Signing a Contract to sign a Contract? Gloucester Officials Need To Understand The Laws

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

“For the Common Good. “

Since County officials are incapable of following the law as shown repeatedly on this blog site; do they think that signing a letter of intent to sign the Contract for the Swamp School is legal before the funding is available?

The Virginia Constitution was written for us to limit the government intrusion into our lives.  Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States?  How about the Constitution of Virginia?

Code of Virginia

Ҥ 15.2-1238. Certification of sufficient funds.

Except in emergency, no order for delivery on a contract or open market order for supplies or contractual services for any county department or agency shall be awarded until the chief financial officer has certified that the unencumbered balance in the appropriation concerned, in excess of all unpaid obligations, is sufficient to defray the cost of such order.

15.2-1239. Orders and contracts in violation of article.

If any department or agency of the county government purchases or contracts for any supplies or contractual services contrary to the provisions of this article or the rules and regulations made there under  such order or contract shall be void and the head of such department or agency shall be personally liable for the costs of such order or contract.

§ 22.1-175.5. Capital School Projects Fund.

A. The governing body of any locality which is awarded a grant pursuant to this chapter may authorize the local treasurer or fiscal officer, by ordinance or resolution, to create a separate escrow account upon the books of the locality, as described in this section. Upon the adoption of such ordinance or resolution, the treasurer of the locality shall place such grant awards into this account.

B. The escrow account shall be known as the "County/City/Town of ____________ Capital School Projects Fund." All principal deposited to such fund, together with all income from or attributable to the fund, shall be used solely for (i) construction, additions, renovations, including retrofitting and enlarging public school buildings, infrastructure, including technology infrastructure, and site acquisition for public school buildings and facilities or (ii) debt service payments, or a portion thereof, for any such projects completed in the previous ten years if so designated. No disbursement from the fund may be made except upon specific appropriation by the governing body in accordance with applicable law. If a locality establishes such a fund and designates any portion of the funds deposited therein to pay debt service for (i) any general obligation of the locality held by the Virginia Public School Authority or (ii) any Literary Fund loan, the locality shall obtain an opinion of bond counsel that designation of funds to pay debt service on obligations described in clauses (i) and (ii) hereof does not adversely impact the tax-exempt status of such obligations.

C. All grant awards deposited in the fund, including all income from or attributable to such fund, shall be deemed public funds of the locality and shall be subject to all limitations upon deposit and investment provided by general law, including, but not limited to, the Virginia Security for Public Deposits Act (§2.2-4400 et seq.). Income, dividends, distributions, and grants accruing to the fund shall be retained in such fund and shall be expended only in accordance with the terms of this section.

D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to authorize a school board or school division to receive, hold or invest funds in its own name, nor to expend funds in the absence of a specific appropriation by the governing body of the locality in accordance with applicable law. “

The county intends to sign a letter of intent to sign the contract to build the Swamp School?  Again they violate their oath of office.  Is our county attorney trying to prove to us he is a full time County Jester and not a lawyer?  Or do they all have a total disregard for the laws of Virginia? Maybe we should let them sign the letter of intent violating the law and then let them pay for the building out of their personal funds?

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.  Our founding fathers used common sense and Christian scripture when establishing our founding documents. 

“For the Common Good. “

Sincerely,

Alexander James Jay

P.S.  "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."  --Thomas Jefferson,letter to John Taylor, 1816

Our Notes:  During the 17th and 18th century, the colonies, the world, dealt with pirates who swindled anything they could get their hands on.  Today, the pirates wear ties and suits and try to convince us that what they are doing is in the best interest of the children, the community, the state or the entire country.  

Related articles

• Page Middle School News, Gloucester, VA
• Gloucester, VA School Board Ready To Contract Construction Without Funds
• Gloucester, VA More Page Middle School Corruption?
• Constitution Day
• Criminals with no regard for the law
• Rights of Victims of Crime

THE FLAX-COTTON REVOLUTION. BY HORACE GREELEY

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

London, Wednesday, June 4, 1851.

Although I have not yet found time for a careful and thorough examination of the machinery and processes recently invented or adopted in Europe for the manufacture of cheap fabrics from Flax, I have seen enough to assure me of their value and importance. I have been disappointed only with regard to machinery for Flax-Dressing, which seems, on a casual inspection, to be far less efficient than the best on our side of the Atlantic, especially that patented of late in Missouri and Kentucky. That in operation in the British Machinery department of the Exhibition does its work faultlessly, except that it turns out the product too slowly. I roughly estimate that our Western machines are at least twice as efficient.

