SUBHEAD: Clinton backs position that to be anti Monsanto is to be pro Global Warming.
By Eric Zeusse on 7 July 2016 for Counter Currents -
(http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/07/07/clinton-backs-monsantos-case-that-to-be-anti-monsanto-is-to-be-pro-global-warming/)
Image above: Hillary Clinton was quizzed by former GOP congressman Jim Greenwood, the CEO of the Biotech Industry Organization. From (http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2014/06/25/hillary-clinton-cheers-biotechers-backs-gmos-and-federal-help/).
On June 27th 2016, I reported Hillary Clinton’s having privately told GMO industry lobbyists, on 25 June 2014 , that the federal government should subsidize GMO firms in order to enable them to buy “insurance against risk,” and that without such federal subsidies, “this [insurance] is going to be an increasing challenge” for the industry to afford (see article below for report).
I also reported that, in an interview she did immediately afterward with the GMO industry’s lobbying organization’s (the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s, or BIO’s) head, she compared the opponents of GMOs to the opponents of action in response to global warming; she said, in effect, that both environmental groups are ignoramuses who don’t know what scientists are saying about both the ’safety’ of GMOs and the dangers of global warming.
At the time when I wrote this news report (it was still news, even a year after the speech was given), the 15 June 2016 article in FORTUNE magazine, “Can Monsanto Save the Planet?” hadn’t yet come to my attention, but it importantly supplements the news that I had just reported, and so I now supplement the article I previously wrote on this.
The FORTUNE article argued that Monsanto is the world’s champion of environmentalism, by enabling the planet to provide food to an expanding population even as the planet will be getting hotter and hotter. It said that Monsanto, and other GMO firms, are the only hope for a planet that’s burning up.
The FORTUNE article also assumed, as did Hillary Clinton’s presentation to GMO lobbyists and to their chief, the equal validity of the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real, and of the GMO-corporate-funded bio-‘scientists’ who allege that GMOs have been proven to be safe long-term for human consumption and for the environment.
As regards the claim that the GMO-corporate funded ‘research’ proving GMOs to be safe is valid, there are many independently funded studies that have found GMOs not to be safe, and also not to be environmentally friendly.
Funding of independent research on the question is sparse, but I tracked down the claimed main source of the funding of that meta-study (study of studies), and found it to be the Isvara Foundation, which seems to me likely to be independent of the GMO producers.
Here is a summary of what that meta-study found: It found, for example, that, “A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are safe, in fact shows nothing of the sort. Instead many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk.
The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. (p. 102),” and, “A review purportedly showing that GM foods are safe on the basis of long-term animal studies in fact shows evidence of risk and uses unscientific double standards to reach a conclusion that is not justified by the data. (p. 161).”
There is no comparison between the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made, and the phony ‘scientific’ ‘consensus’ that GMOs are safe. (And there’s more on that, and more.) Hillary Clinton, and the lobbyists know this, they can’t be so stupid as not to know, but they are paid to lie about it.
The industry pays both them and their politicians (such as Clinton) to do this. (And Clinton wants to go even farther and have taxpayers help to fund the GMO firms, thus to subsidize those firms’ stockholders.)
Is it merely by coincidence that the puff-piece for the GMO industry (in the person of its main corporation, Monsanto) in FORTUNE magazine, and the secret statements that Hillary Clinton made at one of her $225,000+ speeches to (and interviews with) lobbying organizations, are almost carbon copies of each other?
You’ll have to decide that for yourself. But other voters won’t even be able to, because they read the standard ’news’ media, which hide such facts. (For example, the 27 June news report I did was rejected by virtually all newsmedia.)
So, please pass along to other voters this news report, which is the third report that I’ve done about the only one of Hillary Clinton’s 91 speeches to lobbying organizations and to international corporations, which managed to have leaked out from behind her embargo against making public any of her corporate-funded speeches, for which she has received in total more than $21 million paid to her own account, not including any additional payments to her political campaign.
Voters might think that Ms. Clinton ‘believes’ one way about an issue, when in fact she has actually been bought to impose as the future U.S. President the exact opposite. Her record shows: in public office, she does what her backers want, not what her voters might prefer.
Ever since at least 1993, when she did what the HMO industry bought the Clintons to do in drawing up their healthcare plan (which plan the health insurers opposed strongly and successfully defeated), Hillary and Bill have both been on the take, being liberals or even ‘progressives’, who believe that their actual constituency is their paymasters — not their voters.
They are similar to Barack Obama in this regard, no different — and no different from George W. Bush, and his father. (As regards Trump, he has no record at all in public office, so we can’t yet really know.)
And that’s why she continues to hide the transcripts and videos of her 91 corporate-paid speeches. But fortunately, the one speech she made to the GMO-producers, slipped away from her total control.
