Uncategorized

Biden on Gun Control Laws: “This is the Beginning of the Process”

http://godfatherpolitics.com/10127/biden-on-gun-control-laws-this-is-the-beginning-of-the-process/

Biden on Gun Control Laws: “This is the Beginning of the Process”

Vice President Joe Biden is not the smartest cookie in politics. In fact, I would rank him among the dumbest members of the Executive Branch in American history.

Biden continually demonstrates his lack of intelligence by making statements and claims that are patently false. Many are easily disproven, but that doesn’t stop him from repeating them time and time again as we saw during the 2012 elections.

Then there are those famous statements like ‘buy a shotgun’ and advising people that if they have a potential intruder to go outside (where the intruder happens to be), and fire your shotgun into the air. Okay, in most areas, it’s illegal to fire a gun in the city, in a neighborhood or close to homes. Secondly, after you empty your shotgun into the air, you now find yourself outside with the intruder and with an empty shotgun. DUH!

Or he advises that you just fire your shotgun through the front door. So what if it’s not an intruder at the door? What if it’s your husband or wife fumbling with their keys in the lock?

Does the Vice President ever really think about what he says before he says it?

On rare occasions, he does speak the truth and spill the beans per se on things that shouldn’t have been spilled. And that’s just what he did Wednesday when he was pontificating on the upcoming Senate votes on the various gun-control measures.

Biden was on a conference call organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. During the conference call, Biden said:

“That doesn’t mean this is the end of the process. This is the beginning of the process.”

Bingo! It’s not about preventing violence, but about an agenda. I’ve been saying all along that the current gun control measures being pushed by Obama and fellow Democrats is only the first step to a total disarmament of the American people. They’ll start with vilifying assault and assault-style weapons along with high capacity magazines. Once they successfully ban them, they’ll start on another category of firearms, probably handguns since more handguns are used in crimes than any other type of firearm. Then the rest of the rifles and shotguns until every type of gun will be illegal to own, sell, trade, or even talk about.

Yes, Mr. Vice President, I agree with you. This is the beginning of the process and for once you have spoken some of the truest words ever to emerge from your lips. But be warned that it’s a process that millions of Americans will fight against with every last ounce of their strength and every last drop of their blood.

More articles by Dave Jolly

CleanPrintBtn_text_small.pngPdfBtn_text_small.pngEmailBtn_text_small.png

Uncategorized

Planned Parenthood Official Endorses Right to Kill Babies Born Alive

http://bighealthreport.com/7577/planned-parenthood-official-endorses-right-to-kill-babies-born-alive/

Planned Parenthood Official Endorses Right to Kill Babies Born Alive

images-7Sadly, you read that headline correctly. From The Weekly Standard:

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

To be clear, sponsor of the bill Republican Rep. Cary Pigman has said his interest in the bill is “solely and strictly to provide care for that infant that is born alive, following any procedure, that it receives full and appropriate resuscitation.”

But Snow thinks politicians shouldn’t be the ones to decide “what constitutes the best medically appropriate treatment in any given situation.” Needless to say, the lawmakers were absolutely stunned:

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

Post Continues on townhall.com

Uncategorized

How “kill the pigs” became “only the police should have guns”

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001o1NWE3yaJ-okH8xUE1EtvgsrPUDNhLYlse0GgNW_qV2mBVfphidiCxe2f-N-txhaogbnKN_mNdZA1jzd-g8W36n9XVYMcOS1yAU_KV2MoNE%3D

How “kill the pigs” became “only the police should have guns”

How “kill the pigs” became “only the police should have guns”

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

In the fabled 1960s, the cops were called pigs, and anybody on the political Left who wanted a ticket to the show knew that and mouthed it often.

At rallies, protests, and riots, people said: are the pigs here yet? I heard they were three blocks away. Wonder how many pigs they’re sending today? There! There they are! The pigs!

Now, on the Left, that tradition has morphed into: repeal the 2nd Amendment; turn in your guns; citizens with guns are satanic; the police will protect us; a private citizen with a gun is a killer and needs psychiatric lockdown; suspend that five-year old with the gun screen-saver.

What happened?

In 1968, if you asked a leftie college student whether a black man living in the inner city had a right to own a gun to protect himself against the cops, the answer, ten out of ten times, would have been yes.

