Mark Zuckerberg's Charitable Contribution is to Himself  So He and Other Elitists Can Shape the World in Their Own Images Against the "Useless Eaters"

The move is not surprising given that five years ago Zuckerberg signed the "Giving Pledge" — along with other tech billionaires such as Bill Gates — to give away the majority of his wealth.

Bill Gates and other elitists claim that their plans will reduce global poverty. And they will, but not in the way they would have you believe. The elitists plan to reduce global poverty by eliminating the poor in the world through vaccines, control of the global food supply, GMOs, control over growing your own food, control of vitamins and herbal supplements, control of clean water, control of health care, and control of cheap forms of energy. If you think this won't affect you, just remember that the gap between rich and poor is growing rapidly until one day soon there will be only the rich and the poor, and you will be the next target for elimination. The power elite want to reduce the world's population down to 500 million — chances are, you're not one of their chosen few.  

Let me explain how this works for those of you that know absolutely nothing about asset protection. Remember my words whenever you hear some really rich guy telling you he is donating all his money to charity rather than leave it to his kids....IT IS ALL A SCAM. Here is how it works... A charitable trust is established which focuses on the interests of the person for whom the trust is established. (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have theirs.) Over time, assets that generate income such as stocks are transferred to the trust to support the causes as previously mentioned. Upon the establishers death the remaining assets are transferred to the trust to continue the mission.....Thus avoiding the 55% estate tax.... So where's the scam? Guess who manages the charity? The kids of the person who established the trust, and they are paid a respectable amount per year for their service...say about 3%. That is $1.25B per year to Zuckerberg's heirs for NOTHING. The tax laws protect the ultra rich. Just don't think they are really giving anything away. They are protecting their wealth. [NeoGeo at Yahoo]

Let's not be naive - without knowing anything about this story, we can all still assume it's first and foremost a way to shield his money from taxes and regulation. Probably taking a page from the success of the Clinton Foundation. If he owns Facebook stock there are all kinds of rules about insider trading, reporting, taxes, announcing planned sales, etc... But if you put all the money in a "charity" that you control then there are suddenly a lot fewer rules and penalties to deal with. I'm sure any money going out of the charity will go to quasi-political organizations that promote increasing immigration so he can hire cheaper workers and fire Americans or other groups that promote his liberal leanings or that help his business. I doubt we'll see much of the money going to soup kitchens and Special Olympics. And as long as he keeps making donations to the right politicians he can guarantee he will never get audited or even questioned by law enforcement. [Raul at Yahoo]

People are inexplicably upset about Mark Zuckerberg's decision to "give away" 99% of his fortune

December 2, 2015

Yahoo Finance - Mark Zuckerberg's announcement on Tuesday that he would be giving away 99% of his Facebook stock to "advance human potential and promote equality" was greeted with universal cheers, right?

Well, no.

There were a lot of people who found bad things to say about the announcement.

They fell into several camps.

The 'gotcha — it's not really a charity!' camp

BuzzFeed pointed out that the organization they're donating to, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, is a corporation — an LLC — rather than a nonprofit charity. In addition, the initiative won't necessarily be donating all the money to charitable causes — it will also make private investments and do things like advocacy work and lobbying.

Entrepreneur Anil Dash called the structure of the giveaway "clearly flawed," but admitted that:

It's impossible to know how much of those flaws are about ulterior corporatist goals and how much are accommodations of arcane regulations. For example, almost all non-profit organizations are founded as conventional corporations and then converted after the fact, so starting as an LLC may not be an indicator of future purpose.

As Bloomberg explains, setting up the organization as an LLC allows it to spend money on lobbying, earn money to reinvest in the organization, do joint ventures with fewer restrictions, and lets them give away money at a pace they determine rather than the mandatory 5% per year for non-profits.

The 'Zuck sucks' camp

Gawker pointed out that Zuckerberg's donation is going toward furthering the things that he thinks would help the world, which are not necessarily the things that other people think would help the world.

