All Episodes
Previous Next
March 15, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
17:56
Why Ted Cruz is a serious threat to America’s food security
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I've got to explain why Ted Cruz is such a threat to America's food security.
And I'm coming at this from a very qualified point of view.
Allow me to explain that.
Number one, I am a constitutionalist.
So, on principle, I actually agree with Ted Cruz on many, many things.
Many, many positions.
The history of our nation.
What it means to be a republic.
The Bill of Rights.
The importance of all of that.
The rule of law and so on.
I'm not in any way saying that Ted Cruz isn't a brilliant constitutional scholar and lawyer, because he is.
I'm not arguing against that at all.
But what I am saying is that he is a threat to this nation in terms of our food security.
Now, my name is Mike Adams.
I'm the Health Ranger.
I live in Texas, so I am a Texan like Ted Cruz.
I support Governor Abbott I'm the author of Food Forensics.
It's at foodforensics.com, the new book.
I'm a food research scientist.
I run my own analytical laboratory.
In fact, you're hearing in the background probably some of the noise from the lab.
I apologize.
I'm actually doing this recording while I'm running water samples to expose the fraud of the EPA. So, I am someone who appreciates independent science.
I'm a whistleblower, I'm a consumer health advocate, and I'm a constitutionalist.
This is all well known.
Ted Cruz went out recently and he attacked people who were concerned about GMOs, and he used some language called them, I don't know, anti-science kooks or quacks or something like that.
I forgot the exact term.
But he made it clear that he sides with Monsanto.
And that people who have concerns about GMOs are anti-science.
Now this is astonishing coming from a guy who knows nothing about science.
Ted Cruz is not a scientist.
Maybe a preacher, maybe a lawyer, maybe even a prosecutor.
He'd be a great district attorney somewhere or Or something else similar to that.
But he's not a scientist.
He doesn't know anything about food science, about genetic science, about environmental contamination, heavy metals, food composition, food absorption, the risk of genetic pollution from GMOs.
So he's speaking about something where he has virtually zero knowledge.
And yet he's happy to sign up I'd like to explain why Ted Cruz's position is so ignorant and scientifically illiterate, which is a very common trait by the way of candidates and bureaucrats on the political right.
I'm kind of known for saying that people on the left are economically illiterate, and people on the right are scientifically illiterate.
That's what I find, in my experience anyway.
So if you understand economics and science, then you're like automatically above all parties, because there is no political party that understands both of those, it seems.
Nevertheless, that's another discussion.
But here's the point.
When Ted Cruz supports Monsanto, what he's really supporting is the centralization and the monopolization of food production in the hands of the few.
You might even call it fascist food.
In other words, Monsanto working in conspiracy with government, working with the USDA, plotting together to To bypass good science and to censor good science and to threaten good scientists, actually, into silence.
It is a fascist system of producing food to monopolize it into the hands of the few.
The primary aim of Monsanto is to sell poison and own all the seeds.
That's it.
They sell more poison than they do seeds.
They're a poison company.
You know, weed killer, glyphosate, Roundup.
But they also want to monopolize the food supply, which puts them in a very, very powerful and even dangerous position over the fate of our nation and humanity.
Anytime that something becomes centralized and is no longer distributed across society, it usually becomes less secure, less resistant to attacks or systemic failures, for example.
When a nation has a food supply that is controlled in the hands of the few, a corporate-run, centralized, monopolized food supply, that nation does not have food redundancy or food security.
It has, in fact, a national security vulnerability in the food by adhering to that kind of structure.
That's because every centralized system, whether we're discussing food or electricity or petroleum, If it's centralized it has single points of failure that can cripple the entire system very easily.
There is very little redundancy in the system.
Redundant systems are systems that are distributed.
They have different branches, if you will, or different cells, you could say, that can independently operate A redundant, self-sufficient, resilient food system is a food system where more food is grown locally, where even individuals are growing more food in their own backyards and maybe even front yards.