Now, that leftie kid will be talking about the insanity of anybody owning a gun. Except for the cops.

Well, three things have happened since the 1960s. The end of the military draft, and the end of anybody caring who smokes pot or who has sex with who. Those changes melted away the whole “movement.”

A professor friend taught at UCLA during the turbulent 60s and early 70s. He told me as soon as the Vietnam war was over, the campus transformed in a flash. Students were suddenly all about finding a niche in the job market after graduation. Boom. Switch on, switch off.

The titanic idealism was put away in a drawer and filed under “crazy shit I did.”

The one remaining piece from the 60s that has endured is hatred of big corporations. But gradually, a parallel mindset has developed. First, grudging acceptance of big government; then toleration; then admiration.

Now, the Left is all about big government and the “positive changes” it can make.

And when I say the Left, I also mean the center, and a great deal of the right, because they’ve come along for the ride, too. They are the Left now.

In 1968, a big-time liberal presidential candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was the target of riots, by the Left, at the Democratic National Convention. Those riots tore apart half the city. Two years earlier, a march, by the Left, on the Century Plaza Hotel in LA, where Democratic President Lyndon Johnson was staying, sealed his fate. It was the last stone. Johnson, who had presided over the war on poverty and the creation of “The Great Society,” the biggest federal program since FDR’s New Deal, was mangled into oblivion.

Johnson announced he wouldn’t run for office again in 1968.

If Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Obama had been around then, they would have been hammered in the same way by the Left. If they were for the war in Vietnam.

That was the big key, the war. Or to be precise, the military draft.

“Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?!”

Meaning: “I won’t risk my neck going to Nam!”

The elite Left has become the personification of the soccer mom now. Worries about everything. Danger everywhere. Needs more helmets. Schedules more play dates. Wants more state surveillance. “If you’re against intrusion on your privacy, maybe you have something to hide.” “Keep the poor bottled up in inner cities, give them anything they want, just don’t let them into my neighborhood.”

The Left has also become the promise of a vague fairyland new age. “We’re all in this together.” “We can raise up the lowest among us (by printing more money).”

And the police are part of that fantasy. They’re the centurions at the gate. “Arm them to the teeth.” “Render the rest of us powerless.” That’s the grand solution to all our social ills. Naked, hairless, unarmed, watched around the clock, we’ll be beautifully safe, under the machine of a national police force.

You think I’m attacking a straw man here? You think I’m devising a distorted picture of the collectivist Left and their allies? You think there’s some still-powerful rebellion, on the political Left, against the State, that can put a million people on the street to protest a specific fascist program of that big power? Where is it?

What was it, really, even in 1968? If the Vietnam war had been fought with no draft, with a volunteer army, a large part of the 1960s wouldn’t have happened at all.

As the 1970s droned on into the 80s, a rapprochement was achieved between the citizens and the police. More and more, the Left came to believe the whole idea of rebellion against the State was an old delusion. It was something people like Camus and Sartre had written about. It was really a European thing, an abstract philosophical pose.

Once the dust and the smelly underwear of the 1960s had been cleared away, the real State Op came into being. Encourage, in every way possible, crime and criminals; and then come in behind that with an answer to the horrific threat: cops.

Irresistible. On the streets, in the newspapers, on television, enact crime after crime after crime…and then promote the only answer: cops. More cops. More cops with bigger and better weapons.

Disarm everybody and leave the police and the FBI and the military and numerous other government agencies with the only guns.

Does this excuse the actual perpetrators of street crimes? No, of course not. In fact, it makes them more guilty, because they’re aiding and abetting a much larger plan. I’m not here to excuse a man who picks up a gun and shoots somebody. I’m spelling out context:

Seed the whole country with violence-inducing toxic psychiatric drugs and you will get plenty of crime. Which is exactly what has happened. All the way from Ritalin (cheep speed) to the SSRI antidepressants, to the brain-hammer anti-psychotics, the drug companies and their allied psychiatrists have been creating killings.

Allow American street gangs to work for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, while providing those cartels with US government protection as they sell tons of heroin and cocaine and crack all over the country, and you will get plenty of crime.

