blinded by my own desires.  As I have written in the first three segments of GMO GENIE, I hold a contrary position regarding Genetically Modified Organisms from that espoused by Dr. Calvin Beisner and the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

The theological debate regarding GMO’s centers on several factors, including the definition of “stewardship”, “dominion”, “good”, “evil”, and the ultimate purposes and goals of GM technology.  Cornwall Alliance claims that man has a “dominion mandate”, indeed, a moral obligation and stewardship responsibility to create new organisms by combining genes from different “kinds” of living creatures in the laboratory to produce stronger crops, increase yields, and “reduce the effects of the curse”.   Yet many professing Christians find the creation of these new chimeras abhorrent.

There are many ways to strengthen crops and produce higher yields without GM technology.  Man has developed all sorts of techniques and tools to make life safer, more pleasant, more productive, and last longer.  The debate is NOT about doing things that help us live in this fallen world.  The debate is about doing a specific thing that many people, and especially many Christians, believe that mankind has not been mandated by God to do and which could ultimately prove catastrophic. The debate is not just about the principle of re-making the plants and animals that God originally created by combining genetic material from different life forms in the laboratory, but it is about the wisdom of creating such organisms in the first place.  Once created, it then becomes a matter of judging the “product” itself. [See Matthew 7:20]

Reviewing all the arguments for and against GM as posted on the Cornwall Facebook page reveals that the conversation between opposing viewpoints can quickly devolve into what the apostle Paul described in 1 Timothy as “vain babblings”, arguments over cost benefit analysis, real or imagined effects, and other issues. One thing becomes very clear-  the GM process when looked at holistically involves many evils, including convincing, bribing, or intimidating individuals and governments to go along with the idea of releasing new patented creations into the environment, and then requiring nearly everyone on earth to purchase and consume them.  Cornwall’s position that GMO’s are a legitimate expression of man’s dominion mandate provides a cover of morality, not just to those seeking privatization and a government/corporate monopoly on food production, but for nearly anything else that man can conceive of doing.

Please note, as has been discussed previously, we aren’t talking about making stronger pea plants through the hybridization of similar kinds.  We are talking about incorporating genetic material from vastly different species in new and unique ways that are then controlled by patents requiring a legal obligation on the part of the grower.  With the simultaneous planned elimination of alternative seed choices, the farmer has little option but to comply.

[See:  http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-5978152.html]

In discussing GMO’s on Cornwall’s Facebook page, only two individuals raised their hands to argue against GM technology.  Outgunned by professional chemists and industry insiders led by Dr. Beisner, an expert debator and professor of “logic”,  we stood our ground.  The Cornwall folks did provide reasonable answers to many of the specific points and concerns we raised, but ignored the thornier issues concerning human rights, food freedom, and specific criticisms leveled at their Theological Framework for Evaluating Genetically Modified Food.

Beneath the word “stewardship” as Cornwall defines it,  lies the acquisition of influence, authority, power, control, and dominion over every aspect of creation.  At one point in the debate, I pointed out that had the Nazi’s won WW II, we would have been much further along with the creation of GMO’s than we are today.  One of the Cornwall folks responded to my NAZI comparison by pointing out that, “It was the Nazi’s ethics that were different, not their logic; and they certainly didn’t “elevate” logic.”

There may be a difference between the “ethics” of Nazi eugenics and somebody’s definition of “godly” genetic engineering, but the rationalizations for, and even some of the underlying goals of today’s GM technologies, are exactly the same as those crudely employed sixty years ago.  If there is indeed a line that the NAZI’s crossed that we shouldn’t cross, I think those researchers in Great Britain who just a few years ago admitted to having created ‘para-humans’ and animal-human ‘chimeras” should hear about it.  Somebody should explain where the ethical boundary line is to SENOMYX, a company that has been utilizing the cloned cells from aborted fetuses as a test medium for flavor enhancement ingredients found in consumer food products sitting on store shelves right next to the GM products.

Cornwall says they don’t support the genetic modification of humans. Such a statement is not just arbitrary, it is basically meaningless since genetic modification and experimentation of human DNA has been underway for quite some time.  Their shaky theological framework in support of genetically modified organisms provides an open door for the acceptance of all sorts of unimaginable GM technologies, including transhumanism.  All “ethical” bets are off when it comes to finding new and innovative ways to reduce “the effects of the curse.”

Christian love is born of unity in the Spirit.  And unity of the Spirit comes from God. When we hold opposing worldviews, or cannot agree on the purposes for which we have been created, then there cannot be unity.  Opposing opinions regarding GMO’s are growing more passionate on both sides.  Pro GM theocrats are creating a massive stumbling block for people of conscience who simply aren’t buying the propaganda put forth by an elite cadre of scientists and self-appointed theologians.  To assume that such a growing divide can be bridged by skilled arguments, peer persuasion, or the sheer force of “logic”, is the height of arrogance.  For such are the tactics of our adversary.

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with the. Amen. “  [I Tim  6:20-21]

“If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.”   [Philippians 2:1-2]

Man’s pursuit of GMO’s will ultimately be judged by God as either wise or foolish.  He will either be pleased with what we have done, or He will not.  There are no shades of gray regarding “good” or “evil” in this debate.

GMO GENIE Part 3 – Dominion Unshackled

Institutionalized slavery has existed in one form or another for thousands of years, and still exists in some Muslim countries today.  Slavery arises when men believe they have the right and/or are endowed with the moral authority to assert dominion over another human being.

Examples of slavery, or bondage, are widespread throughout both the old and new testaments.  Leviticus 25:39-46 lays out the specific rules for the treatment of gentile slaves and Jewish “bondservants”.   The scriptures are full of examples, rules, and warnings regarding the mistreatment of those in servitude by their “masters”.   Another scripture commonly used to support a theological basis for the subjugation of others is Genesis 9:25, where Noah, angered over the shameful actions of one of his own sons, exclaimed, “Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” 

It should be noted that several Christian denominations and pseudo-Christian cults rationalized enslaving black skinned Africans on the false premise that dark skin is the proverbial “mark of Cain”, and that those who bore such a mark were cursed and deserved to be kept in bondage.  Of course this claim cannot be supported by any sound reading of the scripture.  In fact, the whole notion that Jesus was a blue-eyed auburn-haired “Aryan” is a purely European construct.  There is plenty of evidence suggesting that the Jews of Jesus day, and quite likely Jesus himself, although not “black” in the racial sense, likely had darker skin, darker eyes, and much darker (and shorter) hair than is commonly portrayed in Euro-centric art or Hollywood movies.