For instance, the writer called Zuckerberg's question "Can you learn and experience 100 times more than we do today?" a "patently hellish" vision that could only be hatched by a "technocrat." 

The "billionaires don't know anything" camp

There were several takes with this angle. Dash pointed out that most charitable contributions don't really help society:

No matter how good their intentions, the net result of most such efforts has typically been neutral at best, and can sometimes be deeply destructive. The most valuable path may well be to simply invest this enormous pool of resources in the people and institutions that are already doing this work (including, yes, public institutions funded by tax dollars) and trust that they know their domains better than someone who’s already got a pretty demanding day job.

 

A lot of folks linked to a 2010 Der Spiegel interview with businessman Peter Kramer, who argued that billionaires in the U.S. who give their money away are implicitly saying that they know better how to help society than government does:

It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

Rural Residents in Greece Have a Better Chance of Surviving Than City Dwellers

If you want to grow your own food in America then you had better help get rid of Monsanto.Monsanto now controls 40% of the seed market, including hierlooms. They are notorious for suing people for growing food that cross pollenates with their "patented"crops. If you decide to take the chance and grow your own food, you had better check with everyone within a two-mile radius of where you are growing and make sure they aren't growing with Monsanto seeds. You can thank Congress for this! When they can control the food supply, all hope is lost!

Greek villagers' secret weapon: Grow your own food

July 3, 2015

AP - Ilias Mathes has protection against bank closures, capital controls and the slashing of his pension: 10 goats, some hens and a vegetable patch.

If Greece's financial crisis deepens, as many believe it must, he can feed his children and grandchildren with the bounty of the land in this proud village high in the mountains of the Arcadia Peloponnese.

"I have my lettuce, my onions, I have my hens, my birds, I will manage," he said, even though he can no longer access his full pension payment because of government controls imposed six days ago. "We will manage for a period of time, I don't know, two months, maybe three months, because I also want to give to our relatives. If they are suffering, I cannot leave them like this, isn't that so?"

The production of food and milk gives villagers in many parts of Greece a small measure of confidence — and a valuable buffer. But that doesn't mean the financial cut-off doesn't cause headaches. Some in Karitaina have to pay 40 euros in taxi fares to get to and from the nearest banks just to withdraw 60 euros, the maximum daily amount for those with bank cards.

The bus to Megalopoli, the town with the bank, was shut down — a victim of austerity. Many of those who used to drive are now too unwell to do so. The majority who live here are retirees, shrouding the town in eerie quiet broken only by the constant birdsong and the sporadic shouting of people arguing about the financial crisis at a vine-shaded café in the town square.

Despite the collective sense that a catastrophe of some type stares Greece in the face, the country's strong tradition of hospitality remains intact. Mathes won't let a visitor leave without a bundle of fresh vegetables and some "trachanas" and "chilopites," types of local pasta his family makes by hand.

Many believe the ability to help one another with food gives Karitaina, with about 30 year-round residents and 100 in the long, drowsy summer, a better chance of surviving than city dwellers coping with the same anxieties. Rural Greek communities have age-old survival tactics that allow them to weather storms such as World War II deprivation and natural disasters. They will need to draw on them deeply, as Greece's current problems are unlikely to go away soon — whatever the outcome of the referendum Sunday on whether to accept the latest bailout proposals, which call for more austerity cuts to already razor-thin public services.

"In the village it's easier to live," said Ionnis Psilas, who is saddled with debts he says he can never repay after the failure of his car import business. "You can get products from neighbors and give them some. In Athens you are strangers. But the crisis has affected the village very much. We are trying but there is no money here. I lived very well and now I have nothing."

Putin Calls Monsanto a Terrorist Organization

Is Putin Right to Call Monsanto a Terrorist Organization and Ban GMOs?

May 25, 2014

The Motley Fool - Russia has high hopes for organic farming -- maybe a little too high. 

Sometime before wrestling bears and after hunting tigers, Russian President Vladimir Putin found a few minutes to denounce the use of genetically modified crops (again).  