M. Claussen is here, and has kindly explained to me his processes and shown me their products. He is no inventor of Flax-dressing Machinery at all, and claims nothing in that line. In dressing, he adopts and uses the best machines he can find, and I think is destined to receive important aid from American inventions. What he claims is mainly the discovery of a cheap chemical solvent of the Flax fiber, whereby its coarseness and harshness are removed and the fineness and softness of Cotton induced in their stead. This he has accomplished. Some of his Flax-Cotton is scarcely distinguishable from the Sea Island staple, while to other samples he has given the character of Wool very nearly. I can imagine no reason ]why this Cotton should not be spun and woven as easily as any other. The staple may be rendered of any desired length, though the usual average is about two inches. It is as white as any Cotton, being made so by an easy and cheap bleaching process. M. Claussen's process in lieu of Rotting requires but three hours for its completion. It takes the Flax as it came from the field, only somewhat dryer and with the seed beaten off, and renders it thoroughly fit for breaking. The plant is allowed to ripen before it is harvested, so that the seed is all saved, while the tediousness and injury to the fiber, not to speak of the unwholesomeness, of the old-fashioned Rotting processes are entirely obviated. Where warmth is desirable in the fabrics contemplated, the staple is made to resemble Wool quite closely. Specimens dyed red, blue, yellow, &c., are exhibited, to show how readily and satisfactorily the Flax-Cotton takes any color that may be desired. Beside these lie rolls of Flannels, Feltings, and almost every variety of plain textures, fabricated wholly or in good part from Flax as prepared for Spinning under M. Claussen's patent, proving the adaptation of this fiber to almost every use now subserved by either Cotton or Wool. The mixtures of Cotton and Flax, Flax-Cotton and Wool, are excellent and serviceable fabrics.

The main question still remains to be considered—will it pay? Flax may be grown almost anywhere—two or three crops a year of it in some climates—a crop of it equal to three times the present annual product of Cotton, Flax and Wool all combined could easily be produced even next year. But unless cheaper fabrics, all things considered, can be produced from Flax-Cotton than from the Mississippi staple, this fact is of little worth. On this vital point I must of course rely on testimony, and M. Claussen's is as follows:

He says the Flax-straw, or the ripe, dry plant as it comes from the field, with the seed taken off, may be grown even here for $10 per tun, but he will concede its cost for the present to be $15 per tun, delivered, as it is necessary that liberal inducements shall be given for its extensive cultivation. Six tuns of the straw or flax in the bundle will yield one tun of dressed and clean fiber, the cost of dressing which by his methods, so as to make it Flax Cotton, is $35 per tun. (Our superior Western machinery ought considerably to reduce this.) The total cost of the Flax-Cotton, therefore, will be $125 per tun or six cents per pound, while Flax-straw as it comes from the field is worth $15 per tun; should this come down to $10 per tun, the cost of the fiber will be reduced to $95 per tun, or less than five cents per pound. At that rate, good "field-hands" must be rather slow of sale for Cotton-planting at $1,000 each, or even $700.

Is there any doubt that Flax-straw may be profitably grown in the United States for $15 or even $10 per tun? Consider that Flax has been extensively grown for years, even in our own State, for the seed only, the straw being thrown out to rot and being a positive nuisance to the grower. Now the seed is morally certain to command, for two or three years at least, a higher price than hitherto, because of the increased growth and extended use of the fiber. Let no farmer who has Flax growing be tempted to sell the seed by contract or otherwise for the present; let none be given over to the tender mercies of oil-mills. We shall need all that is grown this year for sowing next Spring, and it is morally certain to bear a high price even this Fall. The sagacious should caution their less watchful neighbors on this point. I shall be disappointed if a bushel of Flax-seed be not worth two bushels of Wheat in most parts of our Country next May.