In the New Testament,  Paul’s letter to Philemon provides proof that Christian believers also owned slaves.  In fact, Paul’s letter revolves around the close relationship he forms with one of Philemon’s runaway slaves, a man named Onesimus.  But the fact that even Christians were slave owners does not mean that the scriptures, in principle, should be used to support the concept of slavery, or that the slave system is a biblical model we should follow.  Using the scriptures to support genetic engineering and the creation of new mixed-up life forms is like arguing that slavery, in principle, is permissible because although God set limits and rules, He did not specifically forbid the practice. In many instances, man has treated the natural world, not as a garden created by God that man has been directed to “dress and keep” [Gen. 2:15], but as a slave he is empowered to dominate.

Even though many of the founders of this nation were slave owners, no one in his right mind would argue that the U.S. Constitution, in principle, supports slavery.  Using the Bible to support the practice is equally absurd since the entire focus of the scriptures is not to provide man with the authority to practice unlimited dominion over other men, (or unlimited dominion over nature), but to point man to the Redeemer, the ONE who has the authority and power to free mankind from the “curse” of sin and death and rescue us from SPIRITUAL BONDAGE!

To this end, the Apostle Paul specifically tells Philemon to accept his former slave (Onesimus), a new Christian convert, as an equal.  “Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?”  [1:16]   Not only does Paul refer to Onesimus as a “brother”, but he also refers to him as “my son”. [vs.1:10]  For those who are in Christ Jesus there is no longer any division based on race or class distinction.

So how does this relate to GMO’s?  Well, in Great Britain researchers working through genetic engineering have created hybrids called “para-humans” or human-animal “chimeras”.  Bioethicists (the so-called ”theologians” of science) are debating over whether or not at some point such creations have a “soul”, or are deserving of the same human rights as the rest of us.  Many are warning that creating a new species of para-human for the purposes of scientific experimentation is immoral, on par, or even worse, than institutionalized slavery.

The precedent for altering the genetic make up of creation and/or abusing human life for the purposes of testing new products and/or experimentation is a GENIE that escaped from the bottle years ago.  The mapping of the human genome was completed in 2003 and immediately hailed as a triumph of progress.  Genetic engineering promised miraculous cures and immeasurable benefits.  Stem cell research became the new buzz word.  All moral restraint was cast aside as bio-tech companies such as SENOMYX began experimentation with cloned human fetal cells derived from abortions in order to test chemical flavor enhancers for potential use in a variety of consumer food products including Pepsi diet beverages and Nestle coffee creamers.   The University of Washington filled over 4,500 orders for these cloned aborted fetal cell lines in 2010 alone.   To some, dominion means there are absolutely no limits standing in the way of the advancement of science.

The emerging field of transhumanism was born out of the utopian potential promised by unshackled dominion over nature:  

“[Transhumanism] promotes an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology.  Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.”

http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/genetic.html

Credit: DNA Stockphoto/David Marchal

Researchers working on manipulation of the human genome use the same rationale that those working on GM crops use, namely that the promise of the betterment of mankind through genetic engineering outweighs any concerns that a few “mistakes” might be made along the way.  Indeed, wouldn’t it be wonderful to eradicate starvation or disease by genetically creating a new “super man” or a new “super food” in the laboratory?   Transhumanism promises its adherents that they will be able to (eventually) defeat the aging process, overcome death and disease, and ultimately eliminate “the effects of the curse”.   Transgenic plants are being created using the same “dominion” principle and false promises as the creation of transgenic humans.  New GM crops are advertised as having the power to defeat insect pests, ”end starvation”, and provide unlimited and sustainable nutrition for the world’s growing population.  The belief that man can not only improve creation, but re-make it in his own image, is the driving force behind such genetic modifications.

The entire notion of the “advancement” of mankind is at play here.  In their misguided search to derive theological principles from the Bible to support genetic engineering, Dr. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, and Jordan Ballor in a recent Cornwall newsletter, argue that dominion over nature trumps stewardship over creation.  Convinced of man’s righteousness (or at least his superiority) and the power to do as he will, such people have focused on the ability to manipulate the created order without regard to the One who created it.  However, when it comes to man’s ability to combine two or more distinct life forms and “create” something entirely new, or that never was, or that should never be, the scriptures are clear.  There is only one God, one Creator, and one supreme Judge of good and evil.

From the Institute for Creation Research comes the following insight:

April 26, 2013 Creation and the Sciences- “So God created man in his own image, in   the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) The first chapter of Genesis is the foundational chapter of the Bible and, therefore, of all true science. It is the great creation chapter, outlining the events of that first   week of time when “the heavens and the earth were finished, and. . . .   God ended his work which he had made” (Genesis 2:1-2). Despite the evolutionists, God is not creating or making anything in the world today (except for special miracles as recorded in Scripture) because all His work was finished in that primeval week. He is now engaged in the work of conserving, or saving, what He first created. There are only three acts of special creation–that is, creation out of nothing except God’s omnipotent word–recorded in this chapter. His other works were those of  “making” or “forming” the created entities into complex, functioning systems. His first creative act was to call into existence the space/mass/time cosmos. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). This is  the domain which we now study in the physical sciences. The second is the   domain of the life sciences. “God created . . . every living creature that moveth” (Genesis 1:21).   It is significant that the “life” principle required a second act of direct creation. It will thus never be possible to describe living systems   solely in terms of physics and chemistry. The third act of creation was that of the image of God in man and woman. The study of human beings is the realm of the human sciences. Our bodies can be analyzed chemically and our living processes biologically, but human behavior can only really be understood in terms of our relation to God, whose image we share. HMM

To arrogantly assume that man has the authority to manipulate and mistreat the very foundations of creation itself, to create, patent, and own new life forms, is something that cannot be pleasing to God.