More local farms are producing food.
There is more diversity in the seed supply.
There are more sources of food.
There are more small companies involved in food production rather than a very small number of very large companies.
GMOs create the centralization, both in terms of intellectual property and logistics, of the food supply, putting the supply of food into the hands of very few people, making it highly vulnerable to breakdowns, power grid failures, natural disasters, acts power grid failures, natural disasters, acts of war, genetic pollution, these kinds of issues.
And yet, a food supply on the other end of the spectrum, where people are growing their own food and people are buying food locally, is highly resilient, can withstand wars, can withstand natural disasters, can withstand blight, and even crop diseases that might affect monocropped and even crop diseases that might affect monocropped animals.
Food supplies where everything is genetically the same, but when it's distributed and there's more variety in the seed supply and more variety in the way food is produced, there is less risk for crop diseases to have a devastating effect on the food supply.
In fact, if you look at the history of Europe, a lot of that is the history of starvation caused by people planting the same crop all over the place and then suffering from mass starvation when that crop had a It had a disease or a blight that destroyed it, threatened it.
It can be fungi, it can be a virus, it can be bacteria.
Lots of different pathogens can attack plants just like they can attack humans.
And even right now today, the banana supply from places like Ecuador is highly vulnerable and about to be wiped out because it's the same cloned plant.
I think it's called Cavendish bananas.
are all genetically identical, which means it's highly vulnerable, and there is a wipeout underway right now.
You may not be able to get bananas at anywhere near the current availability over the next five years.
So Ted Cruz's crucial mistake in this point is thinking that the argument against GMOs is only about the nutritive quality of genetically modified foods.
It isn't.
There are environmental impacts That are huge in terms of the herbicide, the weed killer that's sprayed on Roundup-ready crops like soy.
There are economic impacts having to do with the destruction of small businesses, the destruction of small farms, the indentured servitude, if you will, of small farmers, including those in Texas who are suffering under corporate control.
By corporations like Monsanto.
In other words, by siding with Monsanto, Ted Cruz is punishing farmers in Texas, who he claims to represent.
But there's more than that.
There's also the intellectual property, the seed diversity issue, and then, of course, the self-reliance and the national food security issue that is the main topic of this discussion.
So if you take any resource that is crucial For our nation, power, electricity, petroleum, food, water, scientific knowledge, any of these things, access to firearms and self-defense,
any of these things, you have more freedom and more diversity and better results when these resources are distributed across a free society rather than centralized in the hands of the few.
And on the spectrum of democracy versus, let's say, communism, Ted Cruz is squarely in the corner of communism when it comes to Monsanto and the food supply.
He supports communist-style centralization of food, a top-down command economy in the agricultural sector, where if he's going to be consistent with his beliefs about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, He should be, instead, supporting small local farmers.
He should be supporting the legalization of industrial hemp farming, for one thing.
That's a completely different discussion.
But he should be supporting the little guy, because that's where you get the redundancy.
That's where you get food security.
That's where you get freedom and liberty.
And those are the things that Ted Cruz says he stands for.
So why is he suddenly contradicting himself when it comes to agriculture?
And I'll tell you why.
And I've found this to be true across the political right.
All the people on the right, it seems, with a few notable exceptions, but most of them are pro-Monsanto.
Because they have not yet faced the realization that supporting Monsanto means punishing food freedom.
If they were properly educated and made aware of the implications of food centralization by monopolistic corporate entities such as Monsanto, I believe they would change their views.
I believe they would support food freedom and small farms and local farms and accurate food labeling and seed diversity and food security, all these things that I'm talking about.
It has not yet been really explained to these people in clear terms that they're ready to understand.
Because too often on the right, they just want to stand for no regulations.
No regulations.
Don't have the government get involved in anything.
Well, the problem with that...
Well, let me say this.
Yeah, we need fewer regulations on individuals, but we need strong regulations of the corporate and banking giants.