Our ensuing Agricultural Fairs, State and local, should be improved for the diffusion of knowledge and the attainment of concert and mutual understanding with regard to the Flax-Culture. For the present, at any rate, few farmers can afford or will choose to incur the expense of the heavy machinery required to break and roughly dress their flax, so as to divest it of four-fifths of its bulk and leave the fiber in a state for easy transportation to the central points at which Flax-Cotton machinery may be put in operation. If the Flax-straw has to be hauled fifty or sixty miles over country roads to find a purchaser or breaking-machine, the cost of such transportation will nearly eat up the proceeds. If the farmers of any township can be assured beforehand that suitable machinery will next Summer be put up within a few miles of them, and a market there created for their Flax, its growth will be greatly extended. And if intelligent, energetic, responsible men will now turn their thoughts toward the procuring and setting up of the best Flax-breaking machinery (not for fully dressing but merely for separating the fibre from the bulk of the woody substance it incloses) they may proceed to make contracts with their neighboring farmers for Flax-straw to be delivered in the Autumn of next year on terms highly advantageous to both parties. The Flax thus roughly dressed may be transported even a hundred miles to market at a moderate cost, and there can be no reasonable doubt of its commanding a good price. M. Claussen assures me that he could now buy and profitably use almost any quantity of such Flax if it were to be had. The only reason (he says) why there are not now any number of spindles and looms running on Flax-Cotton is the want of the raw material. (His patent is hardly yet three mouths old.) Taking dressed and hetcheled Flax, worth seven to nine cents per pound, and transforming it into Flax-Cotton while Cotton is no higher than at present, would not pay.

Of course, there will be disappointments, mistakes, unforeseen difficulties, disasters, in Flax-growing and the consequent fabrications hereafter as heretofore. I do not presume that every man who now rushes into Flax will make his fortune; I presume many will incur losses. I counsel and urge the fullest inquiry, the most careful calculations, preliminary to any decisive action. But that such inquiry will lead to very extensive Flax-sowing next year,—to the erection of Flax-breaking machinery at a thousand points where none such have ever yet existed—and ultimately to the firm establishment of new and most important branches of industry, I cannot doubt. Our own country is better situated than any other to take the lead in the Flax-business; her abundance of cheap, fertile soil and of cheap seed, the intelligence of her producers, the general diffusion of water or steam power, and our present superiority in Flax-breaking machinery, all point to this result. It will be unfortunate alike for our credit and our prosperity if we indolently or heedlessly suffer other nations to take the lead in it.

P. S.—M. Claussen has also a Circular Loom in the Exhibition, wherein Bagging, Hosiery, &c., may be woven without a seam or anything like one. This loom may be operated by a very light hand-power (of course, steam or water is cheaper), and it does its work rapidly and faultlessly. I mention this only as proof of his inventive genius, and to corroborate the favorable impression he made on me. I have seen nothing more ingenious in the immense department devoted to British Machinery than this loom.

I understand that overtures have been made to M. Claussen for the purchase of his American patent, but as yet without definite result. This, however, is not material. Whether the patent is sold or held, there will next year be parties ready to buy roughly dressed Flax to work up under it, and it is preparation to grow such Flax that I am urging. I believe nothing more important or more auspicious to our Farming Interest has occurred for years than this discovery by M. Claussen. He made it in Brazil, while engaged in the growth of Cotton. It will not supersede Cotton, but it will render it no longer indispensable by providing a substitute equally cheap, equally serviceable, and which may be grown almost everywhere. This cannot be realized too soon.

William Shakespeare, A Short History

William Shakespeare was born at Stratford, on the Avon, April 23, 1564, and was baptized on the 26th. Two months after his birth the plague swept over the pleasant village, carrying off a large part of the inhabitants. The danger that hung over the marvellous infant passed away, and he grew up healthy and strong. His mother, Mary Arden, inherited a large farm at Wilmecote, a mile from Stratford; and his father, John Shakespeare, who held several other pieces of land, was probably an active farmer, raising sheep, and perhaps cattle. The house in which it is said Shakespeare was born is still shown in Henley Street, Stratford—a plain building of timber and plaster, covered with the names of those who have come from every part of the world to visit the dark, narrow room made memorable by the poet's birth.