“And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more.”  [Rev 18:11]

GMO GENIE: Part 2 – Did God really say, “Don’t!”

This series is my attempt to answer those who have used the Bible to demonstrate theological support for the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s).   When considering the Biblically based arguments AGAINST the creation of GMO’s, it’s hard to know just where to begin because there are so many!

In this part of the series I will focus on the first book of the Bible where we read that God created the earth and all the animals and plants after their own “kind”…

“And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.” [Gen. 1:12- KJV]

“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good.”   [Gen. 1:31a]

We also read in the opening chapter of Genesis that God gave man “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”  [Gen. 1:29b] 

We have to agree on a few definitions before we can proceed with a discussion determining if scripture actually supports man’s creation of GMO’s or not. First, the term “create” as used in Genesis means to “bring into existence” while the term “dominion” is defined as having “authority; sovereignty; or ownership.”

It is God who created “every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew…” [Gen. 2:5a]  “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” [Gen. 2:15]

Merriam-Webster defines “stewardship” as: “the conducting, supervising, or managing of things; especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care; i.e. the stewardship of natural resources.”

God’s direction for “dressing and keeping” the garden is where we (humans) derive our stewardship mandate.  There is simply no scriptural support found anywhere in the Bible that directs man to be a “creator” or a “co-creator” with God.  Man has been given dominion over the created world in regards only to “dressing and keeping” it.  The ability and desire to remake creation for our own purposes stems from our fallen nature, or the consequences we have suffered due to our disobedience in eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In defending the theological framework laid out in an article written by Jordan Ballor in support of the principle of genetic engineering published in the April 10, 2013 edition of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Newsletter, Dr. Calvin Beisner acknowledges (but downplays) our God given “stewardship” mandate and focuses his argument instead on man’s “dominion” over nature.  Beisner points out that according to Genesis, the creatures themselves were not specifically prohibited from crossing the so-called “species barrier”, so therefore man is not prohibited, at least in principle, from utilizing methodologies that do just that.

Beisner writes:

“It now becomes apparent that the ‘species barrier’ is something read into the text, not arising from it. DID plants and animals reproduce after their kinds as created? Yes. Were they prohibited (either morally or causatively) from ever doing otherwise? Not so far as the text itself tells us.” [1]

According to Dr. Beisner, the word “kind” (miyn) as used in Genesis does not specifically refer to “species”, but instead may more accurately relate to a higher order of taxonomic classification.   My concordance offers this explanation of the word “kind” as used in Genesis:

“Groups of living organisms belong in the same created “kind” if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new “kind” but a further partitioning of an existing “kind”.”

Dr. Beisner is technically correct that plants and animals are not prohibited from changes to their respective genomes.  In fact such changes are a natural part of the created order, or at least a natural part of a “fallen” order.  New species do in fact come into existence from time to time largely due to isolation and inbreeding, while other species or sub-species become extinct.

This all becomes a moot point as soon as we realize that the manufacturing of GMO’s is not about combining genes from closely related species to create hybrids, but entails mixing up the gene pool between higher taxonomic classifications.  Genetic information is removed from, or lost from particular genomes while new information is gained or added from vastly different lifeforms.

Beisner, and others of like mind, argue that scripture does not, in principle, prohibit man from using the tools he has cleverly invented or the knowledge he has acquired to manipulate genetic codes and/or create new organisms which incorporate genetic material from different “kinds“.  Some of these same folks raise objections to the more disturbing or nefarious purposes of genetic modification programs.   While fooling around with the genes of plants and animals is considered morally acceptable in principle as long as it creates something useful or “good”, the manipulation of the human genome or the creation of animal/human chimeras is strictly off limits. This to me, reeks of hypocrisy and exposes a lack of understanding of what it means to live in a fallen world.

As I read scripture, God alone is referred to as the “creator”.  God alone created everything and declared it to be “very good”.   Man was directed to “dress and keep” that which God had already created.  Yet we have somehow decided that it is our God given right to manipulate everything around us any way that we see fit as long as we can rationalize the practice.   The argument about principle falls apart when we understand that in practice, taking the basic building blocks of life and rearranging them in crazy ways may not result in the betterment of creation or something “good”.   

Let’s just assume for the sake of argument, that man does indeed have the freedom to create new “kinds” of organisms, new mixed up life forms that do not and would never occur in nature without man’s ingenious ability to extract, manipulate, and add genetic information.    What if these new organisms, or chimeras, turn out to be inferior or incredibly harmful to some or all of the established “kinds” that God has created?  Who determines what is “good”?

Concern is growing over newly created GM wheat varieties that are designed to “turn off” the reproductive genes of insects.  Evidence has emerged that this new GM food crop may also turn off the ability of humans to reproduce.  Dr. Jack Heinemann from the University of Canterbury’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety has studied the potential effects of these new GM wheat varieties and has drawn some startling conclusions:

“What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes. The findings are absolutely assured. There is no doubt that these matches exist.”

http://safefoodfoundation.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Heinemann-Expert-Scientific-Opinion.pdf

Professor Judy Carman of Flinders University shares Dr. Heinemann’s concerns:

“If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat—well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five.”

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332822#ixzz296GZsBOg

Some say the creation of GMO’s that can reduce human population or lower fertility levels is great news. Others are worried about where this type of manipulation will end.  Whether this is an unforeseen consequence or an example of a nefarious purpose, either way it exposes the very real danger of creating new organisms in the laboratory and then either having them accidentally escape or purposefully unleashing them into the environment.

