YOWUSA.COM Home Page  

The Kolbrin Bible: Glenn Kimball Special Edition

Win-Win Survival Handbook

Radio Free Earth

Feel Better on Your Own

Home Page  | Subscribe  |  Archive: 2000 - 2012   Cut to the Chase Radio  |  Planet X Town Hall
Earth  |  eBooks  |  ET  |  Humanity  |  Nostradamus  |  Planet X  |  SciTech  |  SCP  |  Space  |  War



Monsanto,  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Planet X

Yowusa.com, 28-April-2012
Justin Braithwaite

Page 1 of 2

Monsanto, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Planet XThe hottest televised scandal of 1991 was without a doubt, the confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas in October 1991. 

At which time the Anita Hill maintained that Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the EEOC. 

America was glued to the screens back then and scratching their heads.  Anita just didn't make sense.  But yet...

For a woman scorned as many surmised, she remained cool and determined through a lengthy public spectacle.  It was not the petty behavior of a scorned woman. 

Then others believed she had political ambitions and the attempted torpedoing of Thomas's appointment would launch her career.  Yet, she never ran for office and chose the quiet life.

Perhaps, as the old saying goes, one should "let sleeping dogs lie," but for irginia, the wife of Justice  Clarence Thomas the dark clouds of those days left a permanent stain upon their notoriety. 

In sympathy to Virginia, it's hard to be the bell of the ball when your husband is remembered for a pubic hair on a Coke can.  Ergo,  19 years later, she could apparently take no more.  She left a voicemail at Hill's office asking that Hill apologize for her 1991 testimony.

With that call Virginia reopened the matter for public debate, and in response to that demand of an apology, we must ask, is an apology in order?  

The question to that answer must go to motive.  Or in other words, what was Anita Hill's true reason for dragging Virginia's husband through a humiliating public spectacle.    Was it vengeful scorn or political ambition? 

Anita HillATo this day, nobody really understands exactly why Anita Hill did what she did and the truth be known, we never will.  So with is in mind, what could that real motive be? 

To imagine what that answer could be, let's assume a better time in the relationship between Hill and Thomas.  Long before the public embarrassment of the 1991 hearings.

We begin by imagining that after an evening of amorous an inebriated intimacy with Anita, Clarence got a little too gabby for his own good.  That's when the evening turned. 

As strange new whisperings came across the pillow, Anita was made privy to knowledge that literally turned her life upside down.

A knowing of a plan so expansive and dehumanizing that she felt compelled to sacrifice her own career and standing to derail the Clarence's nomination to the court at any cost. 

A plan of power and ambition  that would put Thomas in position as the enabler of a dark future following the flyby of Planet X.  One in which in which his former employers would like a malevolent Phoenix, rise up from the ashes of a post-apocalyptic world with the power to enslave every living soul on the planet.

As farfetched as that may seem, let us ask this question.  Is what Anita heard whispered across the pillows in our imaginary scene, a plan for the largest chemical corporation to enslave mankind after the passage of Planet X?  And if so, who will be the enabler of such terrible power?  

Now imagine Anita laying beside a peaceful sleeping Clarence, and seeing him. The enabler. 

Using publically available documents, the following serves as a back story example of what our imaginary Anita may have heard. 

Detailed, often complicated, and sickening, imagine how she must have felt.  What to do?  What to do?  What to do?

What you do is that you begin by finding one the common thread that ties all these people together.  Namely, Monsanto. 

Heads up reader. When you are finished reading this article, you will have a decision to make and with only two real options. 

That Virginia Thomas is due a full and sincere apology from Anita Hill for something that happened 19 years ago. 

As to the other... well... read on and decide for yourself. It's a reach.

Monsanto's Reach

MonsantoThis story begins with Monsanto.  It is the dot to which all other are connected in this possible explanation of the reason why Anita Hill did what she did. 

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate. 

Glyphosate is used in Roundup and other brands of herbicides.  They are also the leading producer of genetically engineered seed and provide the technology in 90% of the genetically engineered seeds used in the US market. 

Monsanto's reach is global, massive, and they are involved in everything relating to chemicals and seeds. 

Suffice it to say, the list of corporations either partially or wholly owned by Monsanto is staggering.  Agracetus, owned by Monsanto, exclusively produces Roundup Ready soybean seed for the commercial market and in 2005, purchased Seminis Inc, making Monsanto the world's largest conventional seed company.

Monsanto is responsible for or involved in, directly or indirectly: the artificial sweetener saccharin, sulfuric acid, polystyrene, herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, Dioxin, Agent Orange, bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone (BST), genetically modified seeds, the artificial sweetener Aspartame, (NutraSweet), vanillin, salicylic acid, aspirin, polyurethanes, synthetic fibers, and rubber processing chemicals, just to name a few... 