When Bill Clinton got rid of the Glass-Steagall Act, I mean, look what happened in investment banking.
And the dot-com fiasco and the subprime mortgage fiasco and the bigger crash that's coming yet.
That's because they got rid of regulation.
We need to regulate...
More aggressively, the larger corporations, and we need to reduce regulations on small businesses and local businesses and individuals.
That is the rational truth about what we need, because small businesses, especially in the food industry, are being murdered by the large monopolist corporations like Monsanto.
And so...
And that's because of things like the genetic pollution that is destroying the value of organic crops that small farmers are trying to grow, yet Monsanto's products contaminate them and destroy the value.
And then Monsanto sues those farmers, claiming they stole their intellectual property because the wind blew the GMO contamination into their fields.
That's insane.
That's the kind of stuff that we need to stop by regulating the large corporate entities and protecting the The small farmers and the small businesses and food freedom in general.
So I hope that Ted Cruz, perhaps in some way, hears some of this or is at least given a hint about this.
He's on the wrong side of this issue when it comes to food freedom and agriculture.
Ted Cruz, cognitively speaking, he's a brilliant person.
He's achieved tremendous things and he is Cognitively correct on so many areas of his understanding of law, in particular, and the Constitution.
And yet, he has not yet become a student of agricultural policy and the realities of food and food freedom and food security, food redundancy, supporting small farmers and so on.
That's where he needs to enhance his knowledge, let's say, and get on the right side of freedom.
And then now for those of you, I'll wrap this up, but for those of you on the political left who are listening to this out of curiosity, I want to remind you that the left's establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, is the ultimate Monsanto pusher.
She's called the bride of frankenfood, and she's all pro-GMO. And then, yet, Bernie Sanders is very much in favor of GMO labeling and seems to be willing to challenge the establishments involved in agriculture, you know, the Monsantos of the world, the banking establishment, and so on.
So Bernie Sanders...
Is at least willing to challenge the system on the left, even though he is a socialist, which makes him economically illiterate, by the way.
But at least he's not just another bought-and-paid-for treasonous sellout like Hillary Clinton.
On the right, Ted Cruz is a very viable candidate in many areas, just on agriculture and GMOs.
He completely misses it and sides with Trump.
The big businesses that are destroying our health and our environment.
So that disqualifies him.
And then you've got Donald Trump, who's a big unknown on the issue of GMOs, but at least Donald Trump is starting to question the scientific fraud surrounding vaccines.
And Trump is at least pro-organic, by the way, which is interesting, perhaps not surprising, being that he's from New York.
And New York is very much a pro-organic town, if you call it town.
A lot of great organics in New York.
So, a lot to think about here.
No clear answers.
Yet, I'll tell you, personally, I will not vote for any person who is pro-Monsanto, period.
I don't care if they're left or right or libertarian or independent.
If they are pro-Monsanto...
They do not get my vote.
Period.
I also will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.
Period.
End of story.
I always remind people of the ABCs.
Anybody but Clinton.
ABC. But if that's Ted Cruz, I won't vote for Ted Cruz either.
Unless he changes his views on Monsanto and food freedom.
So that's just my personal take on it.
You're welcome to reach your own conclusions, and I welcome you to do so.
I hope you found this somewhat interesting, perhaps a little bit educational.
Again, I apologize for the background noise.
I am in the laboratory running an ICP-MS instrument right now, looking for actually lead contamination in water samples.
So there's a lot of noise around here.
I realize that, but that's just the way it goes.
My book is called Food Forensics.
You can find it at foodforensics.com.
You can download the first section free of charge.
It's a great read.
Almost a thousand citations in that book.
My website is called naturalnews.com Thanks for listening.
Again, my name is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.
Whoever the candidates are this November, vote for freedom.
How about that?
Just vote for liberty.
Whoever's got the most liberty when it comes to food.
Alright, take care.
Hey, I've got a lot of amazing videos coming this year.
▲
Export Selection