While Russia was widely believed to allow the use of biotech crops shortly after joining the World Trade Organization, the country believes it has found a way to remain GMO-free without violating its obligations as a member nation.

A new bill introduced to the Russian parliament would treat producers of biotech crops from companies such as Monsanto (NYSE: MON ), The Dow Chemical Company (NYSE: DOW ), and Syngenta (NYSE: SYT ) as criminals -- with fines comparable to terrorism.

As co-author of the bill Kirill Cherkasov told RT:

When a terrorist act is committed, only several people are usually hurt. But GMOs may hurt dozens and hundreds. The consequences are much worse. And punishment should be proportionate to the crime.

If the proposed bill becomes law, punishment could range from 15 years to life. That seems a bit harsh to me and, when coupled with numerous anti-science quotes and ideologies from the bill and its supporters, I just don't see how a policy could be sustainable scientifically or economically (what Russia really cares about) speaking. Additionally, most crops grown in Russia today (wheat, barley, sunflower, oats, potatoes) don't have GM varieties. That's good news for Monsanto and Syngenta shareholders, but Russia claims that it can grow enough organic food to never need biotech crops. Are those bold claims actually true?

Can Russia farm without engineered crops?

Russia is free to ban biotech crops, but it should do so with more accurately worded proposals. I'd start by scrapping the proposed bill or amending it to a point where it is generally unrecognizable from its initial submission. Then, Russia should insert language that speaks to (1) its concerns that GMOs are not sufficiently tested and (2) its belief that organic farming practices can sustain the country on their own.

After doing that, Russia must come to grips with reality.

Despite being nearly twice as large as the United States, Russia has substantially less arable land, irrigated land, and land dedicated to permanent crops. Consider the following land area comparison between Russia and the United States:

	Russia	United States
Total Land (sq. km)	17,098,242	9,826,675
Arable Land (sq. km)	1,215,685	1,600,765
Irrigated Land (sq. km)	43,460	266,440
Permanent Crops (sq. km)	17,098	25,549

2013 figures. Source: CIA World Factbook.

The United States is simply more efficient with its land and enjoys better geography than Russia, which suffers from a lack of proper soils and climates (too cold or too dry) for productive agriculture despite its size. Russian farmland is also threatened by "soil contamination from improper application of agricultural chemicals, groundwater contamination from toxic waste, and abandoned stocks of obsolete pesticides," according to the CIA World Factbook. Sounds pretty organic to me.

Russia intends to feed Europe with the majority of its organic food needs within the next decade, but it's far from being a global organic powerhouse. A recent Bloomberg analysis of 165 countries ranked by organic farmland failed to place the country in the top 20. That means Russia ranks behind the Czech Republic, Greece, and all eight (yes, eight) farmers and ranchers in Falkland Islands when it comes to organic farmland for raising livestock or cultivating crops. Indeed, a 2011 report from the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements estimated the value of Russia's organic products at only $60 million-$80 million.

Additionally, Russia simply doesn't support its farmers as well as its European counterparts. While traditional farming is subsidized to the tune of $410-$545 per hectare in the European Union, organic farming captures federal support of nearly $1,230 per hectare. The Russian Ministry of Agriculture offers domestic farmers just $200 per hectare for producing organic foods. Subsidies may be relative to the economics of each country, but Russia isn't doing much to compete with European organic farmers.

While the United States smoking Russia in terms of agricultural efficiency is bad enough, it gets worse when you consider that the Russian economy is substantially more reliant on agriculture. Consider the following economic comparison between Russia and the United States:

	Russia	United States
GDP	$2.553 trillion	$16.72 trillion
GDP From Agriculture	$110 billion	$180 billion
Total Labor Force	75.29 million people	155.4 million people
Labor Force Dedicated to Agriculture	7.3 million	1.09 million

2013 figures. Source: CIA World Factbook.

How is the United States so efficient with its agricultural land? There's strong support for farmers through various government policies, and there has been strong and constant investment in next-generation technologies. Like it or not, some of those next-generation technologies include biotech crops, which alone accounted for 0.9% of American GDP in 2012.