Monsanto became the largest producer of Agent Orange for US Military operations in Vietnam during the 1960's and 1970's. The immense amount of damage to the health of US-soldiers caused by the defoliant Agent Orange is well known. 

Scientists working for Monsanto became the first to genetically modify a plant cell in 1982. Five years later, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops. 

After gaining position to dominate the world's genetically modified food supply, Monsanto set their sights on the production of milk.

Without getting too technical, they developed recombinant Bovine somatotropin, which is a synthetic hormone that is injected into cows to increase milk production.

That chemical in turn stimulates another hormone in the cow's blood stream, which is directly responsible for the increase in milk production and is a natural hormone found in the milk of both humans and cows, causing the quick growth of infant cows.

Angry CowThe organic hormone occurs naturally in mothers' milk but produces adverse effects in non-infants, behaving as a cancer accelerator in adults and is associated with breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer and colon cancers. 

In other words, use of the synthetic hormone on dairy farms accelerates cancer in adults and could be responsible for the increase in cases of the above named cancers worldwide.

Access and Jurisprudence…

Monsanto Lobby EffortIncidentally, Monsanto spent $8,831,120 lobbying Congress in 2008 alone.  Some of that money funded lobbying efforts to prevent milk, which is free of the synthetic hormone, from being labeled as such on containers. 

Additionally, they have engaged in multiple lawsuits to prevent milk producers from advertising that their product does not contain the synthetic hormones.

Speaking of lawsuits, Monsanto is no stranger to the courtroom.  For example:

  • 1971: They were sued by the US Government over the safety of their original product: saccharin.  They were sued, along with Dow and other chemical companies by veterans over the side effects of its Agent Orange defoliant. They were also sued by a group of plaintiffs who claimed to have been poisoned by Dioxin in a 1979 chemical spill that occurred in Sturgeon, Missouri.

  • 2004: Switzerland's Syngenta filed a US lawsuit charging Monsanto with using coercive tactics to monopolize markets. 

  • 2005: The US Dept of Justice filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in which Monsanto admitted to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and making false entries into its books and records. 

  • 2011: A group consisting of over 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations in Canada and the US, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Company to their patents on genetically modified seed, claiming they are being forced to sue, pre-emptively, to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.

GM Corn NeedleOn the offensive side of the ball, Monsanto has sued 145 individual US farmers since the 1990's for patent infringement in connection with its genetically engineered seed.

The majority of claims contend violation's of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next, a common farming practice around the world. 

Dairy farmers are not immune either.  In 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine for advertising that its milk products did not come from cows treated with bovine growth hormone.

Monsanto has been publicly accused of suppressing an investigative report by a Tampa, FL television station, price fixing in India, dumping toxic waste in the UK, bribing an Indonesian government official, false advertising in France, and employing child labor in multiple foreign chemical plants. 

Bee collapseJust recently, Monsanto's genetically modified corn has been linked to the worldwide disappearance of the honeybee population. 

Not to minimize any of the above, however, a central focus of this story is concentrated on Monsanto's "Terminator" seed.

The Terminator Seed

Monsanto No Food We Don't OwnIn June 2007, Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had patented a seed technology affectionately called "Terminators." 

Terminator seeds produce plants that have sterile seeds so they do not germinate, or flower, after the initial planting, which not only prevents the spread of those seeds into the wild, it forces farmers to be dependent upon Monsanto in order to be able to plant their crops each year. 

Instead of being able to reuse their seeds from year to year, as has been done for millennia worldwide, farmers must now buy their seed from Monsanto every year.  One could think of it as genetic share cropping, where the seed company is the real landlord. How?

Monsanto Round UpMonsanto developed genetically modified seeds that would resist their own herbicide, Roundup, which gave the world a means to inoculate their crops against the powerful weed killer.  Then, they patented the seeds, and in essence, life. 

Although several court cases set the precedence for the 2001 Supreme Court case, J. E. M. AG Supply, Inc., dba Farm Advantage, Inc., et al. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

What is notable is that Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. In the process, he handed Monsanto a judicial windfall and they hand took full advantage of it.

Thanks to an having a man on the inside, Monsanto benefitied in great mesaure from the Court's ruling that, "newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States." 

Hence, the right to patent life, and what resulted was the genetically modified Terminator seed and domination of the worldwide farming industry.

And Monsanto's inside track?  None other than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who not only cast the deciding 5-4 vote on the case, but was previously employed for a number of years as an attorney for... Monsanto.

Once Monsanto, Always Monsanto?

Justice ThomasAsk anyone nowadays what they actually know about Justice Clarence Thomas and there is an outstanding chance they will retort with something relating to Anita Hill. 

Press them for something else and, well...  There isn't much.  His tenure on the Supreme Court has been uneventful, to say the least. 