He had several younger brothers—Gilbert, Richard, Edmund, and a sister Joan—all of whom he aided in his[Pg 738] prosperity. The family in Henley Street was a happy one; and the young Shakespeares and their sister probably wandered in the flowery fields around the Avon, or lived on the farm at Wilmecote, saw the cows milked, and the cattle pastured, and all the changes of rural life. Shakespeare lived among the flowers he describes so well; and in the fine park of Fulbroke, not far off, saw the magnificent oaks, the herds of deer, and the gay troops of huntsmen chasing the poor stag along the forest glade. He must have been a precocious boy, seeing everything around him even in childhood. He is described or painted in later life as having a fair, melancholy, sensitive face, his eyes apparently dark, his hair brown and flowing. His disposition was gentle and benevolent; he won the love even of his foes.

As the son of a farmer he probably had little education. He went for several years to the grammar school at Stratford, and was then perhaps employed on his father's farm. Like Virgil, Horace, Burns, and many other poets, he grew up in the country. Nothing is certainly known of his youth. He was fond of rural sports, and amidst his early labors went no doubt to the country fairs, joined in the Christmas games and May-day dances, and probably when the Earl of Leicester gave the magnificent reception to Queen Elizabeth at Kenilworth, described in Scott's novel, Shakespeare was there among the spectators. He was then a boy of twelve. He could enjoy the plays, games, the pomp and glitter, of that famous festival.

He must have read romances and tales early, like Dickens; he may have amused his little brothers and his sister Joan by repeating to them on winter evenings in the low room in Henley Street the story of the wild castle of Elsinore, or of the venerable Lear and the gentle Cordelia. He was all imagination, and precocious in knowledge; he must have studied when his companions played, and read everything that came in his way. At eighteen he fell in love and married Anne Hathaway, a young lady eight years older than himself. Before he was twenty-one he had three children to maintain, and went up to London to find employment. He remained in obscurity for some years; but at last appears, about 1590, the finest poet and dramatist of all ages.

Shakespeare pursued his career in London as author and theatrical manager for nearly twenty-five years. He was very industrious; he was prudent, but generous; he saved money, and grew wealthy. About 1612 or 1613 he returned to Stratford, where he lived in the best house of the little village, called "New Place." Here he gave a home to his father and mother, and provided liberally for his younger brothers. To his sister Joan he gave the house in Henley Street, which remained in the possession of her descendants until 1820. He may have looked forward to a long and honorable old age, but died in 1616, it is said, on the same day of the year on which he was born. His son Hamnet died long before him. He left two daughters.

His writings teach men to be kind and gentle.

From Harper's Magazine, 1880

Gloucester, VA Public Schools Trending Downwards Fast

Now here is information you are not likely to find in any of the other news sources in Gloucester.  Recent trends show that Gloucester Public Schools are on a downward spiral in many areas and our children are not getting the education they deserve yet our costs are going up, up, up.

  The following information has just been shared with us and we want to share it with all of you.

"If you visit https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/

and fill in the form for “School Division Report Card” you will find the Gloucester County Public School System did not meet all Federal Annual Measurable Objectives for the 2012-2013 school year.  While you are there be sure to look near the bottom of the page where you will find the School Safety statistics.  You will quickly see the bad trend.

 

If you visit the same web address and fill in the form forGloucester High School you will find that GHS was “Accredited with Warning”.

 

The Gloucester County Public School System is once again demonstrating its need for more effective administration and management.  During the October 8, 2013 School Board Meeting the board was given a presentation of the federal and state yearly public school system assessment results.  School system administrators focused more on rendering their negative opinions about the assessment criteria and providing excuses for the deficient areas than they spent on discussing a plan of action and ways to meet and exceed the standards.  Most board members demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the evaluation systems that monitor the quality of education being provided to Gloucester County students. The presentation did not provide the Safety portion of the assessment results which reflects a substantial increase in disciplinary infractions during the 2012-2013 school year."

An increase in disciplinary infractions?  Yet The Kiser has recently stated that these kinds of issues just do not happen at our local schools where a student recently committed suicide due to being excessively bullied?  Take the time to look at those reports.  They are very revealing.  

Related articles

• Connecting The Dots of Gloucester Officials Corruption?
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Corruption?
• Gloucester, VA School Information You Didn't Know
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Dis Service Announcement 1
• Gloucester, VA Speaking for.....
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Dis Service Announcement 2

Gloucester, VA Candidates For Board of Supervisor's Positions, 2013/14

Come and meet the candidates for the upcoming seats on the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors positions.  3 seats are open this season for 2014.  Those seats are York District, Petsworth District and At Large position.  The At Large supervisor's position is one where that particular supervisor represents all residents of the county and not just one specific district within the county.