Getting back to Genesis, in chapter 3 we read where evil crept in and the “goodness” of the created order was corrupted.  You all know the story.  Because of the sin of disobedience, the environment surrounding man was cursed.  God decreed that man must now toil for his food and deal with “thorns and thistles” (weeds). [Gen. 3:17-19]

God forced man out of the garden of Eden and made him go to work, “to till the ground from whence he was taken”.  [Gen 3:23]  Ask any farmer, rancher or gardener how much work is involved in producing a crop.   Pests, weeds, predators, disease and unfavorable climactic conditions are all factors that make food production difficult.  Hard working folks welcome new methods and new means for making life easier or their labor more productive.

Even a cursory examination of history or comparative religion demonstrates that man has been seeking ways to “reverse the effects of the curse”, attain mastery over life, alter reality and/or affect creation, fulfill his own vision,  or become his own “god”.  So the question Christian believers must answer about GMO’s is this: Does their development help us care for creation and/or promote the Gospel message or do GMO’s have the potential to create a stumbling block for others?

Man has invented all sorts of tools and methodologies to protect himself or make life easier in an often inhospitable world.  We build dams and irrigation channels to bring water to arid lands and quench the thirst of urban dwellers.  We devise medicines and energy sources to make life more comfortable and extend our days.  But messing around with the very building blocks of life through genetic engineering goes far beyond our stewardship mandate of “dressing and keeping” everything God has created.

Consider for a moment the development of vaccines and antibiotics, both of which have saved countless lives over the past hundred and fifty years or so.  However, today we are seeing many unforeseen consequences of the overuse and misuse of antibiotics.  Viruses and bacteria have mutated into many types of “superbugs” that cannot be killed with any known treatment.  Instead of putting our trust in the Biblical teachings regarding quarantine, sanitation, proper nutrition, and healthy and obedient living, masses of people were fooled into relying on the ability of medicine and new technologies to keep them alive.  Even today, signs are posted everywhere telling people to follow the simple OT Biblical instructions to “wash your hands”.   Meanwhile, there are growing concerns over vaccine efficacy, allergic reactions, and potentially life altering and devastating side effects.

Responsible stewardship requires understanding the ecological, social, and economic impacts of our decisions.  To answer the theological question, “Is genetic engineering permissible?”  I would have to say it depends on how you define “genetic engineering”.  I define it is an act of arrogance and rebellion that says to God, “I don’t like the plants and crops you have created and given me. They are not so good. I’m going to fix them, make them better,  and by doing so I can reverse the effects of the curse.”

Granted, others may not see the creation of genetically modified organisms the way I do.  Time will tell if mankind is practicing behaviors and creating the conditions that will lead to an increase in God’s wrath or not.

“Before destruction the heart of man is haughty…”  Proverbs 18:12a

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”  Ecclesiastes 12:13

---

[1] Facebook discussion comment by Dr. Beisner April 12, 12:08 pm.

GMO GENIE – Part 1: Is Monsanto to blame for Bee Colony Collapse Disorder?

Bee – by Maciej Czyżewski
(Photo is in the public domain)

Bees don’t just make honey, they are critical to sustaining life on planet earth.  These tireless workers pollinate over 80 percent of our flowering crops which constitute about one third of everything we eat. Bees are critical to the annual production of some $19 billion dollars worth of crops in the United States.  But a still undiagnosed lethal phenomenon affecting bees called “Colony Collapse Disorder”, or CCD, is causing widespread alarm throughout the agricultural community.

Many people concerned with food quality and food safety are blaming the bee death problem on the overuse of chemical treatments and/or the widespread introduction of genetically modified organisms.  They point out that Monsanto’s MON810 corn technology combines the genes of a corn plant with the genetic material of an insect killing bacterium that may prove harmful to non-targeted species.

Although wind is the primary pollination mechanism for corn, the wind does carry corn pollen and deposit it on many of the flowering plants bees do pollinate. Our food safety and regulatory agencies consider it imperative that any new genetically modified (GM) product that contains insect killing properties be assessed for potential impacts on bee health.

Many people are leery of GM technology and simply do not want to eat genetically modified organisms – especially vegetables and fruits that incorporate genetic material from non-plant species. There is a growing popular uprising calling, not just for additional consumer product labeling (which constitutes informed consent), but the wholesale banning of GM crops.

In 2012, a panel of technology and food safety experts appointed by the Supreme Court of India unanimously recommended that all GM field trials in India should be stopped until certain considerations were met.   Concerns about safety, the monopolization of the food supply, and cross-contamination of traditional non-GM crops are increasing.  For instance, Peru has adopted an outright ban on all GM products primarily because of the threat they pose to locally produced unique crop varieties.  Unfortunately, countries that are resistant to having genetically modified organisms in their food supply, such as France, Poland, Austria, New Zealand, Scotland, Japan, India and Peru, are finding out that the GM genie may be impossible to contain:

“While the ban will curb the planting and importation of GMOs in the country, a test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) at the time of the ban’s implementation found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GM contaminants. ” Research by ASPEC confirms something that Peruvians knew all along: GM foods are on the shelves of our markets and wineries, and consumers buy them and take them into their homes to eat without knowing it.. GMOs are so prevalent in the Americas that it is virtually impossible to truly and completely block them, whether through pollination or being sneaked in as processed foods.”

http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/03/10/peru-passes-monumental-ten-year-ban-on-genetically-engineered-foods/

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13231-peru-approves-10-year-ban-on-gm-crops

Bee colony collapse disorder is likely caused by a combination of factors, however there is a growing body of evidence that certain pesticides or herbicides may play a significant role. Monsanto creates many varieties of Round-Up ready seed, which has led to huge increases in the use of that particular herbicide.  Their MON810 corn, is a patented product which has been heavily marketed throughout the world for more than 16 years. It contains genetic material from Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that produces a chemical that when ingested ruptures the stomach lining of certain types of insects.

http://www.npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf

Companies that produce GM seed technologies are under a legal and ethical obligation to prove that their products are safe.  There are numerous studies showing that Monsanto’s Bt corn is safe for human consumption and has no effect on bees.  But can these studies be trusted?  The fact is, consumer safety often takes a back seat to economic or political expediency.