He is viewed as a middle-of-the road conservative who prefers to listen rather than speak.  As of March 20, 2012, he had not asked a question from the bench in 6 years and he rarely grants media interviews. 

Many express disappointment that Thomas has departed so much from the jurisprudence of the African American whom he succeeded, Justice Thurgood Marshall. 

Conversely, most defining judicial trait of Justice Thomas seems to be his refusal to engage in what he sees as judicial lawmaking, instead, embracing views that the constitutional role of the Court is the interpretation of law, rather than making law.

Nonetheless, it seems he departed from those fiercly held views in the matter concerning Monsanto.

So exactly how does Monsanto get a former employee with barely a year's experience on the bench appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States? 

It couldn't possibly involve another former employee in the White House could it? 

Donald RumsfeldFormer Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld served as CEO and President of G. D. Searle & Company between 1977 and 1985, earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript and Financial World.

In 1985, Rumsfeld played an instrumental role in the acquisition of G.D. Searle & Company by Monsanto. 

He said, she said…

The confirmation of Justice Thomas has been the highlight of his career.  He was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by then-President George H. W. Bush.

The hearings were initially completed, with Thomas's good character being presented as a primary qualification for the high court because he had only been a judge for slightly more than one year.

Then along came Anita Hill, who presented herself to testify at his confirmation hearings.  Hill testified in the October 1991 televised hearings that Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the EEOC.

When questioned on why she followed Thomas to the second job after he had already allegedly harassed her, she said she had wanted to work in the civil rights field, she had no alternative job, "and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures ... had ended."

Thomas's supporters questioned Hill's credibility claiming she was delusional or was a bitter woman, seeking revenge.

They noted the time delay of ten years between the alleged behavior by Thomas and Hill's accusations, and cited that Hill had followed Thomas to a second job and later had personal contacts with Thomas. 

She even gave him a ride to the airport—behavior which they said would be inexplicable if her allegations were true.

Anita HillHill countered that she came forward because she felt an obligation to share information on the character and actions of a person who was being considered for the Nation's Highest Court.

She testified that after leaving the EEOC, she had two phone conversations with Thomas, and had seen him personally on two occasions; once to get a job reference and the second time when he made a public appearance in Oklahoma where she was teaching.

Doesn't this all seem rather strange?  Clarence Thomas is all but confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice and Anita Hill surfaces after ten years with allegations of sexual harassment. 

But yet, she followed him to a second job, continued to have contact with him, and even gave him a ride to the airport. 

During his testimony, Thomas admitted that he "would drive her home and sometimes stop in and have a Coke or a beer or something and continue arguing about politics for maybe 45 minutes to an hour.

And, he later added that there were a "number of instances" when he visited Hill's home while working with her at the Education Department. 

To add to the strangeness of all this, In October 2010, 19 years after this whole ordeal, Thomas's wife Virginia, left a voicemail at Hill's office asking that Hill apologize for her 1991 testimony.

Hill initially believed the call was a hoax and referred the matter to the Brandeis University campus police who alerted the FBI.  After being informed that the call was indeed from Virginia Thomas, Hill told the media that she did not believe the message was meant to be conciliatory and said, "I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

Virginia Thomas responded that the call had been intended as an "olive branch". Huh, what just happened?  Tell you what; file Anita Hill away for future reference.  We will revisit her later.

The Grapes of Wrath

Skull and BonesWhat exactly have been the effects of this Terminator seed?  In a very sad documentary, King Corn by Aaron Wolf, Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney, two recent college graduates set out to grow an acre of corn in Iowa and follow it to its destination point.  What they learn is both stunning and heartbreaking. 

Prior to 1973, farm subsidies regulated supply and demand on corn farms to keep prices as high as possible. 

Farmers were paid to grow small amounts of high quality product.  In 1973, Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butts, abolished the subsides to not grow corn and shifted to a policy of expansion where farmers were paid to grow all the corn they could.  More corn = more money. 

The change in landscape was almost immediate, resulting in the proliferation of the use of chemicals, genetically modified seed, and the rise of the super farms.  Farmers from the subsidy era would scarcely recognize today’s industry.

Today, 1 acre of land yields 10,000 pounds of product, or 31,000 kernels of corn.  Feeding lots have replaced traditional cattle grazing as the land is needed to grow more corn. 

Cattle are now confined into close quarters and fed corn instead of grazing in the pasture.  Cattle were never meant to live on a diet of grain, or a starchy diet.

Grain FeedingGrain feeding produces fatter animals.  A steak from a grain fed cow has 9 grams of fat as opposed to a grass fed cow which only has 1 gram. 

Corn fed cattle would die from the corn if they were not slaughtered when they are as the corn leads to a condition called acidosis. 

Today, cattle now consume 70% of the nation's antibiotics in order to keep them alive to the slaughter. Continue reading...


[1] [2]