  We are going to introduce each candidate from left to right.

1. Phil Bazzani, York District candidate
2. Graham Blake, York District
3. Mike Jenkins, Petsworth District
4. Grant Keller, At Large Position, Covers Entire County
5. John Meyer, At Large Position, Covers Entire County
6. Marsha Mickle, York District
7. Mr Winebarger, Petsworth District

As soon as we get a chance, we will be putting up audio from the forum so that everyone can hear the candidates positions.  We will try and get that up before the end of the week.  The central themes of the forum were very clear, taxes are going up and are out of control, a lack of new business into the area to help grow the tax base and take some of the burden off the residents, a present Board of Supervisors who are out of control and do not listen to the people they are supposed to serve.

Now it is up to you, the voter, to decide whom you think are the best candidates to represent you in both the county as well as your district.  To help that process, we have made our selection based on sound ideas, passion for wanting to do the best job they can, the right ideas and ideals and the best answers.  What we can tell you is that the decisions were very tough on building our A list and we debated our decisions for several hours based on the facts before us.

Our A list selection is as follows;

For Petsworth:  Mr Winebarger had the most passion for the position with very sound answers to tough questions.

For York District;  Marsha Mickle.  Our toughest decision.  Phil Bazzani was an extremely tough person to beat, but we felt Marsha Mickle had a little more personal passion for the position and the time to do an incredible job for her constituents.

For At Large;  Grant Keller.  Again this was an extremely tough call to make.  John Meyer was at the top of our list even coming out of the forum.  We spent over 4 hours with Grant Keller after the forum and he convinced us that he is in fact the right person for the job.  He presented us with his ideas and concerns and we felt we had to throw our support to him after an incredible job and well thought out objectives and visions that he clearly conveyed.

Now that makes our B list rather clear with one exception.  The York district has 3 people seeking to represent the constituents.  So our B choice has to go to Phil Bazzani.  Graham Blake moves to the C list.  What was sad are the jokes overheard about Mr Blake based on his age that he might not live through the 4 year term and there was speculation that he may even need naps during the 3 hour meetings.  Though he is up there in age, we thought the jokes were reckless.  He does have considerable experience he brings to the table that still needs to be taken into consideration.

On a final note for this post, we would like to thank Katie Thompson and her staff for producing this forum and a job very well done.

 

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA School Information You Didn't Know
• Gloucester, VA More Page Middle School Corruption?
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Dis Service Announcement 1
• Gloucester, VA Officials Honor Animal Cruelty Criminal?
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Corruption?
• October Gloucester, VA Ordinances In Violation of State Code

Gloucester, VA School Board Candidates Open Public Forum

Candidates for 2014 include from left to right, Andersen, Hook, Parker and Records.  Each are running for positions on the Gloucester county school board unopposed.  One thing we liked that Mr Andersen said was that even though he is running unopposed, a vote for him is still a vote of confidence in his abilities and he would greatly appreciate that.

  Ms Hook is a local attorney in the Gloucester area who showed she is very well versed in many areas of the school board's issues and able to articulate matters quite well.

  Ms Parker has been a concerned domestic engineer overseeing her families business with a passion to see that present and future education of the area's children are well represented.

  Mr Records is an engineer with a great deal of concern over local education and is seeking to fill a position on the school board.  We would like to see Mr Record get that opportunity.  

Related articles

• Page Middle School News, Gloucester, VA
• Gloucester, VA School Information You Didn't Know
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Dis Service Announcement 2
• Gloucester, VA Speaking for.....
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Dis Service Announcement 1
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Corruption?

Designer Babies and Other Patented Life Forms

Wooden Sculpture of Science Genetics (Photo credit: epSos.de)

By Dr. Mercola

In 2001, a study1 announcing the successful birth of the world’s first genetically engineered babies—30 in total—was published. This staggering development didn’t receive media attention until nearly a decade later.

The children were created using genes from TWO women and one man—a process referred to as ooplasmic transplantation, in which genes from a female donor are inserted into another woman’s eggs before being fertilized with a man’s sperm.

What the ramifications of having the genetic traits of three parents might be for the individual, or for their subsequent offspring, is still unknown.