And the article in FORTUNE provides some evidence that the propaganda-campaign for the GMO industry is coordinated by their lobbying organization, the BIO, so that both one of their politicians, and one of their magazines, are singing the same song, even if different lyrics from it.
Hillary's secret biotech speach
SUBHEAD: Clinton wants the federal government could help biotechs with “insurance against risk”.
By Eric Zeusse on 27 June 2016 for Real Independent News and Film -(http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/heres-hillary-wont-allow-corporate-speeches-published/)
Image above: Campaign button for Clinton/Monsanto ticket in 2016. From (http://www.naturalnews.com/049755_Bride_of_Frankenfood_Hillary_Clinton_Monsanto.html).
In a previous report, I indicated “Why Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches Are Relevant”, but not what they contained. The present report indicates what they contained.
One speech in particular will be cited and quoted from as an example here, to show the type of thing that all of her corporate speeches contained, which she doesn’t want the general public to know about.
This is the day’s keynote speech, which she gave on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying organization in DC, at their annual convention, which in 2014 was held in San Diego. The announcement for attendees said: “Wednesday’s Keynote session is sponsored by Genentech, and is open to Convention registrants with Convention Access and Convention Access & Partnering badges only. Seating is limited.
Somehow, a reporter from a local newspaper, the Times of San Diego, managed to get in. Also, somehow, an attendee happened to phone-video the 50-minute interview that the BIO’s CEO did of Clinton, which took place during the hour-and-a-half period, 12-1:30, which was allotted to Clinton.
The Times of San Diego headlined that day, “Hillary Clinton Cheers Biotechers, Backing GMOs and Federal Help”, and gave an excellent summary of her statements, including of the interview. Here are highlights:
By Eric Zeusse on 7 July 2016 for Counter Currents -
(http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/07/07/clinton-backs-monsantos-case-that-to-be-anti-monsanto-is-to-be-pro-global-warming/)
Image above: Hillary Clinton was quizzed by former GOP congressman Jim Greenwood, the CEO of the Biotech Industry Organization. From (http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2014/06/25/hillary-clinton-cheers-biotechers-backs-gmos-and-federal-help/).
On June 27th 2016, I reported Hillary Clinton’s having privately told GMO industry lobbyists, on 25 June 2014 , that the federal government should subsidize GMO firms in order to enable them to buy “insurance against risk,” and that without such federal subsidies, “this [insurance] is going to be an increasing challenge” for the industry to afford (see article below for report).
I also reported that, in an interview she did immediately afterward with the GMO industry’s lobbying organization’s (the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s, or BIO’s) head, she compared the opponents of GMOs to the opponents of action in response to global warming; she said, in effect, that both environmental groups are ignoramuses who don’t know what scientists are saying about both the ’safety’ of GMOs and the dangers of global warming.
At the time when I wrote this news report (it was still news, even a year after the speech was given), the 15 June 2016 article in FORTUNE magazine, “Can Monsanto Save the Planet?” hadn’t yet come to my attention, but it importantly supplements the news that I had just reported, and so I now supplement the article I previously wrote on this.
The FORTUNE article argued that Monsanto is the world’s champion of environmentalism, by enabling the planet to provide food to an expanding population even as the planet will be getting hotter and hotter. It said that Monsanto, and other GMO firms, are the only hope for a planet that’s burning up.
The FORTUNE article also assumed, as did Hillary Clinton’s presentation to GMO lobbyists and to their chief, the equal validity of the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real, and of the GMO-corporate-funded bio-‘scientists’ who allege that GMOs have been proven to be safe long-term for human consumption and for the environment.
As regards the claim that the GMO-corporate funded ‘research’ proving GMOs to be safe is valid, there are many independently funded studies that have found GMOs not to be safe, and also not to be environmentally friendly.
Funding of independent research on the question is sparse, but I tracked down the claimed main source of the funding of that meta-study (study of studies), and found it to be the Isvara Foundation, which seems to me likely to be independent of the GMO producers.
Here is a summary of what that meta-study found: It found, for example, that, “A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are safe, in fact shows nothing of the sort. Instead many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk.
The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. (p. 102),” and, “A review purportedly showing that GM foods are safe on the basis of long-term animal studies in fact shows evidence of risk and uses unscientific double standards to reach a conclusion that is not justified by the data. (p. 161).”
There is no comparison between the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made, and the phony ‘scientific’ ‘consensus’ that GMOs are safe. (And there’s more on that, and more.) Hillary Clinton, and the lobbyists know this, they can’t be so stupid as not to know, but they are paid to lie about it.
The industry pays both them and their politicians (such as Clinton) to do this. (And Clinton wants to go even farther and have taxpayers help to fund the GMO firms, thus to subsidize those firms’ stockholders.)