While Monsanto may have met its legal obligations by submitting MON810 for testing by regulatory agencies and numerous “third parties”, tacit approval of any product with such potentially serious impacts on cultures and the environment should be highly scrutinized and re-examined in light of new research as it becomes available.  There simply is no justifiable reason to push unnecessary and potentially dangerous products through an approval process especially when that process may not be sufficient for the task.

We should also consider the role of duplicity and corruption in the process.  Many high ranking employees staffing U.S. government regulatory agencies swap jobs and end up with lucrative careers in the very corporations they were charged with regulating.  These corporations have huge lobbying budgets, and often provide grants to some of the same “third party” universities and research facilities that end up testing their products.

Here’s how Monsanto describes their GM corn:

“MON810 is an insect-protection corn product developed through the use of biotechnology that was launched in 1996. The product works by enabling corn plants to produce a protein that comes from a naturally-occurring bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis, commonly known as Bt. This protein provides protection against damaging corn borer pests that can significantly impact both yield and quality.”

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/mon810-background-information.aspx

Notice how Monsanto describes the Bt bacteria as “naturally-occurring”, even though the incorporation of Bt genetic material into the maize genome is anything but natural!  Such cross species transgenics would never occur in nature, not even in a million years.  MON810 is a wholly new creation, a patented new life form created in a laboratory.  Its release into the environment should have been handled with much greater concern than this typical rubber stamp from the European Food Safety Authority:

“No potential public health and safety concerns have been identified in the assessment of insect protected corn line MON 810. Based on the data submitted in the present application, food derived from this corn line can be regarded as equivalent to food derived from conventional corn in respect of its composition, safety and end use.”

(Note the qualifier, “based on the data submitted…”  Whose data? What data?)

Yet another study concludes:

“The MON 810 plants have demonstrated effective control of the targeted insect pests in corn field trials since 1993.  The cry 1ab gene has been crossed into commercial corn inbreds to produce hybrids of superior agronomic performance with resistance to lepidopteran insects.  Detailed food, feed, and environmental safety assessments have confirmed the safety of this product and supported the regulatory approval of insect-protected corn line MON 810.”

Click on the link below to read this 2008 Meta-Analysis of 25 safety assessments regarding the effects of MON810 on bees:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2169303/

While the synopsis supports the conclusions of previous studies, it concludes with an admission that the research conducted “in the vast majority of studies to date have been largely limited to the laboratory.”   The authors point out the need for additional large scale field studies since conditions in the field are considerably different and include many factors and “stressors” on bee populations that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory.  However that admission brings to light the problem already mentioned above, which is that for obvious safety reasons, open field studies of GM products have been banned in many countries.  For example, the only country that allows open field studies of GM products in Central America is Honduras.

It is ironic that these researchers point out the need to conduct additional field studies on MON810 twelve years after it was released into the global marketplace.  This is really an astonishing and noteworthy admission considering that two of the meta-study authors, Jian Duan and Joseph Huesing, are Monsanto employees.

Researchers have noted that there is a sub-species of Bt that is deadly to bees. What happens if we discover that the Bt genetic material in Monsanto’s corn or in their Bt cotton, both of which have now been spread over millions of acres around the world, cause mutations that become toxic to bees?  What happens when researchers discover a previously “unknown route of transmission” for a chemical treatment that was previously deemed safe for bees?   What if the “safe” Bt species combines with (fill in the blank) in the field and actually does kill bees or creates some other serious environmental problem?  Will Monsanto simply say, “Oops! Sorry we destroyed the food web causing billions of people to starve”?

In some respects, the introduction of GM products is very similar to the introduction of wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.  People are slowly waking up to the far reaching impacts of these deceitfully marketed introductions.  In both instances the genie has already been let out of the bottle (or the animal transport cage, as the case may be), with potentially irreparable and devastating consequences.

I contend that the public has been hoodwinked into believing “science” has proven something when it has not.  There is no general scientific consensus on the safety of GMO’s.  In fact just the opposite is true.  Here are just some of the conclusions detailed in a report compiled by Michael Antoniou, PhD, molecular genetics and head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London School of Medicine, London UK:

“Genetically modifying crops, which involves the transfer of genes between biologically unrelated species, is not an extension of traditional plant hybridization, but a radical departure which can produce new toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.”

“GM foods have not been adequately safety tested. There has been no long term research, and the few short term studies have been inadequate. In many cases proprietary restrictions put in place by biotech companies like Monsanto have prevented independent research by scientists not connected to the corporations which are making claims about their safety.”

“Animal studies of the effects of GM foods have disclosed clear signs of toxicity– notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.”

“Over 75% of gene modifications are [designed] to increase crop tolerance of herbicides. Where these crops are grown there has been massive increases in herbicide use.”

“Over half of GM crops are engineered to withstand application of Monsanto’s best selling Roundup. Contrary to the company’s claims Roundup is not safe at the levels it is being use, but has been found to be associated with miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer. A public health crisis has occurred in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.”

“There is insufficient evidence that the BT toxin engineered into the plant structure of corn and cotton (whose seeds are used in food oil production) is safe for human consumption. Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials. These toxins have also been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their foetuses.”

“GM crops have not been shown to offer higher crop yields, enhanced nutritional value or greater drought tolerance, as they have been hyped to do. The products of conventional breeding continue to outstrip GM in all of these arenas.”

“Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with environmentally sustainable farming practices, offer a safer, cheaper and more efficient way to ensure global food security than genetic modification.”

To conclude part one, we simply do not know if Monsanto is responsible for the phenomena known as “Bee Colony Collapse Disorder” or not.  But it may be prudent to ban GM crops for at least a decade or more, or until science has proven or dis-proven their safety.  To pretend all is just fine now, when it may not be, could prove fatal.

REWILDING THE INTERIOR – Beware the LCC’s

REWILDING, a.k.a. “Landscape scale conservation”, is now the official policy of the United States Department of Interior.  Removing “GAPS” to biological diversity, and/or eliminating “stressors” on wildlife populations caused by human factors required the establishment of new mechanisms to enable management of natural resources across international boundaries on both public and private land. These mechanisms are now fully operational.