However, based on what I’ve learned about the genetic engineering of plants, I’m inclined to say the consequences could be vast, dire, and most likely completely unexpected.

In fact, it only took two years for follow-up reports to begin discussing problems encountered in these genetically engineered babies. According to one such report:2

“A frank follow-up of ooplasmic transplantation pregnancies and infants reports that two out of 17 fetuses had an abnormal 45, XO karyotype. The authors assume the hypothesis of a link between chromosomal anomalies and oocytes manipulation, and reveal that one of the babies has been diagnosed at 18 months with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a spectrum of autism-related diagnoses."

Despite such risks, and the lack of public discussion about these kinds of ventures, genetic scientists are steadily forging ahead, bringing us ever closer to the reality of “designer babies”—children born with traits predetermined by the parents’ choice.

As a matter of fact, the genetic modification of humans appears to have been running alongside the genetic engineering of plants, being just a few years behind in terms of the technology being unleashed. The lack of proper evaluation of health effects is apparently on par as well, which is to say near non-existent.

Are 'Design-A-Baby' Centers Next?

As recently reported by BBC News,3 a US patent has been filed for a DNA testing database, which would be used by prospective parents to find out which traits their future offspring might inherit. Critics call it “ethically and socially treacherous,” and I’m inclined to agree. According to the featured article:

“23andMe says its Family Traits Inheritor Calculator can predict the risk of inheriting specific diseases as well as details such as height, weight, eye color and even personality. Couples send the firm a saliva sample to see what their babies might be like.

... But critics remain concerned that such technology could be misused. 'It would be highly irresponsible for 23andMe or anyone else to offer a product or service based on this patent,' said Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society... ‘We believe the patent office made a serious mistake in allowing a patent that includes drop-down menus for which to choose a future child's traits.’”

Could Humans Eventually Become Patented Property?

One nightmarish scenario humanity might be faced with, should genetic engineering and designing of humans continue unchecked, is the potential for a patent war; meaning these genetically engineered humans could become patentable property.

Sound crazy?

You bet! But it’s not outside the realm of possibility. The world is already embroiled in discussions about which genetically engineered life forms can and cannot be patented,4 and biotech companies have secured patents on everything from genetically modified seeds to engineered animals of various kinds.

Furthermore, as of 2005, nearly 20 percent of human genes were already patented,5 and are explicitly claimed as intellectual property by one company or another. Unchallenged, what’s to stop a company from eventually claiming patent rights on an entire individual?

In an effort to put the brakes on this disturbing trend, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)6 has sued the US Patent and Trademark Office to stop the practice of issuing patents that are contrary to the law—which states that only inventionscan be patented; not naturally-occurring parts of the human body. As explained by the ACLU:7

“For example, Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, controls patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes [two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer]. Because of its patents, Myriad has the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying, or even looking at these genes. It also holds the exclusive rights to any mutations along those genes. No one is allowed to do anything with the BRCA genes without Myriad's permission.”

Thankfully, on June 13 this year, the US Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the patents on BRCA 1 and BRCA 2—an important victory in the fight to reclaim our genes.8 But we still have a long way to go. Patenting of seeds, for example, is just as hazardous to the future of mankind as the patenting of human genes.

One Human, Multiple Genomes

Genetic research is of course important, and has revealed some very interesting misconceptions. Unfortunately, many scientists fail to take such findings into account. One example is the genetic engineering of plants, which are considered to be “equivalent” to conventional varieties even though there are in fact vast differences.

For example, genetically engineered plants typically end up producing novel proteins that have never existed in the food supply before, courtesy of the new genetic material that has been inserted.

The increased use of GE crops in the American food supply is one explanation for the dramatic uptick in food allergies and gastrointestinal problems over the past two decades.

The Human Genome Project, which was completed in 2003, discovered that we have nowhere near enough genes to account for all the biological functions in the human body, and the reason for this is because genes do not operate as previously predicted. In a nutshell, having a "cancer program" in your DNA does not automatically mean you're destined to get cancer. Far from it, because simply having the genetic information does not mean it will be expressed.

As it turns out, any given gene can create and encode tens of thousands of different proteins, and it is these proteins that dictate cell function. What’s most important here is that the types of proteins encoded is dependent on the environment in which the cell finds itself.