Is it merely by coincidence that the puff-piece for the GMO industry (in the person of its main corporation, Monsanto) in FORTUNE magazine, and the secret statements that Hillary Clinton made at one of her $225,000+ speeches to (and interviews with) lobbying organizations, are almost carbon copies of each other?
You’ll have to decide that for yourself. But other voters won’t even be able to, because they read the standard ’news’ media, which hide such facts. (For example, the 27 June news report I did was rejected by virtually all newsmedia.)
So, please pass along to other voters this news report, which is the third report that I’ve done about the only one of Hillary Clinton’s 91 speeches to lobbying organizations and to international corporations, which managed to have leaked out from behind her embargo against making public any of her corporate-funded speeches, for which she has received in total more than $21 million paid to her own account, not including any additional payments to her political campaign.
Voters might think that Ms. Clinton ‘believes’ one way about an issue, when in fact she has actually been bought to impose as the future U.S. President the exact opposite. Her record shows: in public office, she does what her backers want, not what her voters might prefer.
Ever since at least 1993, when she did what the HMO industry bought the Clintons to do in drawing up their healthcare plan (which plan the health insurers opposed strongly and successfully defeated), Hillary and Bill have both been on the take, being liberals or even ‘progressives’, who believe that their actual constituency is their paymasters — not their voters.
They are similar to Barack Obama in this regard, no different — and no different from George W. Bush, and his father. (As regards Trump, he has no record at all in public office, so we can’t yet really know.)
And that’s why she continues to hide the transcripts and videos of her 91 corporate-paid speeches. But fortunately, the one speech she made to the GMO-producers, slipped away from her total control.
And the article in FORTUNE provides some evidence that the propaganda-campaign for the GMO industry is coordinated by their lobbying organization, the BIO, so that both one of their politicians, and one of their magazines, are singing the same song, even if different lyrics from it.
Hillary's secret biotech speach
SUBHEAD: Clinton wants the federal government could help biotechs with “insurance against risk”.
By Eric Zeusse on 27 June 2016 for Real Independent News and Film -(http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/heres-hillary-wont-allow-corporate-speeches-published/)
Image above: Campaign button for Clinton/Monsanto ticket in 2016. From (http://www.naturalnews.com/049755_Bride_of_Frankenfood_Hillary_Clinton_Monsanto.html).
In a previous report, I indicated “Why Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches Are Relevant”, but not what they contained. The present report indicates what they contained.
One speech in particular will be cited and quoted from as an example here, to show the type of thing that all of her corporate speeches contained, which she doesn’t want the general public to know about.
This is the day’s keynote speech, which she gave on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying organization in DC, at their annual convention, which in 2014 was held in San Diego. The announcement for attendees said: “Wednesday’s Keynote session is sponsored by Genentech, and is open to Convention registrants with Convention Access and Convention Access & Partnering badges only. Seating is limited.
Somehow, a reporter from a local newspaper, the Times of San Diego, managed to get in. Also, somehow, an attendee happened to phone-video the 50-minute interview that the BIO’s CEO did of Clinton, which took place during the hour-and-a-half period, 12-1:30, which was allotted to Clinton.
The Times of San Diego headlined that day, “Hillary Clinton Cheers Biotechers, Backing GMOs and Federal Help”, and gave an excellent summary of her statements, including of the interview. Here are highlights:
It was red meat for the biotech base. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a 65-minute appearance at the BIO International Convention on Wednesday, voiced support for genetically modified organisms and possible federal subsidies. …
“Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table” to discuss how the federal government could help biotechs with “insurance against risk,” she said.
Without such subsidies, she said, “this is going to be an increasing challenge.” …
She said the debate about GMOs might be turned toward the biotech side if the benefits were better explained, noting that the “Frankensteinish” depictions could be fought with more positive spin.
“I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record,” she saidIn other words:
[at 29:00 in the video next posted here], citing drought-resistant seeds she backed as secretary of state. “There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are.” [that too at 29:00]
Minutes earlier, Gov. Jerry Brown made a rousing 3-minute pitch for companies to see California as biotech-friendly.
“You’ve come to the right place.” …
Brown had some competition for biotech boosterism in the form of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the longtime Clinton ally who pitched his own state as best for biotech. …
[Clinton was] Given a standing ovation at the start and end of her appearance.
As President, she would aim to sign into law a program to provide subsidies from U.S. taxpayers to Monsanto and other biotech firms, to assist their PR and lobbying organizations to eliminate what she says is “a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are” concerning genetically modified seeds and other GMOs.
In other words:
She ignores the evidence that started to be published in scientific journals in 2012 showing that Monsanto and other GMO firms were selectively publishing studies that alleged to show their products to be safe, while selectively blocking publication of studies that — on the basis of better methodology — showed them to be unsafe.
