you live on one hundred thirty three bucks a month for food i should try it because you know how fabulous bad luck i've got so many i mean. i know that i've seen really messed up. and we're all very personally the. worst we're going through the white house or the. radio guy for a minute. what we're about to give you never seen anything like this i'm told. greetings everyone welcome to breaking the set my name is many rock below i'm filling in for abby martin while she's out of the studio you know this morning i was shocked and honestly disgusted to read about

a couple of people who actually benefited financially from the sandy hook shooting in the days following the massacre that left twenty eight dead in two injured at a small connecticut elementary school two new york hedge funds were quick to seize on the opportunity to profit from the tragedy the group used the predictable reaction from the public which equates a bloody shooting to fear that guns are going to get taken away which in turn leads to a spike in gun sales so just this morning sparrow media named and shamed the hedge fund managers responsible for the purchases as jeffrey altman and robert bishop each of them thought of millions of shares in gun stocks and to supporting that the push from congress for new gun regulations would create a fabricated demand for firearms turning one of the most tragic mass shootings in american history into mere profits which should be really be surprised that wall street vultures would capitalize on tragedy it might be shameless of that's just business so let's break this up.

when was the last time you looked at a label on a package of canned corn or soybeans or or bread for that matter did it state that what you were about to purchase was genetically modified or that what you were bounty eat was even safe for human consumption if your answer is no it's probably because you live in the united states where food sellers and producers are not required to label foods that have been genetically modified not only that but testing of g.m.o. foods is it required either now when discussing jimbo's or is always one name that gets dropped monsanto monsanto is the principal player against the push to require label that part of me labeling for g.m.o. foods in the u.s. and despite countless international lawsuits against the agro giant it seems that the playing field is always shaped in favor of the big corporations. so to try to

highlight so to try to highlight why you should care about the comfortable attitude this government has on g.m.o. foods and just how much influence monsanto really has over washington i'm going to revisit a few segments that highlight just that starting with an interview with jeffrey smith author of the book seeds of deception or we first asked him just how much legal resources left to fight for the labeling of g.m.o. foods check it out. the governor of vermont and the leaders in both in connecticut as well both refused to let the bills for labeling go through because of their fear of an expensive lawsuit three months and we've been tracking their influence all around the world i visited thirty four countries and they made basically capture regulatory agencies and capture government ministrations in fact they captured the food and drug administration it was their former attorney michael taylor who was in charge of policy at the f.d.a. when the g.m.o. policy create was created and he said no safety testing is needed no labeling is

needed companies like monsanto who told us that agent orange and d.d.t. were safe can determine on their own if g m o's are safe and put it on the market without telling the f.d.a. or consumers and then michael taylor became months and as vice president and now he's back at the f.d.a. as u.s. food safety czar and the justification for not regulating g m o's was based on a sentence in the policy that was entirely false claiming that the agency wasn't aware of information showing that g.m. those were different when in fact their own scientists uniformly agreed that g m o's were dangerous and needed testing this was the first level of deception and the they've been layering the deception since then didn't feed the world lower the use of agricultural chemicals and now in california they're layering deception on prop thirty seven. deception all right so what are we learning so far a we're learning that monsanto has a hell of a lot of influence be scientists from both sides of the aisle agree that some

jimbo's are dangerous and require testing and we're learning that the whole campaign against labeling these foods is based entirely on false hoods yet a majority of americans want their food to be labeled before they purchase it and of course the reason food doesn't get labeled is due to a revolving door between washington and big agribusiness see for yourself. look at who obama has appointed to the very regulatory bodies that are supposed to be responsible for our food safety roger beachy director at the u.s.d.a. is a former director of the month santo danforth center michael taylor the act is food safety is our is the former vice president monsanto ramona romero a u.s.d.a. counsel was previously on du pont's corporate counsel and the secretary of agriculture tom vilsack was awarded governor of the year by the biotechnology industry organization whose members include monsanto and lastly islams the dickey

the u.s. agriculture trade representative who pushes g.m. exports and other countries is a former months and lobbyist. now some of you might be thinking all just go to the healthier grocery store where i know all my food is one hundred percent organic well you might want to think again as alexis bade meyer explains even the most healthy sounding options like whole foods can still be pumped full of g.m. oats check it out. this is actually certified as aggression under the u.s.d.a. national program and they've got the big u.s.d.a. seal right when you walk in so i think that most consumers would assume that there isn't anything to medically modified in whole foods but it's not all or cannick and so if you pick up for instance a kashi cereal they have a cereal of that that is almost all soy and also is genetically modified in the united states so if it's not organic which it is that they go lean cereal then