In fact, the epigenetic influences appear to be most powerful. These are the factors that cause your genes to actually be expressed and produce the proteins they encode for. A toxic environment will cause a gene to produce different proteins than a non-toxic environment for example.

That said, according to more recent research,9 the picture is likely even more complex. Researchers have now discovered that while each person has one major genome, on the cellular level you can have multiple different genomes, depending on the tissue. As stated in a recent Science Magazine interview with the author of the study, James Lupski:10, 11

“[R]esearchers have come to realize that we are made up of a mosaic of cells—populations of cells with different versions of the genome, present in varying degrees in different tissues.

A few base pair changes, a few extra copies of a repetitive sequence—these things seem small on the scale of three billion base pairs, but it does mean that there is no ‘true you’ spelled out in your genes, and it also means that these slight differences could impact development and health... ‘So certainly, if you’re looking at the blood, it doesn’t tell you what’s going on in the brain,’ [says James Lupski].

Interestingly enough, genome mosaicism does not necessarily equate to disease. In fact, in his paper12 Lupski states that mosaicism has also been found in healthy tissues, and may even play a role in the normal functioning of cells. Mosaicism also comes into play when you’re talking about hereditary diseases, which makes the idea of creating “designer babies” all the more daunting and fraught with unforeseen risks. In his paper, Lupski writes:

“Mosaicism and risk for recurrence in offspring may also relate to the time in embryo-genesis at which the de novo mutational event occurred. If the parent is germline mosaic, he or she is at risk for a recurrence of another child with the disease.

...From a diagnostics standpoint, it is important to realize that genome analyses reflect the average genome of the cells one examines. Thus, for chorionic villus sampling, an abnormality observed may represent confined placental mosaicism. When performing karyotype analysis from a blood sample, only cells stimulated to grow are assayed for chromosomes, whereas total DNA isolated from white blood cells comes from more cell types and thus may detect mosaicism. However, none of these approaches informs on the presence of mosaicism in the brain or other tissues and organs.”

Your Genes Do Not Predetermine Your Health

The major problem with believing the myth that your genes control your life is that you become a victim of your heredity. Since you can't change your genes, it essentially means that your life is predetermined, and therefore you have very little control over your health. Quelling such fears is what “designer babies” is all about—the idea that you can safeguard your offspring from certain health risks. (Of course, taken to an extreme, such fantasies also include the ability to design a child that has specifically chosen physical and mental characteristics, and perhaps even specific personality traits.)

But the new science, oftentimes referred to as epigenetics, reveals that you are in fact an extension of your environment, which includes everything from your thoughts and belief systems, to toxic exposures and exposure to sunlight, exercise, and, of course, everything you choose to put onto and into your body.

Rather than looking for a way to “design” healthier humans through genetic manipulation, it would make far more sense to address our environment, including our food supply, instead—so that everyone, whether we’re “custom made” or not, can thrive and be the healthiest version of ourselves that we can be.

Science has now taken us far beyond Newtonian physics, which says you live in a mechanical universe. Your body is NOT just a biological machine whose health can be modified by altering the parts of the machine. Unfortunately, conventional science is being slow on the uptake of these facts, and the entire pharmaceutical paradigm is still rooted in the Newtonian view of the body as a biological machine. As such, your body is thought to respond to physical "things" like the active chemicals in drugs, and by adjusting the drugs that modify your machinery, doctors can modify and control health.

However, as biophysics and quantum physics shows us that the invisible, immaterial realm is actually far more important than the material realm, so your immaterial thoughts may actually shape your biological environment and genetic expression to a greater degree than a drug...

Unfortunately, as a general broad-strokes rule, it seems few scientists fond of gene-tinkering have a well-rounded or holistic view of living organisms, opting instead to view the human body as a machine. And as demonstrated with the multi-varied problems that have arisen from genetically engineered foods—from the development of superweeds and superpests, to the creation of anever-before-seen organism now linked to miscarriage and infertility—such a view is bound to lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Patenting of Seeds Threaten Biodiversity and the Future of Mankind

Over the past 18 years or so, a collection of five giant biotech and chemical corporations -- Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and DuPont -- have bought up more than 200 other companies, allowing them to dominate access to seeds. The enormous ramifications of this should be fairly obvious.