Pour billions of dollars into “rehabilitating” inner cities and stand by while the money disappears and is stolen, dedicate funds to programs that have no chance of working, stop genuine grass roots movements to build vast urban farms and provide free food and a sense of community, and you will get plenty of crime.

These and other strategies are the actions of a war to expand crime, to necessitate massive intervention by the State. This is an Op.

Our current leader, after similar mouthpieces like Bush and Clinton, is the one man who couldn’t possibly be on board with the Op. Barack Obama. He couldn’t possibly be doing his part to destabilize the whole society. He couldn’t. Which is exactly why he is the president of the United States now. Because he seems to stand for something better. But he doesn’t. He is definitely part of the Op.

But if he really did stand for something better, he could do several things, by executive order, that would detonate a real revolution in this country. Three crazy wild out-of-left field things, just for starters.

Declare and wage an all-out war on drug cartels and their sub-contracted domestic gangs.

Kick off a huge—and I mean huge—genuine urban farming program in every city in America. Free, clean, non-GMO food for the poor, grown by the poor, shared by the poor. The ramifications of such a program, carried out swiftly, would be astonishing on every level.

And attack, with a vengeance, Big Pharma and their psychiatric drugs.

What???

Huh???

The baffled response to such a program illustrates just how deep the brainwashing in this country goes.

And some people would say, “If Obama stood up and did those things, he’d be killed tomorrow.”

That’s getting us closer to the truth. But it would be senseless to stand up alone. He would need allies. Lots of them. Where would he find them? (Assuming he would launch this three-pronged program…a ludicrous assumption.)

Would he meet with Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Hillary, Boehner, Paul Ryan, Rubio, Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh….

Where in the familiar circles of power would any president find allies to turn things around?

Nowhere.

And that’s exactly why rebellion against the State isn’t just some old crusty abstract idea.

That’s why decentralization of power in America, at all levels, is THE counter-agenda. Intentional communities, nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, boycotts against corporations like Monsanto, alternative news sources, growing your own food, local parents threatening school boards to back off forcing psychiatric drugs down the throats of their children, home schooling, etc., etc.

Rendering every citizen weaponless, while at the same time giving the police every possible weapon and surveillance tool, is a solution in the same way that closing your eyes and jumping into a big barrel and pulling down the lid over your head is a solution.

300 million barrels with TV sets and smart phones is exactly what the State Corporatists are pushing.

The political Left promoted rebellion against the State as long as they saw themselves outside in the cold. But when they began to realize that they were, in fact, becoming the State, with all the power of the federal government, they dropped the idea of genuine rebellion like a hot potato. They praised big government, they assured everybody it was the solution, not the problem.

They shed bottom-up revolution because they were top-down.

There are lots of old Lefties who have been working to stop GMOs. When Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act the other day, they paused and pondered. They began to realize they’ve been caught in a squeeze play. Their man, the president, isn’t who they thought he was. Not at all.

This disaffection is a familiar theme: outsiders feel solidarity in their revolution; then their leaders become insiders; then the ideals vanish, leaving the foot soldiers in the lurch.

Down through history, this scenario has played out countless times, in every conceivable organization that became big, bigger, and biggest. But history isn’t our strong suit. If a teacher really wanted to educate his college students, he’d put together a course on this very subject: The Carrot and the Stick.

The promise of something better, announced from a perch or pulpit of leadership; and what eventually happened to that promise.

What happens is a grand reversal. The very force that is being fought against eventually becomes the “guardian of the Good” and the supreme ruler.

The cadre who once railed against the rise of the police state is now dealing, not pot, but the surveillance of every phone call, email, text, computer keystroke, and purchase in this country. They’re dealing the TSA and the war in Afghanistan. They’re dealing covert ops in the Middle East and executing regime change, using thugs and terrorists. They’re bailing out mega-corporations and banks. They’re buying billions of rounds of ammo. They’re appointing people to hold the door open for Monsanto. They’re using psychiatry to drug the population. They’re spraying heavy metals in the sky. They’re presiding over and sustaining the economic disaster. They’re funding the transhuman future.

They’re doing all this while continuing to mouth the ideals they once swore to uphold.

In the words of the 1960s, they’re working for the Man.

The Man is the group of elite Globalists who have always followed the same plan: put the management of the planet under one roof.