you're eating a product that's almost entirely. and that's something that's sold in health in stores it's sold in whole foods and yet they hang the big u.s.d.a. feel over the doorway and let the consumers walk again thinking everything's fine. look at the bottom line is that we're all unknowingly consuming g.m.o. foods in many instances even when we think we're not consuming them so next time you're at a grocery store really think about the substances that are in your food wouldn't you rather know exactly what you're putting into your body after all you are what you eat. i i. last week you may remember covering the fatal shooting of sixteen year old great he's the young teen who was killed at the hands of two undercover police officers who say kamandi had pulled a gun on them of course we know now that that story isn't so black and white in fact multiple eyewitnesses have come forward disputing the police narrative many

maintaining the young teen didn't even have a gun. it's a dispute in facts that's pushed a small community in brooklyn to the edge hundreds of people pouring into the streets over the course of last week all demanding an independent investigation into the shooting and perhaps it's a valid request considering the latest news that the two n.y.p.d. officers who shot to money have already been the targets of five federal lawsuits with plaintiffs alleging civil rights violations so what does this say about the latest development in the case as a whole and could come on the story just one more pagan a trend of police brutality this year to talk about all that more i'm joined by our correspondent margaret howell thank you so much for coming on the show there so you know you've been you've actually been following this story for a while and i'm wondering with scase is like these it seems like public opinion always kind of turns toward toward the police you know they always kind of favor the police narrative on this how how widespread it how widespread is this we

actually know how often this sort of thing happens in the u.s. it is a pandemic i'm telling you we're taught as a society to trust cops not to question them not to question their motives and you know unfortunately that's an old thing and we're seeing this more often than not you know cops are policing themselves so maybe it's time to get a new narrative in this country because obviously leading cops you know police themselves just isn't working you know i hear do we even know how often this happened so it seems to be rapidly every other year i hear i hear about it a new shooting but but i really don't understand like how often does this really happen do we have those statistics you know the university of chicago in one thousand nine. twenty years ago said that probably three hundred thirty people are killed each year by cops innocently they don't actually specify in that study twenty years ago how many of those people are intentional cop kills unfortunately there is no check in place to make sure that cops are reporting these numbers and

a lot of times we're saying you know because police operations it's internal they're able to conceal or hide these numbers from the public you know and it's just it's par for the course it just seems shocking to me that we do that we wouldn't have those kind of statistics but i want to move on i want to get back to the case of kamandi great it seems like like i mentioned earlier the officers that are involved in the shooting actually have five lawsuits five like almost a history of violence with these cops do you think because i know that maybe the protests of have died down in recent days but do you think this is going to add a new kind of fuel to the fire knowing that these cops have a kind of a history of violence behind of their manning absolutely and one thing i want to know why were these guys walking the streets you know their departments knew that they had five disciplinary type court actions against them between the two of them they shoot this kid seven times one of them hit you know hits him in the head these guys have a documented history of violence against citizens yet they were armed walking the streets which i find appalling you know and we're seeing that more often than not

you know cops with these extend you with disciplinary behavioral issues are actually the ones caught up in these violent actions it's unbelievable it really it really is and i know that you've been following this case specifically but you've also been kind of looking into police brutality and some of your own investigative reporting this year is found so far this year alone seven different cases where we know police brutality resulting in injury or or even death can you break down some of the stories the serious bodily injury or death is not remarkable and the seven that i found were just seven that had enough publicity attached to them to actually gain recognition can you imagine all the cases that don't that are actually covered up you know but specifically two that were made. memorable to me out of out of just the research i'd like to talk to you about them if i can use one of them in particular sammy davis he was pan handling in a kroger parking lot sometime after christmas a seemingly minor offense the cop who was assigned to make him stop essentially

went to the parking lot shoots this man in cold blood this police officer had a history of documented violence against citizens he should not have had a gun he should not have been on patrol that night all it perfect storm were saying it just seems so shocking to me that not only are we not getting the statistics on how often this happens with these stories i just feel like there's not the same amount of and we saw a lot of public support come out for free come on his family after the shooting in brooklyn did other stories that you will look to today did they get that similar sort of public outcry absolutely not you know if we weren't talking about them now i don't even think that they would have hit national news. specifically with sammy davis you make in georgia local media of course we're covering it the outcry of this family and people who just you know it's so shocking people who wanted to actually comment on this story were able to twitter has been a place that was facebook. forums on line certainly but national media no why is that why is it so hard for the mainstream to go on these kind of story i think it