She wants U.S. taxpayers to assist GMO firms in their propaganda that’s based on their own flawed published studies, financed by the GMO industry, and that ignores the studies that they refuse to have published. She wants America’s consumers to help to finance their own being poisoning by lying companies, who rake in profits from poisoning them.
Her argument on this, at 27:00 to 30:00 in the video of the 50-minute interview of Clinton, starts by her citing the actual disinformation (that’s propagandized by the fossil-fuels industries, which actually back her Presidential campaign) that causes the American public to reject the view that humans have caused global warming.
At 27:38 in the video, she said “98% of scientists in the world agree that man has caused the problem” of global warming, and she alleged that the reason why there is substantial public resistance to GMOs is the same as the reason why there’s substantial public resistance to the reality that global warming exists and must be actively addressed: Americans don’t know the science of the matter. She received several applauses from this pro-GMO audience, for making that false analogy.
The reality, that it’s false, is that on 15 May 2013, the definitive meta-study, which examined the 11,944 published studies that had been done relating to the question of global warming and its causes, reported that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” The meta-study was titled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”.
So, Clinton’s statement “98%” was only 0.9% off regarding the size of the scientific consensus.
However, her implication that the public’s rejection of that actual 97.1% of experts’ findings on global warming, is at all analogous to the public’s rejection of the actually bogus finding by GMO industry ‘experts’ that GMOs are safe, is pure deception by her.
The reality is the exact contrary: The fossil-fuels industries have financed the propaganda ‘discrediting’ the scientists’ consensus about global warming, much like the GMO industries have financed the deception of the public to think that ‘scientists’ ‘find’ that GMOs are safe.
In fact, as was reported in Scientific American, on 23 December 2013, “’Dark Money’ Funds Climate Change Denial Effort”, and the study they were summarizing, from the journal Climate Change, was titled “Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations”. It found that:
“From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding CCCM [climate change counter-movement] organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions;to CCCM organizations. Instead, funding has shifted to pass through [two] untraceable sources [both of which had been set up by the Kochs: Donors Trust, and Donors Capital Fund].“On 23 April 2016, Politico headlined “Charles Koch: ‘It’s possible’ Clinton is preferable to a Republican for president”, but this isn’t the only indication that Hillary is merely pretending to be their enemy. On 24 February 2016, I headlined “Hillary Clinton’s Global-Burning Record” and summarized and linked to news reports such as the opening there:
On 17 July 2015, Paul Blumenthal and Kate Sheppard at Huffington Post bannered, ‘Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists’ and the sub-head was ‘Clinton’s top campaign financiers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas and the Keystone pipeline.’”
In other words:
The same pro-GMO lobbyists who applaud Hillary for verbally endorsing the science that affirms global warming, applaud her for endorsing their own fake ‘science’ which asserts that GMOs have been proven safe. They just love her lie, which analogizes them to the authentic scientists who (97.1%) say that global warming exists and is caused by humans’ emissions of global-warming gases.
Also, she expressed the wish that: “the federal government could help biotechs with ‘insurance against risk,’ she said. Without such subsidies, she said, this is going to be an increasing challenge,” because otherwise, biotech companies might get bankrupted by lawsuits from consumers who might have become poisoned by their products.
She wants the consuming public to bear the risk from those products — not the manufacturers of them to bear any of the risks that could result from those manufacturers’ rigged ‘safety’ ‘studies’ (a.k.a.: their propaganda).
In other words:
The reason why Hillary Clinton won’t allow her 91 corporate speeches, for which she was paid $21,667,000, to be published, is the lying political cravenness of her pandering to those corporations there. Each group of lobbyists is happy to applaud her lying, regardless of whether her lies include insults against another group of lobbyists, to whom she might be delivering similar lies to butter them up at a different annual convention or etc.
In other words:
She’s telling all of them collectively: You’re my type of people, and the public who despise you are merely misguided, but as President I’ll set them straight and they’ll even end up paying part of the bill to be ‘educated’ about these matters, by my Administration, and even part of the bill to pay corporations’ product-liability suits.
The reason why Clinton doesn’t want those speeches to be made public is that she doesn’t want the voters to know that she intends to use their money to propagandize to them for the benefit of those corporations, and also to protect those corporations from liability for harms their products cause the public.
This is called (by the propagandists) ‘capitalism’ and ‘democracy’. Mussolini, with pride, called it sometimes “fascism,” and sometimes “corporationism.” But whatever it’s called, it’s what she supports, and what she represents, to the people who are paying her. And even most of her own voters would find it repulsive, if they knew about it. So: she can’t let them know about it. And she doesn’t.
• Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
.
No comments :
Post a Comment