To accomplish this Globalist aim, every honest cop and effective cop and idealistic cop and indifferent cop and corrupt cop will have to be turned into a faceless pig with a weapon pointed against his own people.

These “former rebels” who now rule the roost are saying, “Today, the pigs work for us. We tell them what to do. Just love the pigs and everything will be okay. You don’t need to own a gun. It’s all good. Just keep your eyes straight ahead and march into the future.”

Who would have thought rebels of bygone days would be staging their own version of neocon glory?

Anyone with a grain of sense.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, and the New EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

LiveLeak.com – New scandal threatens obama, hillary clinton

http://www.liveleak.com/

LiveLeak.com – New scandal threatens obama, hillary clinton

Report confirms what well-placed sources have been saying

Aaron Klein

TEL AVIV – Has the White House been misleading the public by repeatedly denying it was coordinating arms shipments to the rebels in Syria, insurgents known to consist in large part of al-Qaida and other jihadist groups?

Other top U.S. officials and former officials, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have implied in congressional testimony that they didn’t know about any U.S. involvement in procuring weapons for the rebels.

Now, a starkly different picture is emerging, one that threatens the longstanding White House narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the rebels.

Confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times two days ago reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.

While the Times report claims most of the weapons shipments facilitated by the CIA began after the latest presidential election, Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

Aaron Klein’s New York Times bestseller, “Fool Me Twice,” is more relevant than ever.

In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Recruiting jihadists

Days after the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, WND broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

Now the New York Times has bolstered WND’s reporting, citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.

The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.

The Times further revealed that from offices at “secret locations,” American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia. They have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.

The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.

The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.

Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.

Both WND’s reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms shipments, and the Times reporting starkly contrast with statements from top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the supply of weapons to the rebels.

Last month, the White House flatly denied involvement in arming the Syrian rebels, going so far as to say the Obama administration rejected a plan by former Secretary of State Clinton and then-CIA Director Petraeus to help arm the rebels.

‘Nobody has ever raised that with me’

Further, in testimony during the Benghazi hearings, Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. was aiding Turkey and other Arab countries in procuring weapons.

The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied, “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

In testimony last month, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked then-Defense Secretary John Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether they had supported a plan “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria.”

“We do,” Panetta replied.

“You did support that?” McCain asked again.

“We did,” added Dempsey, who was sitting next to Panetta.

Neither Dempsey nor Panetta elaborated on their positions or commented on any actual arms shipments.

Rebel training

This is not the first time WND’s original investigative reporting on U.S. support for the Syrian rebels was later confirmed by reporting in major media outlets. Other WND reporting indicates support for the Syrian rebels that goes beyond supplying arms, painting a larger picture of U.S. involvement in the Middle East revolutions.

A story generating worldwide attention by the German weekly Der Spiegel earlier this month reporting the U.S. is training Syrian rebels in Jordan was exclusively exposed by WND 13 months ago.

Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms.

The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.

The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the past three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.

Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the Der Spiegel report. The French foreign ministry and Britain’s foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.

While Der Spiegel quoted sources discussing training of the rebels in Jordan over the last three months, WND was first to report the training as far back as February 2012.

At the time, WND quoted knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/new-scandal-threatens-obama-hillary/

Uncategorized

Top 10 excuses for Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001iPF_ovG5vapVxstgFXRp8VqrtgDf-c5XkIGTHxvfdVlG–kehkixy-cylV3dr3ne8mjOS_uVwKLvz8_gu09IRJOCp3VM-MZdGFb8uIW2XJc%3D

Top 10 excuses for Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act

Top 10 excuses for Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Yes, he signed HR 993. It was a bill funding the federal government. There was a rider in it. A Monsanto and biotech rider.

The gist of the rider is: a dangerous ghoulish GMO food crop can’t be stopped by a court order. That crop can still be grown, harvested, and sold in the US.

Isn’t that wonderful? Isn’t it grand?

250,000 people signed an emergency letter to Obama, telling him to send HR 993 back to Congress so the rider could be removed. He didn’t.

Of course, there must be some mistake here, because we all know Obama is the radiant messiah. Right? He’s constantly assuring us “we’re all in this together.”