goes back to that systematic issue of cops have the legal right to kill and we saw that in a specific case brandon bradshaw who's from my hometown a small town in kentucky this man was actually shot you know by an off duty sheriff's deputy he was a bailiff but it just unbelievable the bailiffs claiming self-defense you know clearly this beloved man iraq war veteran three small children you know no history of violence whatsoever the man is actually sitting in his car the bailiff shoots him in the had shoots him in the torso and the bailiff is claiming self-defense and something else maybe that is astounding to me this man and i have. you offer importunate at a time but you know elements of the police state police policing themselves is never a good thing never a good thank you so much as margaret howard to correspondent thank you so much. because if you like what you see so far go to our facebook page at facebook dot com slash breaking the set and be sure to do what thousands of already done and give us

a like will be updating our status daily there with links to past segments as well as reaching out to you for ideas on what you want to see covered on breaking the set and also check out behind the scenes photos we take at the studios are one break in the set is reporting on the road so head to our facebook page and check all that out and more we'll take a quick commercial break right now but stay tuned to visit a famous case of whistleblowing next.

let me let me i want to know we're going to let me ask you a question. here. is what we're having the debate we have our night. to do with you this time it was just about staying there to get here in this race will be i don't want me to talk about the me me let . look where you are going to be like.

last month private bradley manning pled guilty to several offenses related to leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to wiki leaks in two thousand and ten it's a plea that could land him in jail for twenty years but it pales in comparison to what he could face if found guilty of one of the most egregious of charges that of aiding the enemy and of successful the prosecution could establish a chilling precedent making leakers of classified information subject to an archaic piece of legislation known as the espionage act but it's not just this act that's troubling it's exacerbated by the national defense authorization act indefinite detention clause an issue we've covered heavily on the show last month during a historic n.d.a. trial taking place in new york city while there abby martin had a chance to sit down with thomas drake a former n.s.a. employee and whistleblower the first i asked him why he cares about the n.b.a.

take a look at this just another step since the post nine eleven. stop and the. erosion of the us constitution and the rise of not just enough security state but secret government. executed through through for yacht executive rule. when you came out as a whistle blower and you were prosecuted for it and targeted i mean how did it feel to have the same establishment that you had dedicated so much of your life working for come down on you know total betrayal. is important no i took an oath four times this what if in the constitution that oath was not was not an oath to the president it was not an oath it was not an oath of secrecy it was not a to end our security agency it was really not an oath to look the other way when the government itself commits massive fraud waste and abuse and engages itself in

wrongdoing illegality and that's precisely what the government did after nine eleven on a vast scale but we just came up on the fortieth anniversary of watergate and you know here we had one wiretapping scandal that brought nixon down and the supreme court rules that the president is not above the law i mean how did we stray from there to now prosecuting the messenger and where the president is now above the law that's clear it's surreal i was a very young teenager in the one nine hundred seventy s. that was my civic awakening i actually remember a very young hillary rodham clinton day on the impeachment committee i remember all of the machinations as watergate unfolded i also remember daniel ellsberg and the pentagon papers and all of the violations of american rights and liberties by our own government that were veals in those congressional

investigations the church committee hearings in which the mare america found out just how far the government had gone to silence or dissidents journalists activists and those who had become enemies of the state as defined by the government in secret that was the one nine hundred seventy s. . and frank church had warned the nation then. particular respect to the technology of the national security agency and others. that if we ever found ourselves in a similar scenario in the future would we able be able to pull ourselves back across the rubicon because it might be too late well speaking of too late do you think that not only the egregious erosion of their our civil liberties systematically so far after an event like nine eleven but that coupled with the corporate state that actually profits off this the surveillance state all of these

these military industrial complex corporations i mean have we gone too far to really repeal this now that we have this corporate marriage between government profiting off these aversions i hope not but it's an unholy alliance and it's clearly entering into a period where not only do we lose our concerts for rights for the rise of corporate government state which some would use another word to describe that which is a form of fascism or soft tyranny you can't have a government violate the constitution in secret and then forming all these alliances with corporations who themselves are ensuring the continuance of their own interests through the government that's not in the best interest of the country let alone the constitution but that's what's happening and so we've actually seen in two channels. the largest reduce real wealth that i that i can even consider in terms of u.s. history you have the distribution of wealth to the corporate side exemplified by