For starters, the takeover has been so dramatic that it’s difficult for farmers to find alternatives. As a result, 90 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered, and many conventional farmers have trouble obtaining non-genetically modified seeds. Genetically engineered (GE) seeds, particularly corn and soy, have now taken over in many areas of the world, effectively eliminating the use of conventional and "heirloom" seeds, and along with them, the ancient, sustainable farming practices that produces healthful food.

What’s worse, besides patenting their own GE seeds, Monsanto has also succeeded in slapping patents on a large number of common crop seeds, in essence patenting life forms for the first time -- without a single vote of the people or Congress. By doing this, Monsanto has become the sole owner of many of the very seeds necessary to support the world's food supply… an incredibly powerful position for any company to be in.

One solution to this growing problem would be to make patenting seeds, plants, and genes illegal. As it stands now, each genetically engineered seed is patented and sold under exclusive rights. Therefore, farmers must purchase the GE seeds anew each year, because saving seeds is considered to be patent infringement. Anyone who does save GE seeds must pay a license fee to actually re-sow them. This, of course, results in higher prices and reduced product options.

Add in the increased need for pesticides and herbicides like Roundup that GE crops require, and the ever rising cost of these products, and what you end up with is a far more expensive crop that has the potential to not only fail more frequently than conventional crops, but that can also be extremely harmful to the animals and humans who eat them.

Even the NY Times Is Becoming Concerned About Monsanto

I’ve written extensively about the health hazards and environmental harm caused by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. The New York Times13 also recently addressed the issue:

“‘Because glyphosate moves into the soil from the plant, it seems to affect the rhizosphere, the ecology around the root zone, which in turn can affect plant health,’ said Robert Kremer, a scientist at the United States Agriculture Department, who has studied the impact of glyphosate on soybeans for more than a decade and has warned of the herbicide’s impact on soil health. Like the human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance, helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis.

In some studies, scientists have found that a big selling point for the pesticide — that it binds tightly to minerals in the soil, like calcium, boron and manganese, thus preventing runoff — also means it competes with plants for those nutrients. Other research indicates that glyphosate can alter the mix of bacteria and fungi that interact with plant root systems, making them more susceptible to parasites and pathogens.”

Other Life Forms Potentially Slated for Patenting: Soil Microbes

Incredibly, the NY Times article also actually hints at the possibility of engineering soil microbes to “make up” for the detrimental effects of Roundup! Earlier this year, Monsanto purchased “select assets” of Agradis,14 a “sustainable agricultural solutions” company founded by J. Craig Venter, a scientist who sequenced the human genome to develop various microbes and “agricultural biologicals.” Monsanto also acquired a collection of Venter’s microbes.

According to Monsanto’s chief technology officer Robert Fraley, “the foray into microbes... is to improve yield and address some of the issues raised about glyphosate.” What the future might hold if they actually go so far as to tinker with genetically engineered soil microbes is anyone’s guess. But I’m betting it won’t be good.

Why GMO Labeling Is a Must

All in all, it should be quite clear that mankind has ventured into some very deep waters in our quest to master nature. As a result, private companies have laid claim to numerous life forms from various kingdoms, including human genes. Unless this trend is halted, we may end up with a world in which corporate entities own quite literally everything—from soil microbes to individual humans. It sounds inconceivable, and yet this is the reality we’re already in; it’s just a matter of degree, really.

While the obstacles may appear near-insurmountable, I urge you to not fall into despair, but rather to join forces with those who are actively working to protect life, in all its forms, from corporate takeover. There are many such organizations and projects. At this very moment, I would encourage you to engage in the efforts to get genetically engineered foods labeled in the US.

This is an absolutely crucial component of reining in the corporate takeover of agriculture. Without labels, you cannot know what you’re buying. And unless consumer demand calls for other types of foods besides genetically engineered varieties, farmers do not have any incentive to plant them since so few food companies currently buy non-GE crops. This issue will become even more important once genetically engineered food animals are introduced. So please, support the efforts to get genetically modified organisms (GMOs) labeled.

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

 Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

• No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
• Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
• For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

Related articles

• Patented Life Forms and Designer Babies, How Far is Too Far?
• The Perilous Road Ahead: Designer Babies and Other Patented Life Forms... Where Will It All End?
• The Perilous Road Ahead: Designer Babies and Other Patented Life Forms... Where Will It All End?
• The Technology for Designer Babies Was Just Patented, But Will It Be Used?