Russia will regret banning biotech crops

Putin and other political leaders can say whatever they want about the atrocities of biotech crops sold by Monsanto and Syngenta, but a quick investigation into the economics doesn't support claims that organic food is ready to supply the nation's food, not to mention the food for other countries. There may very well be a European market for Russia's future organic food products, but it's difficult to imagine the Russian economy enjoying much of a boost from organic farming anytime soon, if ever, given its dire state today.

At a time when Russia should be investing heavily in next-generation agricultural technologies such as biotech crops to catch up to leading nations, it seems to be taking a step backwards with old-world beliefs. I don't see agricultural policies in Russia having much, if any, material effect on biotech seed producers. Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dow Chemical shareholders have no reason to worry about Putin.

Republican Congressman from Kansas Sponsors Bill to Block Mandatory GMO Food Labeling by States

"Somehow a handful of giant corporations have taken control of our food supply and away from the American fFarmers. If you thing these giant corporations have your health at the forefront of their best interests, you are a blind fool. On another note, I find it highly ironic and a huge red flag of the bowing down to lobbyists and big money, that a congressman from America's Heartland, where many people rely on farming as income, has decided to cater to these large corporations that bully farmers. It is disgusting to even think about. And it's not just localized to our agriculture. Just about every industry has been boiled down to just a handful of massive parent companies, and that is very bad for a capitalist economy. Competition cannot govern the market if there is no competition to be seen." - Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker, Yahoo!

"I'll bet the GOP stands to lose a lot of lobbyist bribe money if they can't prevent the labelling from becoming law. Of course, whenever anything Monsanto does is taken to the Supreme Court, it helps that they've got a former employee serving on the bench. Isn't that right Clarence?" - Half-Evil D, Yahoo!

For those who don't know: when you buy fruits and veggies, there are numbers on them... for GMO, it'll be a number normally starting with a 4 and will be like 4102 and such, and normally always 4 digits; for organic, it'll be a number starting always with a 9 and will be like 91803 and such, and normally always 5 digits.

Organic products have strict production and labeling requirements so why shouldn't GMOs? In the US, the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations establishing the National Organic Program (NOP). The final rule was published in the Federal Register in 2000. It restricts the use of the term "organic" to certified organic producers (excepting growers selling under $5,000 a year, who must still comply and submit to a records audit if requested, but do not have to formally apply).

U.S. bill seeks to block mandatory GMO food labeling by states

The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such. Headline should read "Congressman from Kansas gets big paycheck from food industry to keep you from knowing what you are eating."

April 9, 2014

Reuters - A Republican congressman from Kansas introduced legislation on Wednesday that would nullify efforts in multiple states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such.

The bill specifically prohibits any mandatory labeling of foods developed using bioengineering.

"We've got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods," said Pompeo. "That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren't really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard."

Consumer groups have been arguing for labeling because of questions they have both about the safety for human health and the environmental impacts of genetically modified foods, also called GMOs.

Ballot measures in California in 2012 and last year in Washington state narrowly lost after GMO crop developers, including Monsanto Co., and members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) poured millions into campaigns to defeat the measures.

The companies say the crops are safe and cite many scientific studies back those claims. Pompeo on Wednesday reiterated those claims, stating GMOS are safe and "equally healthy" and no labeling is needed.

"It has to date made food safer and more abundant," said Pompeo. "It has been an enormous boon to all of humanity."

But there are also many scientific studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and many indicating environmental damage related to GMO crops.

Notably, millions of acres of U.S. farmland have developed weed resistance due to heavy use of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand dousings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and the subsequent heavy use of Roundup.

Pompei said he expects hearings on the bill sometime this summer. The measure would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. One provision would make it mandatory for biotech crop developers to notify the Food and Drug Administration before it brings a new biotech seed to market and receives no objection from the FDA.

Currently, companies typically do notify the FDA and consult with the agency, but it is not mandatory for them to do so if the ingredients have been strictly separated from biotech crops, and if the company does not imply that its product is safer than foods containing GMOs, the bill states.