[Author's note:  I've embedded multiple links in this article to allow the reader to do further research, just click on the highlighted text to go to the source documents.]

Some of these mechanisms are:

The National Fish Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy

The North American Intergovernmental Committee on Cooperation for Wilderness and Protected Area Conservation (NAWPA)

Department of Interior’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2016 which establishes regional “Climate Science Centers” and “Landscape Conservation Cooperatives”.

Rural Lands Council.

These giant interlocking pieces are all arms of the same globalist Agenda 21 octopus backed up by the policing authority of President Obama’s EO 13575  which brings in all the Federal heavyweights, including the Department of Defense, Justice, Treasury, Homeland Security and the EPA to form the  Rural Lands Council.    All these bureaucracies are involved in forging partnerships between government and non-governmental organizations to create a near totalitarian governing authority to manage natural resources and control human activity across state and international borders.   Let’s take a closer look at just one of these arms, the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.

To date, some 22 LCC’s have been created by the Federal Government under Secretarial Order No. 3289.

Landscape Conservaton Cooperatives

LCC’s are part of the United States Department of Interior’s PLAN FOR A COORDINATED, SCIENCE-BASED RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON OUR LAND, WATER, and WILDLIFE RESOURCES.    LCC’s are tasked with outlining the necessary steps and creating the bureaucratic authority to manage resources under the pretense of avoiding species extinction in the face of “sweeping landscape change”.   All Department of Interior conservation assessments and management decisions will now be based on GAP Analysis and IUCN protected area categories as well as input from a variety of conservation related non-governmental organizations.

It should be noted that the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) is the worlds largest conservation organization and operates as one of the principle partners helping implement United Nations Millenium Development Goal #7 – “Environmental Sustainability”.   All conservation organizations that matter, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, the Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, and Sierra Club, as well as nearly 2000 other environmental organizations, are members of the IUCN.   [FYI- We are now less than 1000 days away from the 2015 target date set for full implementation of the UN MDG's, otherwise known as "Agenda 21".]

This is what the Department of the Interior says about their new LCC’s:

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs):  The On the Ground Applied Science and Adaptive Management Arm

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives are management-science partnerships that inform integrated resource management actions addressing climate change and other stressors within and across landscapes. They will link science and conservation delivery. Each LCC functions within a specific landscape, but it also will be part of a national, and ultimately, international network. LCCs are true cooperatives, formed and directed by land, water, wildlife and cultural resource managers and interested public and private organizations. Federal, state, tribal, local government and non-governmental management organizations are all invited as partners in their development. Each LCC will be directed by a steering committee representing partners working in that region.

LCCs are self-directed partnerships. They provide a structure to define objectives, develop spatially-explicit strategies, and provide scientific and technical decision support to inform natural and cultural resource management across terrestrial, aquatic, coastal and marine ecosystems.The core of an LCC will be a scientific and technical staff with an applied resource management focus. That staff and capacity will be directed by a Steering Committee, consisting of resource management representatives from governmental entities (federal, state, tribal and local) and non-governmental organizations who are prepared to contribute to the joint effort.

Role of the Department of the Interior and its Federal Partners: Interior bureaus will seek to catalyze LCC development by contributing scientific and technical capacities, and inspiring a critical mass of partners to contribute their expertise and capacities and array around shared-landscape-scale resource management objectives.

Bureaus will support  LCCs by providing a structure for integrating natural and cultural resource management and climate impact response, and pooling resources so that LCCs will have the capability to address issues that extend across the missions of all supporting bureaus and agencies. The Department’s climate change vision and capacities, including LCCs and CSCs, will enable each of DOI’s bureaus to work together, and with partners, to implement an integrated Department-wide climate change science, adaptation, and mitigation strategy that supports their individual mission responsibilities.

http://www.doi.gov/whatwedo/climate/strategy/upload/Detailed-CSC-LCC-Information.pdf

Such coded bureaucratic doublespeak and large scale maps don’t mean much to most people.  We need to take a closer look at these regional LCC’s to really understand what this means for ranchers, farmers, and other rural folks who happen to own property in the “GAPS”, or whose land use practices or livelihoods could be categorized as “stressors” on a particular species or habitat.  Here’s a detailed view of the Great Northern LCC management zone:

Many of my readers are probably realizing that the Great Northern LCC looks an awful lot like the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y) proposed by the REWILDERS over twenty years ago.  Coincidence?  Of course not.  The Department of Interior’s Great Northern LCC #6 closely matches the radical environmentalists Y2Y vision of a largely human free zone dedicated to wildlife conservation.

Every LCC will have multiple conservation objectives and a variety of management strategies employed within the same zone.  Some areas within a particular LCC will be managed more human friendly than others.  But LCC #6 is a very special region.  This area (along with LCC #16) is a major seed bed for the rapidly expanding gray wolf population.  These large “keystone” carnivores are the driving force behind landscape scale conservation management and the REWILDING of America.

For those lacking something to do, click on the GAP Analysis Species Viewer and plug in the specific region and species you are interested in.  Just for kicks, check back monthly and watch the range and distribution for the gray wolf expanding outward from LCC #6 as the GAP maps are periodically updated.  It’s almost like watching a car wreck in extremely slow motion.

ABBEY’S ROAD – A Wide Path to Destruction

“I think earth would still be a decent place
if there were no human’s on it at all.”
Ed Abbey – The Abbey Road Interview [1]

Edward Paul Abbey (1927-1989) was known as one of the founding fathers of the modern day environmental movement.  As an astute observer of nature, Ed Abbey demonstrated a talent for describing the raw beauty of the natural world.  Abbey also pointed out some of the serious environmental consequences of poor resource management.

Having spent some of the most memorable moments of my life trekking about in wild places, including dozens of mountain ranges and some of the very same back-country wilderness areas that Abbey knew, I can relate to his vivid descriptions of the natural world. While I can also empathize with Abbey’s appreciation for nature, there are profound differences between our worldviews.