wall street you have the redistribute wealth to the nasa curie complex military industrial complex massive billions upon billions hundreds of billions. there's only so much you can extract out of the country and the people and so were elsewhere is left to take to take away their rights. because you have to ensure the continuance of the power structure that's were facing the n.d.a. particular section ten twenty one i find particularly pernicious because one of the above in a straight as i should been taken one step further a step that i couldn't even imagine not only do we bypass the constitution not only to leave the constitution aside now do step outside and put ourselves in entirely different vehicle called the now security state we're going to do so under the authority of the commander in chief the military rule military law or more the more accurately say military authority and we're extending that authority

which is clearly separated in the constitution we're going to extend that authority over those who are in the united states period and we're going to apply the same quote unquote laws of war which is a misnomer the laws of war and all the other enabling acts that we've created since nine eleven or going to apply those to those who reside within the united states and if we decide we want to take someone off the street because they might be a potential threat or a you know they're providing material support or substandard support what's substandard support mean means whatever the commander in chief wants at the first slice lee and they're doing so under military authority the last thing i would want the united states ever become is a military state. because it's probably is true that you can't trust the locals and

you probably can't trust even the local police so who do you nationalize who do you federalize in a way to message lee to ensure the control and monitoring of the population but that was never in the original design of the constitution and historically we've never really ever gone there we got a few breaches here and there but they were quickly pulled back here were saying hey it doesn't matter the only authority that the prosecution could cite one questioned in the court room by the judges today was the math the authorization to use military force so if that was the only authority which in itself is fraught with all kinds of problems that all goes back to the early days of the post nine eleven era. why do you need section ten twenty one section ten twenty one is really a generalized provision under which the government undo itself once exercised

military authority at any time anywhere including as anybody in the united states of america thomas to wrap it up i mean obviously we're living in a very agreed just two tiered justice system where people like you and other whistleblowers are prosecuted for telling the truth yet the torturers the wire tappers are going on book tours gallivanting around the globe talking about their time in government should those people be in jail yes they violated the law agree just like they were and they were enablers in the violation the constitution and the years. i sit here before you as the only person prosecuted indicted. for the surveillance program which i blew the whistle on you had nothing to do with the program i was on offer the program i was on unable the program i ever engage in secret surveillance in violation of the fourth amendment or the foreign

intelligence surveillance act yet i'm the one that one point as achieves the original chief prosecutor my case stated in no uncertain terms at a secret f.b.i. facility how would you like to spend the rest of your life in prison mr drake unless you start talking that's how serious they were about protecting that secret surveillance program called stellar wind john kiriakou he's the only person going to prison because of the torture program a state sponsored program which we're now finding out is far vaster was far more expansive than it ever been revealed before at least perhaps more at least fifty four countries he's the only one going to prison and why because he blew the whistle on it he knowledge of the former cia employee that torture was a state sponsored policy but he never engage in torture he never supported torture

any actual refused the torture training and they made it crystal clear during their training at fair trial therefore space this we don't do y. because we're americans and medics epson ism of america under the constitution we don't do what the others do i never imagined they would turn out in the torture program a vast scale that we ourselves wouldn't get in torture because we're america and we can get away with it because we're america. but as i say about us it was our country. we're the only two people the two biggest scales a bush administration and obama's ration was said we're going to look for in a backward but look backward long enough and far enough to actually prosecute indict the two people who blew the whistle on those two programs.

it has to stop the stand must be taken power doesn't yield socially secret power doesn't you willingly it doesn't you got to keep exposing disclosing it was going to take more when you start taking our fundamental right see in the thing that makes america america for all of our faults and contradictions even those that built into the original constitution. the thing that makes america america are those precious rights that are granted to us as the people not to the government in the first and fourth amendment are fundamental all along with the fifth and sixth day. fundamental is the reason why there was an american revolution well maybe it's time for another one. maybe a revolution is needed one of ideas that can empower us to make a real change unfortunately that's all the time we have for today so join us tomorrow with abby martin on breaking the set.

they've been living this way since the seventeenth century. strict. their communities on the silicon. they clearly distinguish between their own and the alien. and guard their family and thinks is the treasure. so.

alex thomas prime. minister. we're not supposed to be public people we'd rather not be filmed or shown on television we're supposed to live a quiet life and keep distant from worldly matters that's what we need if we're to keep our traditions. not to be disturbed too much.