He would never allow such a rider to pass through his hands and become law, because GMO food IS, in fact, dangerous to human health and is part of an overall plan to put the planet’s food supply into the hands of Monsanto.

Therefore, Obama has excuses. He surely does.

I propose the following ten. You can take your pick and thereby sustain your belief in his mission of bringing peace and love to the world. He’s not just another arch conman who scuttled into the White House. Of course not.

He would never support Monsanto in its drive to patent life forms, own the food supply, drench the world in more pesticides, engineer RNA so it silences and activates genes in the body in random fashion, leading to incalculable consequences for the human race.

He would never come down on the wrong side of the issue that could supersede all others in shaping the future of the human race.

So pick your favorite excuse:

Obama didn’t know what he was signing. He was too busy with other matters. He was on vacation. He was checking his brackets on March Madness. He thought that letter of protest, signed by 250,000 people, was about some new TV show called Monsanto Rider, a Western.

He’ll tell us that, just like the NDAA, which allows him to unilaterally assassinate Americans, this Monsanto rider will never be enforced. It’s just for show. It’s, well, an IDEA, not really a law. It doesn’t set a precedent destroying the power of the judicial system. No. We’re getting our knickers in a twist over nothing. Relax.

He and Michelle are secretly planning, along with Chief Chef Bloomberg, an organic food revolution in America that will sweep aside all resistance.

Obama has inside information we aren’t privy to. It exonerates Monsanto. Astonishingly, Monsanto turns out to be an agent of hope and change.

Obama is Obama. Because his character is basically other-worldly (in a good sense), he would never do harm. Therefore, a priori, the Monsanto rider is all right. We need not worry. Be happy.

All great prophets must undergo tests and survive crises. This is one of those tests. Sooner or later, Obama will reverse course and expose Monsanto for the diabolical son of Satan it is. Just wait. Be patient.

Obama knows full well how hideous Monsanto is on the world scene, how it is gobbling up seed companies and destroying farmers and putting Frankensteinian genetic distortions into our very bodies. He’s just giving Monsanto enough rope to hang itself. He’s allowing Monsanto to operate freely so it can reveal, to humanity, its Grinning Skull—and thence be overthrown by popular revolution. Again, wait. Be patient. “We’re all in this together.”

Obama was drugged by Monsanto operatives. When he wakes up, he won’t remember he signed the bill, nor will he ever know he signed it. This drug can selectively inhibit his mind on that single item. If he ever reads that he signed it, he’ll think he’s reading about Harry Reid buying three casinos in Vegas and having plastic surgery to look like James Bond.

Obama never signed the bill. A lookalike double was brought in to do the deed. Obama is now living under heavy guard, along with Piers Morgan, in a Texas compound run by a bevy of full-auto maximum-clip country women.

Joe Biden, who only pretends to be off his rocker and minus a few dozen light bulbs, is actually running the country. He is Obama’s Cheney. Joe gave the order to sign the bill.

There are your ten. Pick your fave.

Just in case you still think Obama is only peripherally involved with Monsanto, here is the evidence that you’re sadly mistaken. I compiled it some months ago and published it:

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for gardens and clean, organic, nutritious food is nothing more than a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

Sources:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/

http://news.yahoo.com/not-altruistic-truth-behind-obamas-global-food-security-174700462.html

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, and the New EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Monsanto proves that corporations don’t run the government

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001JO9rJ3gjxX5z7BRdvRt2yTzAQtN7267UIH93L489DzdvDaQYJHg6ZtxOxzynO3tXy49z16oTwgMxdH8-lhALWD5coQk27F3QMfnr3Ol8yHk%3D

Monsanto proves that corporations don’t run the government

Monsanto proves that corporations don’t run the government

by Jon Rappoport

March 27, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Collectivists have a favorite target. Big bad corporations. This is a complete scam. Why did Goldman Sachs turn out to be the biggest funder of Obama’s 2008 election bid? Why weren’t the corporate banksters who demanded and received those enormous bailouts, under both Bush and Obama, prosecuted for crimes?

Collectivists actually love big corporations. Collectivists just want to distract us from their real goals. And in order to enact those goals, they need banks, they need the military-industrial complex, they need Big Pharma and Big Oil.

They especially need somebody to control the world’s food supply, because that’s one of the ultimate squeeze plays on the global population. So who do they bow down to, in that arena? Monsanto, Dow, DuPont.