Ed Abbey was noted for being an anarchist who unapologetically promoted civil disobedience in order to bring attention to the need for environmental conservation. While he vehemently denied promoting “Eco-terrorism” and disavowed any involvement in criminal activities, he wrote up a working blueprint that was used by countless others who did choose to engage in such activities. [2]  By advocating such things as the spiking of trees and the blowing up of dams, Abbey placed what he deemed to be the best interests of nature above the safety of human beings.

Although a devout atheist who derided any type of organized religion, Abbey demonstrated familiarity with the Bible and biblical concepts.  For example, Abbey was well aware that according to the biblical story of creation, the natural world, as well as the entire universe, was created before man, and that while still devoid of human life, God himself declared (several times) that His creation was “good”.  And indeed it was.

But also according to the Bible, (which Abbey totally rejects), is the fact that something happened to permanently change the condition of the created world.[3]   The disobedience stemming from one man’s sin caused the expulsion of the first humans from the Garden of Eden.  This present world, as beautiful as it may be, is but a poor reflection of the earth as God originally created it and intended it to be.  All of creation since the event known as “the fall of man” has been tainted and subjected to futility:

“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”  [Rom.8:22]

But the Bible was not a relevant document for Ed Abbey. According to Abbey at least, this present world is the only home we will ever know.  There is no alternative to this present world unless there’s some other hospitable planet out there we have yet to discover.  This world is as good as it gets and the only thing wrong with it has been what man has done to it.    We share this planet with a host of other creatures that evolved just like us from some primordial ooze or interstellar space dust.  We must care for nature for nature’s own sake, and because doing so demonstrates that we are evolving as human beings.  Stewardship of the planet has nothing to do with some make believe responsibility entrusted to us by some non-existent deity. For Edward Abbey, the role of man in the environment is all about evolution.

Abbey was known for his provocative and challenging statements that on the surface contain a smattering of truth, but underneath conceal the greatest and most subtle lie of all time.  Abbey’s statement that “the earth would still be a decent place if there were no humans on it”, while perhaps factual in a literal sense, reveals Abbey’s belief that he alone has the authority to determine what constitutes good and evil, right and wrong.

In truth, the world as it exists today, would not be “good” simply by removing man from the equation.  The Bible says that man was created in the image of God, and after he created man, God declared His creation to be “very good”.  The entire creation was deemed “very good” only after the image of God was manifested in the creation of human beings.  According to the Bible, through the exercise of free will, man chose to be disobedient causing a separation to occur between God and mankind, and the beginning of universal decay recognized by several scientific terms, most notably as the law of entropy.[4]

Abbey accepted entropy as an unavoidable fact of life, entirely “natural”, and perhaps even desirable.  A Bible believer like myself would refer to entropy as the result of “sin”, which results in physical, environmental, and social degradation and death.  Abbey chalks up such degradation as a natural result of the natural order of things. Environmental harm is simply caused by greed and patterns of human behavior ingrained by a corrupt educational system and/or religious bigotry.

As far as the environmentalists are concerned, there is no solution for entropy, nor is one needed.  The world is just fine as it is. In fact entropy could be considered their guiding principle, their goal, their “god”.   All that is required for man to take another step on the evolutionary ladder is the adoption of a new respect for all life (and death), leaving old patterns of thinking behind.  If there is no radical change in lifestyles and consumptive patterns, then human beings will have to be greatly reduced or even eliminated, leaving nature to repair itself.

Ed Abbey was content to live for each day, believing that his soulless body would eventually decay and become food for the insects and worms in a never ending cycle of eat or be eaten.  Before he died, Abbey declared that he had no regrets, and had “done everything I wanted to do” including marrying and leaving five wives and countless mistresses.  He modeled the extreme libertarian ideal, or what occultist Anton LaVey postulated as the whole of the (Satanic) law, which can be summed up by the phrase, “do what thou will”. [5]

Like Thoreau before him, Abbey believed that the highest possible ideal was exemplified in wilderness and that an appreciation for wildness had some sort of  redeeming value.  In order to obtain the necessary level of wildness, and if man does not cease his war on the environment, the next step on the evolutionary ladder is likely to include a series of catastrophic events resulting in the extermination of billions of human beings.  If man does not institute the changes needed, then nature herself will instinctively find ways to reduce the threat to biodiversity posed by too many humans living unsustainable lifestyles.  No matter what happens, the diehard environmentalists will never admit that the creator God holds dominion over all things.

Perhaps it was Ed Abbey disguised as the mystery man “R.C. Christian”, who ordered the erection of the Georgia Guidestones, that infamous monument to an environmentally enlightened new world order. [6]   Other likely candidates include such notable figures as Ted Turner, or the writers of the so-called “Earth Charter”, Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev, or Steven Rockefeller. [7] Regardless of who this “mystery man” is or was, he certainly shared Abbey’s worldview, for there is little difference between what Abbey and his eco-terrorist buddy Dave Foreman promote, and the new “laws” carved into the granite monolith in Georgia:

1. MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE

2. GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY – IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY

3. UNITE HUMANITY WITH A LIVING NEW LANGUAGE

4. RULE PASSION – FAITH – TRADITION – AND ALL THINGS WITH TEMPERED REASON

5. PROTECT PEOPLE AND NATIONS WITH FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS

6. LET ALL NATIONS RULE INTERNALLY RESOLVING EXTERNAL DISPUTES IN A WORLD COURT

7. AVOID PETTY LAWS AND USELESS OFFICIALS

8. BALANCE PERSONAL RIGHTS WITH SOCIAL DUTIES

9. PRIZE TRUTH – BEAUTY – LOVE- SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE INFINITE

10. BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH – LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE – LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE

Abbey’s eulogizer Dave Foreman of the Rewilding Institute echos this anti-human sentiment:

“We have come on like a swarm of locusts: a wide, thick, darkling cloud settling down like living snowflakes, smothering every stalk, every leaf, eating away every scrap of green down to raw, bare wasting earth. It’s painfully straightforward. There are too many men for Earth to harbor…” [8]  

All environmental wrongs can be corrected in short order if only human beings were reduced to a number where their impacts can be controlled and minimized.  Something needs to be done (they say) on a global scale. Someone needs to take charge and make the hard decisions necessary to save the planet from what Dave Foreman calls the “man swarm”.