The measure requires the FDA to promulgate regulations that specify a maximum permissible level of inadvertent GMO presence that is allowed in foods bearing such non-GMO labeling.

Backers of mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops said that the bill is a sign that the GMA and biotech seed developers fear growing consumer distrust of GMO foods.

"They know that the food movement's power is growing and that labeling is not a matter of if but when." said Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit group that supports mandatory GMO labeling. They are afraid of state action and now they're trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress."

Comment by Focalizer at Yahoo!

A great many independent scientists and scientific groups composed of hundreds of members have catgorically called GMOs biological warfare and a danger greater than nuclear bombs. It has been proven to cause a great many human health risk and its' negative impact on the environment are well documented, as in the lose of 90% of the bee population which is essential for natural pollination. The Monarch butterfly migration has been reduced over 80% due to the lose of milkweed, due to the use of Roundup and a myriad of other herbicides and insectcides used in the production of GMO crops, which is their primary diet during migrations which pass through heavily contaminated GMO crop areas. Huge amounts of bird deaths can be attributed to these products and their production methods.

Currently 52 countries have outright banned or heavily limited experimentation of GMOs and those based upon both scientific studies and the wishes of the populous.

No valid study has shown improved crop production via GMOs and, in fact, in some cases, just the opposite. The simple fact of the matter is that biotech industries are seeking to control the worlds' primary food staples via sales of non-reproductive seed strains so that they are insured annual sales of the seed stocks. They have absolutely no concern for the impacts which their products have upon the human or other life forms, other than seemly trying to destroy them as they contribute to the natural food sources which are the competition. As such it is in fact biological warfare and in all wars the innocents (in this case against all species) suffer the most.

The GMO industries are a ticking time bomb that is and will affect this generation and many coming ones with its unnaturally modified organisms. The health of the planet, including our human species, is at serious risk by corporations with no moral scruples and an insidious drive for power.

Of course they do not wish that products containing ingredients which they produce be labeled so that the people are knowledgeable as to what they are consuming and its affects upon humanity and the natural world. Yet, as I pick up any packaged products, they all list their ingredients, from vitamin and mineral contents to artificial ingredients used in their production.

Why should not the people also know when GMO ingredients are included!!!??? It is our health, the health of our children and theirs. Indeed the health of the natural balances within nature that all life is dependent upon and which is essential for the existence of all species upon our home planet for millions-billions of years to come.

What are the biotech industries so afraid of? After all, it is nothing more than other products whose ingredients must be listed on packaged foods, medicines and beverages made for human and animal consumption. Why should they be above and outside of the consumer protection laws, rules and regulations? Why should we allow the mad scientists of the biotech industries to dictate what we should know and what we shouldn't? Why should humanity allow a close and closed circle to usurp the world's food supplies and dictate our diets and what we must consume. 

Of course Hitler and crew would love it, but we have sacrificed greatly to prevent such inhumanities from occurring and insist on our freedoms for that is what America was conceived to do since its founding.

When it comes to a Public Enemy List, the Biotechs should be placed high up on that list, if not at the very top. They are guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. And obviously they do not want the public to know.

Comment by Bramduff at Yahoo! 

The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed mandatory labeling of genetically modified food because they said there is no scientific evidence of harm. The AMA believes that even voluntary labeling is misleading unless accompanied by focused consumer education. The AAAS stated that mandatory labeling "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers".

[Labeling] efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.

However, the American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in food. The European Commission believes mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, preclude potential misleading of consumers and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment occur. The American College of Physicians, the Illinois Public Health Association, and the Indiana State Medical Association all state:

"lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food"

A 2007 study on the effect of labeling laws found that once labeling went into effect, few products contained genetically modified ingredients. Businesses stopped carrying products with ingredients that had been genetically modified. The study also found that costs were higher in food-exporting than in food-importing countries. Food exporters like the United States, Argentina, and Canada have adopted voluntary labeling approaches, while importers have generally adopted mandatory labeling.