Washington politicians aren’t victims who can’t fight off big bad corporations. They aren’t at the mercy of those corporations. That’s a load of nonsense. That’s Politics 101 for brainwashed college students.

O poor little politicians! No power. No way to win against the big boys. No chance.

If you buy that, you’re ready to buy condos on Mars.

Politicians play the victim tune because it diverts attention away from them. It shifts the blame and responsibility.

Asking Congress to pass laws canceling corporate donations to their election campaigns, and instituting instead “public funding,” is a joke. That’s not going to happen, and even if it did, politicians would find back doors.

Bottom line: the politicians want to be in bed with corporations. To say that our elected representatives can’t resist corporate money is like saying people aren’t responsible for their own corrupt practices. It may be fashionable to assume that everyone is a pawn and a victim, but it doesn’t hold water.

So we come to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, the rider to a funding bill that just sailed through the Senate, and is awaiting Obama’s signature. This sneak measure will nullify court decisions to ban GMO crops while those crops are under review for being “potentially dangerous.”

Here, again, we hear excuses made for the politicians. They didn’t know the rider was in the bill, they didn’t read it, they didn’t understand the consequences, they were played by Monsanto and other biotech giants.

If you sit in the Senate and vote yes on a bill, and you didn’t read the bill, whose fault is that? If you allow one of these thousand-page monstrosities to pass into law, and you don’t know the full meaning of it, and you don’t make a huge stink about it in public, what good are you?

If you allow Monsanto to take over your vote, is whining and complaining after the fact of any use?

Of course Monsanto is a crime boss. Of course it’s in the process of degrading life on planet Earth. Yes, we know that. But to say it can’t be stopped because the politicians are “under its sway” is an egregious lie.

“Oh, the big corporations own America.” I’ve heard that just as you have, for decades. And it’s a true statement because the people in government who could resist the takeover don’t. They surrender. They sit there. They take money. They lie. They participate in their own corruption.

The victim mindset always blames somebody else. That’s the way it works. So the people who love big government and support a collectivist state are going to exonerate government and accuse corporations of stealing the country.

Corporations have stolen the country, side by side with the politicians who have sold their own principles and their own souls.

The theft is a team operation. It always has been.

Robert Anton Wilson once wrote: The political left hates big corporations; the political right hates big government; and they’re both correct.

But as long as the hatred is split down the middle and channeled into two separate beds of foul festering crime, the divide-and-conquer operation succeeds.

GMOs have spread across the world. Who forwarded that agenda? Presidents, legislators, and the biotech giants. Together.

Who stacked his administration with ex-Monsanto people? The current sitting president.

Again, it’s fashionable to say the juggernaut of corporations is too powerful for government to resist. That’s absurd. The government has multiple agencies that could cause lethal trouble for mega-corporations. But it doesn’t happen.

When Eisenhower left the presidency, he famously warned against the growing power of the military-industrial complex. The military is part of the government. Eisenhower wasn’t just accusing corporations.

Since its inception, the CIA, a government agency, has run interference for corporations in foreign lands, subverting and even overthrowing governments that were unfriendly to these corporations’ agendas.

Is Monsanto clever and relentless? Of course. But they don’t win alone. They have political partners in America at every level.

This latest fiasco, the Monsanto Protection Act, isn’t written in stone. It could be repealed, even after passage, by a new piece of legislation. The Congress could do it. The fact that they won’t speaks volumes about their character.

Once you realize the global Monsanto takeover is an operation deploying both corporate and government forces, the idea that the federal government is “here to help us,” a notion that has gained much currency during Obama’s reign, goes into the garbage can.

Many people can’t handle that. One way or another, through one ideological lens or another, they have to see Washington DC as a shining city on the hill. It’s a prime feature of their religion.

Washington is also a source of financial aid. Whether we’re talking about a small welfare check or massive contracts let out to companies, the federal government is in the business of buying friends.

This largesse contains its own buried rider: don’t resist what the government’s corporate allies are doing. If the federal government says or implies that Monsanto is good, it’s good.

“Well,” Clinton supporters and Bush supporters and Obama supporters say, “the government does make mistakes. They do let big corporations slide and skate and gain certain advantages. You see, politics is a gray area. It’s confusing. There are all sorts of conflicts and partnerships and deals, because that’s the way of the world. You can’t fight that. A compromise is made here in order to do something good over there…”

No, Virginia, it’s a lot worse than that. Government and corporations march and dance together to their own music, shredding the law and the Constitution as they go.

These partners have made sure that GMOs spread everywhere. These partners make sure Big Pharma is protected against prosecution for heinous crimes. It’s business as usual, and it takes two to tango.

The Monsanto Protection Act isn’t just a slimy move by a huge corporation. It’s a collaborative effort.

All those corporate lobbyists who infect Washington with their machinations and their money? Are they really imposing their will on politicians because those pols are at their mercy? In a victim’s dream, yes. But in reality, any legislator who tells himself he can’t get reelected unless he takes corporate money is really saying he won’t stand up on his two hind legs and blow the whistle on the whole stinking system.

If one, five, 10, 20 Congressmen started exposing the real government-corporate game, loudly and passionately and eloquently, we’d see a crisis that would make the fiscal cliff and sequestration look like a child’s birthday party.

Names would be named. Crimes would be detailed. Endemic corruption would float to the surface and sit there steaming, for all to see.

People who view themselves as chronic victims view the world in those terms. They see government as the victim of corporations. They forward and promote this big lie. They make endless excuses and spin endless fairy tales.

Let’s opt instead for a more stark approach: Congressional scum just passed a rider protecting Monsanto from getting the justice it deserves. It’s never too late to reverse that decision.

That’s more realistic.

How many times have legislators been “duped” by sneaky bills passing through their hands? At what point are they supposed to wake up and do something about it?

When you’ve had the farm stolen from you a few thousand times, and you’ve done nothing about it, there’s only one conclusion possible: you like it that way.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, and the New EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Freddie Mac sues banks for Libor losses — RT Business

http://rt.com/business/freddie-mac-sues-banks-for-libor-losses-523/

Freddie Mac sues banks for Libor losses

AFP Photo / Paul J. Richards

AFP Photo / Paul J. Richards

US mortgage company Freddie Mac claims it suffered more than $3 billion in losses between 2007-2010 due to bank manipulation of Libor, a benchmark borrowing rate run by the British Banking Association.

Freddie Mac is suing more than a dozen banks, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, UBS, CitiGroup, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Credit Suisse for setting the Libor low against the dollar to “both hide their institutions’ financial problems and to boost their profits,” according to the complaint. The complaint was filed March 14 in US District Court in the state of Virginia.

“Defendants’ fraudulent and collusive conduct caused USD LIBOR to be published at rates that were false, dishonest, and artificially low,” Richard Leveridge, a Freddie Mac lawyer wrote in the complaint, which went public on Tuesday.

The banks have not released any official comments regarding the lawsuit.

Freddie Mac said it discovered the fraudulent lending rates when Britain’s Barclays publicly came forward in the Libor scandal.

Manipulation of the Libor rate is one of the largest scandals to hit the finance industry- over $300 trillion in loans, mortgages, and contracts are linked to the Libor rate.

“To the extent that defendants used false and dishonest USD LIBOR submissions to bolster their respective reputations, they artificially increased their ability to charge higher underwriting fees and obtain higher offering prices for financial products to the detriment of Freddie Mac and other consumers,” the US-owned company said in the complaint.

Barclays, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland were fined a total of $2.6 billion for manipulating rates, and more than a dozen banks are under investigation. In June 2012, Barclays paid £290 million in fines to US and UK financial agencies.

“We have an obligation to minimize losses to taxpayers so we felt like we needed to preserve our claim, and that was the purpose of filing this individual suit,” a spokeswoman for Freddie Mac told the Wall Street Journal. The company is part of at least one other class-action lawsuit regarding Libor, she said.

The Freddie Mac lawsuit implicates the BBA “participated” in the Libor rigging scheme to ‘appease’ its member banks, many of which Freddie Mac targets in its lawsuit.

The British Banking Association (BBA) voted in February to formally transfer control of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) in hopes of reviving the reputation of London’s lending standards.

A spokesman for the BBA declined to comment.

Freddie Mac hasn’t indicated precise damages it will seek in court.