Depopulation has historically been viewed as the final solution for all the problems of the world by numerous misguided souls. [9]  Ironically, depopulation was a solution God Himself used to cleanse the earth of vast numbers of sinful inhabitants.  A universal flood that wiped the earth clean is not just a biblical worldview, but is part of the cultural history of countless peoples scattered across virtually every corner of the planet- from the Hopi in Arizona to the Dyaks of Borneo; from the Battaks of Sumatra to the ancient Babylonians; from the old Welsh legends of Dwyfan and Dwyfach to the Kurnai people of Australia.  Indeed, there is no legend, no myth, no event that is more universally recognized than the flood of Noah’s day.  But the Bible goes far beyond mere threats of judgment on the earth’s inhabitants.  God has provided a permanent solution for the problem of entropy, a solution that includes both restitution and redemption while providing our only sure hope that death and decay are not the end for humanity.

The nightly news is full of stories about impending wars, famines, and pestilence.  Man is undeniably responsible for setting the stage for an entire series of catastrophes.  God appears to be ready to allow mankind to reap the fruits of his corporate sin, not just because the earth is full of greedy self-centered anti-environmentalists, but because of the arrogance and rebellion of men like Edward Abbey, men too proud to humble themselves before their Creator.

 “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” 

[2 Peter 3:7]

---

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sMdK_xOcIk (Pt. 3 of 3 part Interview.)

[2] “The Monkey Wrench Gang” – c. 1975 by Edward Abbey

[3] Book of Genesis – Chap. 3

[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy

[5] Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible c.1969

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Earth_Charter

[8] [Man Swarm, c. 2011 by Dave Foreman].

[9] “Know thy Enemy-The Environmental Death Cult” c. 2013 http://oldmanoftheski.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/know-thy-enemy-the-environmental-death-cult/

MEGA-REGIONS and AMERICA 2050

MEGA-REGIONS – AMERICA 2050

Our Constitutional form of government was created and instituted to protect and serve the population, not enslave it.   Yet today bureaucratic managers at all levels of government are exerting control over our lives that we never dreamed possible in America.  Every governmental action seems focused on forcing compliance to a new set of societal norms.

A vibrant rural economy is viewed as an impediment to the centralization of political power. Every passing day a higher percentage of the world’s population is being concentrated into urban centers, called “MEGA-REGIONS” by global planners.  The  goal is to create a tightly regulated “sustainable” and highly interconnected world by the year 2050.

As urbanization accelerates, rural land use decisions and government policies are increasingly influenced by people living in urban centers.  Folks who live and work in rural areas are being disenfranchised by the very nature of democracy.  There is a growing sense of  mistrust and apprehension as rural Americans see a way of life and many of the rights they once took for granted threatened by a government assuming godlike proportions.

Global food production and distribution is increasingly being taken out of local control and concentrated in the hands of mega-corporations and large scale agricultural producers.   Former timber and mining towns have either become deserted relics or morphed into vacation playgrounds for elites who have made their money in international markets far removed from the kind of people who made their living working the land.   Small farms and ranches are finding it more expedient to host “dudes” or place once productive grazing land into “conservation easements”.  Once thriving oyster farms are being forced to shut down to create empty ocean front thanks to the heavy hand of government regulation.

Our  legislative priorities are now almost entirely focused on destroying rural economies.  The most notable of these policies is REWILDING, which is defined as the re-introduction and/or promotion of top-tier predator species that directly compete with humans.  REWILDING accelerates the disintegration of rural economies and lifestyles by imposing conditions and regulations detrimental to traditional activities such as livestock production, natural resource extraction, and hunting.

The NAWPA Memorandum of Understanding is a multinational agreement signed by the department heads of seven of our our Federal land management agencies including the BLM, NPS, USFWS, USFWS, and USDA.   These unelected bureaucrats signed an international agreement with their counterparts in Canada and Mexico promoting a single vision for North American wilderness preservation.  Their goal is to create a working alliance in order to make REWILDING projects such as the “Spine of the Continent” and the “Yukon to Yellowstone” initiatives a reality.

The NAWPA agreement was birthed at the World Congress on Wilderness, a product of The Wild Foundation,  one of a multitude of organizations promoting the concept that half of all land must be exclusively reserved for “wilderness”.   The WILD vision places severe restrictions on areas of human habitation and development.   As far as urban planning goes, half of every urban zone, half of every county, shire or precinct, half of every state, indeed,  half of every single nation on earth must be left untouched or returned to a primeval state.  Not only that, but the remaining 50% shall be managed for “conservation objectives” to insure adequate buffer zones and connectivity between core protected areas.  This is the agenda our Federal government has signed off on and intends to bring to fruition over the course of the next thirty-seven years.

This may all sound like crazy United Nations “conspiracy theory” blather, until one looks at the urban planning agendas currently employed by our local city and county governments.  “Sustainable development” is the operative code word for all things related to “Agenda 21“, a concept now openly endorsed and promoted as the ideal management tool.  Budgets are increasingly shifted away from services that meet the needs of people to programs and policies designed to serve nature.  Human beings have become little more than just another resource that needs to be managed along with green space.  The concept that “nature needs half” also includes half of all our tax dollars.

Take thirty minutes and listen to this interview with a confessed liberal Democrat, Rosa Koire, author of BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21, as she explains the threat to our freedom posed by this insidious global agenda.  Then spread the word.  Wake up America and resist the Green Dragon!

Click this link to listen:

http://canadianawareness.org/2012/07/rosa-koire-on-agenda-21-and-iclei/

Of course Ms. Koire is just recapping what the late great Henry Lamb tried to tell us back in 1996:

Click on the video image below, or click  here to watch this seven minute video: