Lying Presidents, activist Judges, power-drunk Congressmen, and special interests who happen to be in a position to appoint judges or enact whatever legislation their arrogance might lead them to ram down other Americans' throats cannot be trusted with the power to "amend" the Constitution by their self-serving "interpretations". They dishonestly use the ''living, breathing, document'' line to justify undermining its core principles. In other words, using the Constitution to destroy it while feigning loyalty when it's politically convenient. ''I taught the Constitution for 10 years''. We all know you're well-versed in Constitutional law, Barry, but you have aptly demonstrated it's a case of ''know thy enemy''.
Rule of the majority party can be as evil as any dictator. That is why we are not a ''Democracy''--a notion that has been erroneously force-fed to us since anyone can remember--but a Representative Constitutional Republic. This fact has been obscured by a progressive education system designed to indoctrinate rather than educate, and unfortunately it is only now that many are rediscovering this. It took a lot of pushing of the People to wake them up to the fact that their once-great nation is being systematically destroyed. And no it is not just Obama and the Democrat Party, although they are by far the worst when it comes to forcing Statism and calling it ''democracy''. No, This has been happening for a long time, it's effects culmulative until it has almost reached a breaking point. Maybe that's what they want. Unfortunately for the Regime's supporters it is at this point in time that things have gotten so bad that the People are literally on the verge of revolution. Like the kid who is bullied daily at school and finally summons the courage to smash the bully's nose in, so it may be with the American populace. And I have news for you: the kid is not the bad guy. The kid is not the ''extreme'' one. The bully is.
When our public servants abdicate their oath of office by attempting to dismantle, even openly disparaging the Constitution as some irrelevant "rag" of the past that can be changed or junked to suit their immediate small-minded ideological goals, those politicians are not acting as Americans or in America's best interests, but as America's enemies. And their self-delusional claims to the contrary are pathetic.
This time, politicians will get the voters they so richly deserve. Very, very angry voters. Being dismissive of this by assuming that they are ignorant masses who don't know what's best for them or that they don't like this president because of his skin color is what is truly ignorant, and only fuels the fire that is going to one day restore this nation to it's rightful owners--those who understand and have a healthy historical perspective on the dangers of Statism and how it destroys liberty, the individual, and free markets while aiding the monopolization, corporatism, and corruption it claims to be trying to ''regulate''. No amount of MoveOn.Org, Huffington Post, NY Times, MSNBC, or George Soros-funded think tank talking points are going to stop the real change that is going to occur.
Ridicule or dismiss the people in the street all you want, pretend it's all just a result of Limbaugh, Beck, Rupert Murdoch, FOX or any of the other phony Establishment Right hacks stirring up trouble. No, the sentiment is quite real, completely justified, and would exist even if the so-called "conservative" media didn't. Many of us are on to them as well and are exposing them for what they are. We won't forget the Neoconservatives' support for endless foreign occupations, the Constitution-killing Patriot act, and their own version of Statism.
Right now, our immediate problem is the current Administration and Congress, because it is what we can tangibly make accountable to us. The ''Bush did it too'' defense just doesn't cut it, nor does the ''it's better than the last 8 years'' defense. It is not better than the last 8 years, which were horrible. It is everything bad that came from that administration, and even worse. We need to take back our country, starting at the local level. In any case, our out-of-control government's current Goldman Sachs regime and their unwitting supporters need to understand: NO,YOU CAN'T.
The elections of 2008 (and the early elections of 2010) produced two significant phenomena: the “Ron Paul Revolution,” and the “Tea Party Movement.” And, mark it down: both of them will have profound effects upon the upcoming November elections–and upon the 2012 elections as well. Call them what you want, however, America doesn’t need another movement; it needs a genuine revolution.
The Tea Party movement, while still a force with which to be contended, has already been diluted and compromised. The primary elections plainly reveal the reality of this fact. The high spots so far are the defeats of Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Bob Bennett in Utah. The low spots so far are the reelection of John McCain in Arizona and the election of Dan Coats in Indiana.
John McCain’s election, in particular, demonstrates how many conservatives and “revolutionaries” still don’t get it. If any State in the union should have an up-close-and-personal look at what we are up against, it would be the people of Arizona. After all, they are on the front lines in the fight of one of the most important battles currently being waged in our country: illegal immigration. And John McCain is one of the worst offenders in terms of facilitating and encouraging this illegal invasion. Yet the people of Arizona reelected McCain to the US Senate. (It would interesting to know how many illegal aliens voted for McCain, would it not?)
Then again, John McCain received the enthusiastic endorsement of former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. This endorsement obviously brought McCain thousands of Tea Party votes that otherwise would have gone to his principal opponent, J.D. Hayworth. McCain is not the only Big-Government globalist neocon to receive Palin’s endorsement. Many of Palin’s endorsees are neocons; which leads to one of the biggest problems with any so-called conservative movement: allowing celebrity-type “conservatives” to become the de facto leaders and spokesmen for what should be a true grassroots, people-generated rebellion. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the two biggest culprits in this regard.
Mark my words: Palin and Beck may see themselves as part of a conservative “movement,” but they want nothing to do with an old-fashioned, honest-to-God, Patrick Henry-style revolution. In fact, they are doing everything in their power to keep such a revolution from taking place.
This does not mean that Palin and Beck do not contribute some good things to freedom’s fight. They do. The problem is, for every good thing they contribute they counterbalance it by supporting establishment principals, such as John McCain and Newt Gingrich, and attacking non-establishment players and ideas, which serves only to keep the Big-Government power structure firmly ensconced in Washington, D.C.
Get real, folks, and start thinking for yourselves. Ask yourself why Fox News never (or hardly ever) invites non-establishment patriots to appear on their network. Why do you not see former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts on Fox News? Why do you not see former Georgia congressman and Presidential candidate Bob Barr on Fox News? Why do you not see former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura on Fox News? Why do you not see former Director of the US Office of Economic Opportunity and Presidential candidate Howard Phillips on Fox News? Why do you not see Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin on Fox News? The list is endless.
Fox News is not “fair and balanced.” It is as controlled and manipulated as any other media news network. The only thing it balances is the other networks’ infatuation with the Democrat Party, by promoting Republican candidates and ideas. What it does not do is educate and inform the American people with the truth as to what both major parties are doing to destroy our country. But remember, Fox News is owned by Keith Rupert Murdoch, the same man who helped finance Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the US Senate, and who is as much of a globalist as anyone in Washington, D.C., or New York City.
As an aside, and speaking of Hillary Rodham, I predict that she will replace Vice President Joe Biden BEFORE the 2012 elections. I’ve said that in private for many weeks, and now say it in this column–remember, you heard it here. The Clinton-Bush Crime Syndicate (CBCS) needs Hillary in the White House badly, and Obama has readily accepted a subservient role in the criminal affairs of CBCS (for very profitable reasons, no doubt). And with the CBCS bosses pretty much running things at the White House (they don’t worry about domestic or social issues, providing that these do not interfere with their international criminal activities), is it any wonder that Obama has already taken more vacations than most Presidents take during an entire term?
And it is the influence of globalists and neocons upon national and international politics that the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck simply do not get–or do not want to get. And because many Tea Partiers are so enamored with these two (and allow them to do much of their thinking for them), they remain clueless as well.
Ladies and gentlemen, America is in the throes of socialist and Marxist political upheaval. The curtain could fall at any time. The American people need to wake up to this truism: a “conservative” movement–even a conservative Tea Party movement–will not save us. The only thing that will save us is an old-fashioned State revolt.
Arizona had the opportunity to become a modern-day version of 1775 Massachusetts. But Arizona has probably forfeited that leadership role by 1) reelecting John McCain, and 2) being willing to allow federal courts to dictate law to a sovereign State. Instead of taking its case to the federal courts, Arizona should simply tell the federal government that it will enforce its own State laws (including the newly enacted anti-illegal immigration law) regardless of what any federal court says or doesn’t say. At some point, that is exactly what some State (or group of states) in this union is going to have to do, or liberty will be forever lost.
As long as freedom lovers are content to remain satisfied with the status quo by allowing party politics and media celebrities to dominate their efforts, there will be no stopping this socialist avalanche that is crashing down upon us. The Tea Party movement of 2010 (if left free of Big-Government neocons) could certainly translate into positive developments this November; that is for sure. A revival of the “Ron Paul Revolution” in 2012 could also make a significant contribution, but it is going to take a State revolution to seal the deal. I, for one, am ready.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is to make a keynote address this evening before the Annual Bohemian Club secret gathering – a lifetime achievement for a man who has long been groomed for power by the globalist elite.
Schwarzenegger will speak in front of hundreds of movers and shakers at the 2,700-acre wooded encampment along the Russian River in Monte Rio.
The plutocrats will no doubt be eager to hear from the man that they hand-picked to become California Governor in 2003, a fact that was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle at the time.
Schwarzenegger has since been a regular attendee at the Grove, but this will be the first time he has delivered a main event address at the elite hideout.
The news was reported as part of a puff piece on the grove in the Santa Rosa based Newspaper, The Press Democrat.
The article paints the Grove as some kind of fund-raising arts variety festival, when in reality it is the setting for top powerbrokers to knock their heads together on issues directly affecting world events, in between frolicking naked, urinating on giant Redwood trees and engaging in bizarre rituals.
The Manhattan Project was conceived at the Grove in the early 1940s, and Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan met there in 1967 and agreed who would seek the presidency first.
Other members include George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, David Rockefeller, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and former secretaries of state George Shultz and James Baker.
In the past former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has attended the gathering, while in 2008 just months before the election, it was rumoured that both Barack Obama and John McCain attended.
In 2000 Alex Jones infiltrated the encampment and caught exclusive video footage of a bizarre mock human sacrifice ritual, known as “the cremation of care”, under a 40 foot stone owl that the members refer to as Molech.
Attendees dress up like Klan members in hooded robes and perform druidic pagan ceremonies to mark the spectacular finale of the event.
A reader who got a summer job working at the Grove in 2005, Chris Jones, reported that he was regularly propositioned for sex by the old men attending the encampment and asked if he “slept around” and wanted to have some fun.
Jones was later sentenced to three years in jail by California authorities for simply showing a tape of his visit to minors.
The New York Times is the only mainstream news source to have covered the Grove this year, with the usual sardonic whitewash piece that ridicules anyone who has reservations or questions regarding the weird rituals that the robed attendees engage in:
“…the requisite summer-camp assembly of robed men, a 40-foot concrete owl, and a body burned in effigy (conspiracy theorists note: it is not a real body)… no, conspiracy theorists, the owl does not represent a demonic idol or any potato-chip concern.”
Oh I see, it’s not a real body - that’s perfectly normal then – after all, who doesn’t sneak out into the woods in a black robe and burn human effigies with their friends. every once in a while?
The piece also notes that some reporters have managed to sneak into the Grove in the past, and refers to Alex Jones’ infiltration in 2000: “some returned with reports of drunken, gray-haired sophomores, while at least one saw evidence of the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati and Beelzebub himself.”
It also revels in a lack of protesters outside this year’s gathering: “For most of the last 30 years, protesters by the dozens and hundreds have agitated outside this dark-wooded lair… Yet the ritual on this day includes only one protester, bearded, lanky Brian Romanoff, 28, who has been working mostly alone since the two-week encampment began on July 16. He says he has adopted a nonconfrontational approach, better to spread the truth about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.”
The writer, Dan Barry, gives away his intentions when he refers to the fact that The Bohemian Club has appointed a public relations consultant, Sam Singer, who is clearly the source of the piece.
Another keynote speaker at the Grove this year was Newscorp CEO Rupert Murdoch, who reportedly discussed “the future of news” earlier in the week, following revelations that his new paywall at the London Times has thus far resulted in dismal failure.
No doubt Murdoch had much to say about the rise of the alternative media and the blogosphere, and the threat to the elite monopoly on information that its exponential success constitutes.
A former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton says that the only thing which can rescue Barack Obama’s increasingly tenuous grip on power as his approval figures continue to plunge is a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11, another startling reminder that such events only serve to benefit those in authority.
Buried in a Financial Times article about Obama’s “growing credibility crisis” and fears on behalf of Democrats that they could lose not only the White House but also the Senate to Republicans, Robert Shapiro makes it clear that Obama is relying on an October surprise in the form of a terror attack to rescue his presidency.
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
Shapiro’s veiled warning should not be dismissed lightly. He was undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs during Clinton’s tenure in the Oval Office and also acted as principal economic adviser to Clinton in his 1991-1992 campaign. Shapiro is now Director of the Globalization Initiative of NDN and also Chair of the Climate Task Force. He is a prominent globalist who has attended numerous Bilderberg Group meetings over the past decade.
Shapiro is clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.
Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists.As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”
Anti-incumbent fever is dominating the political climate once again, with establishment Democrats facing serious challenges from Tea Party candidates, people like Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, who has a battle on his hands against Sharron Angle, a candidate the establishment media has attempted to demonize as a far-right extremist because she supports populist measures like removing sodium fluoride from water supplies and supports the Oath Keepers group, an organization centered around upholding states’ rights and the U.S. Constitution.
Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.
As we highlighted yesterday, Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.
During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”
The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”
In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.
Given the fact that a terror attack on U.S. soil will only serve to rescue Barack Obama’s failing presidency, and will do absolutely nothing to further the aims of any so-called “right wing extremists” the attack is blamed on, who should we suspect as the masterminds behind any such acts of terror? Surely not Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief string puller, the son of an Israeli terrorist who helped bomb hotels and marketplaces, and the man who once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste….an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
Undoubtedly, the first people we should suspect as culprits in the event of a domestic terror attack in the United States are the individuals Obama fronts for, globalists who are desperate to neutralize the growing success of grass-roots movements who have ridden a wave of rising resentment against big government as a means of obtaining real political power.
Networks and newspapers silent on government report contradicting abortion group's taxpayer funding figures
by Nathan Burchfiel, Culture and Media Institute
If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don’t report it, did it really happen?
According to an American Life League review of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period.
The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation’s major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it.
A Culture and Media Institute review of coverage found that only one newspaper listed among Nexis’ “major newspapers” – The Houston Chronicle – even mentioned the GAO report. The Chronicle’s June 16 article noted that Planned Parenthood spent $657 million of federal money over seven years, but did not mention the income/outlay discrepancy.
Don’t Follow the Money
The media have made Planned Parenthood a go-to source for several stories over the last six months, including debate over abortion language in health care reform legislation, the trial of the activist who killed abortionist Dr. George Tiller, and the 50th anniversary of the Pill.
From Dec. 28, 2009, to June 28, 2010, the broadcast networks and the “Big 4” newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood 56 times in news stories. None of those stories mentioned the GAO report, and only one article reported the amount of federal money going to Planned Parenthood.
The February 27 article in The New York Times mentioned an investigative operation by pro-life activist Lila Rose which found Planned Parenthood clinics willing to accept donations from people who wanted African American babies aborted. A separate New York Times report on January 28 characterized the investigation as “prank calls” to Planned Parenthood.
Four reports referred to state funding of Planned Parenthood, but did not mention federal resources granted to the organization.
Planned Parenthood’s 2008 Annual Report says $349.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts accounted for more than a third (36 percent) of the organization’s income that year, second only to health center revenue. Federal funding for Planned Parenthood has increased by 45 percent since 2001-2002, when it received a reported $240.9 million from taxpayers.
While federal orders mandate that government money not be used directly for abortions, pro-life advocates point out that federal money used to cover non-abortion costs frees up private money to pay for abortions.
Favorite Experts
Planned Parenthood is by far the most cited pro-abortion group when it comes to national media coverage. In the last six months, 30 broadcast and print reports have quoted Planned Parenthood representatives and another 26 have mentioned the organization.
The 56 mentions of Planned Parenthood dwarf other pro-abortion groups, including the National Organization for Women (30) and NARAL Pro-Choice America (15).
When abortion was a major focus of health care reform debates, the media turned to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and other affiliated representatives to statements and analysis. When the media celebrated the 50th anniversary of “the Pill,” the media commemorated Planned Parenthood’s role in making it possible.
A February 26 profile in The Washington Post painted a glowing picture of abortion doctor Carol Ball. The article described a “difficult time” for Ball and other doctors who perform late term abortions in South Dakota.
When Planned Parenthood produced an ad in response to Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, the media praised it. USA Today noted it “defend[ed] abortion rights,” although the Focus on the Family ad did not target abortion “rights.”
The New York Times on January 27 turned to Richards on the increase in teen pregnancy rates, and she used the opportunity bash abstinence education. “This new study makes it crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work,” Richards said.
In addition to news reports related to Planned Parenthood, newspapers published five letters to the editor from readers mentioning the organization and fives letters to the editor from Planned Parenthood executives.
Another seven op-eds and entertainment reviews mentioned Planned Parenthood, as well as 15 death notices, and a couple of comedians’ jokes. All told, the networks and newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood more than 80 times in the last six months.
But when someone noticed a $1.3 billion discrepancy in Planned Parenthood’s handling of federal money – crickets.
The Sound of Silence
One letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times February 7 illustrated the effect the media blackout has had on public perceptions of Planned Parenthood.
Responding to the media-manufactured controversy over Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, a reader wrote, “If I had it, I would give millions to Planned Parenthood to advertise on CBS during the Super Bowl.”
Well, dear reader, your wish has already come true. You might not know it from reading the Times, but Planned Parenthood already receives more than $350 million every year from you and every other American taxpayer, with no oversight from the “watchdogs” in the media.
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Friday, June 18, 2010 President Obama is planning to sneak through his job-killing, economy wrecking carbon tax by stealth according to the Washington Post, by passing a weakened bill and then adding in cap and trade provisions after the heat is off following the November elections. Described as the “lame duck climate strategy,” Obama is planning to secure enough votes in the Senate to pass a weakened energy bill and then drag out the conference long enough to ensure the stronger provisions contained in the original House version are added “after lawmakers have faced voters in November, thereby cushioning the vote’s political impact.” “Several sources familiar with the administration’s thinking confirmed it has started pressing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to bring up a slimmed-down energy and climate bill next month. Such a measure would pass more easily than a comprehensive climate bill, and could still be negotiated with the broader bill the House passed a year ago,” reports the Washington Post. Knowing that the “energy bill” represents nothing less than another massive plunder of the American taxpayer and is widely unpopular, Senators will only stab their constituents in the back and vote for the more nightmarish aspects of the legislation, including a tax on the very substance they exhale, after they have secured their seats in November. As we highlighted last week, plans to impose a carbon tax on American citizens appeared to fade after Republican Senator Lindsey Graham shockingly reversed his views on climate change, telling a press conference that the science behind man-made global warming is in question and those pushing it are alarmists who have oversold the problem. “The Senate is expected to try and push a watered down bill with the hope of moving towards a carbon tax later on,” we reported on June 10, which is exactly the approach now being adopted by Obama. The elite are still desperate to impose a consumption tax on Americans as part of the move towards a “post-industrial revolution” and the kind of nightmare “green economy” that has left Spain with a 20 per cent unemployment rate. In a so-called green economy, over 2.2 jobs are lost for every “green job” created. The EPA has been busy floating propaganda about how Obama’s cap and trade legislation would cost Americans an average of $79 to $146 per year. In reality, as we have documented, the stronger provisions of the bill would see around $2.9 trillion shaved off the economy by the year 2050 if enacted. The legislation would also reduce GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930. A carbon tax would impact almost every aspect of Americans’ lives, from higher gas prices, to soaring utility bills, to exorbitant excesses related to the “energy efficiency” of their homes. It would be enforced by an army of environmental regulators and green police poking their noses into the private affairs of citizens. The government has aggressively exploited the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to manufacture an artificial urgency in an effort to speed the passage of cap and trade, an agenda firmly supported by the transnational oil corporations Obama is claiming to be reigning in. British Petroleum is one of the founding members of the cap and trade lobby, and has consistently “lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.” Yesterday, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt invoked the oil spill disaster to justify passage of the carbon tax bill. “The tragedy in the gulf underscores the need to move quickly, and the president is committed to finding the votes for comprehensive energy legislation this year,” said LaBolt. Obama himself even went to the extreme of comparing the oil spill to 9/11, proving that he is perfectly willing to exploit the horror of nearly 3,000 dead Americans in a completely unrelated event nine years ago to underhandedly push his political agenda.
MSNBC host soft-peddled for Bill Ayers, Pentagon bomber, Obama’s colleague, and the man who led an organization that wanted to kill 25 million U.S. citizens who didn’t share their Communist ideology
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Monday, June 14, 2010
Chris Matthews will this week smear millions of politically active Americans as dangerous and violent radicals when he hosts the MSNBC special, “The Rise of the New Right.” However, when terrorist bomber, leader of an organization that wanted to kill 25 million Americans, and the man who helped launch Barack Obama’s political career, Bill Ayers appeared on Matthews’ show, all he got was softball questions and platitudes.
As we reported last week, after obtaining a leaked transcript of the program which will air this Wednesday at 7pm ET from a concerned MSNBC staffer, it became clear that the show’s producers had gone back on their word to make a fair and balanced biography of the growing influence of the anti-big government movement, and in fact had resorted to exercising the same tired old cliches about how anyone who criticizes the federal government is a dangerous radical neo-nazi racist who probably wants to kill people.
MSNBC’s Matthews has made a habit out of portraying Tea Party members, second amendment activists and anyone who is concerned about the growth in government as part of a new frontier of violent extremism.
However, Matthews’ agenda-driven bias against conservative grass roots activists is exposed by a simple comparison of how the MSNBC host characterizes Tea Partiers as violent radicals with how he cosied up and made apologies for communist revolutionary and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, leader of the Weather Underground and the man who helped plan bomb attacks in the 70’s against the Pentagon, the State Department and the Capitol Building.
According to former FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who was assigned to infiltrate the Weather Underground’s Central Committee, the organization run by Ayers carried out the bombings in an attempt to cause the United States government to collapse and open the door for Cuban, North Vietnamese, Chinese and Russian troops to occupy the country. Grathwohl stated that Ayers and his group planned to deal with Americans who would try to resist this takeover by “establishing re-education centers in the south-west”. Asked what he would do with those who still refused to convert to communism, Ayers said that they would have to be “eliminated,” as in 25 million Americans would be killed in concentration camps.
Grathwohl points out that most of the people advocating this brutality had “graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers,” and relates the shock it was to listen to these people “figure out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people – and they were dead serious”.
Watch the clip below.
The most disturbing aspect about Grathwohl’s description of what the Weather Underground planned to do is not the likelihood that they could have achieved such a goal, but that the man who expressed these intentions, Bill Ayers, went on to become an influential elitist with a prominent position inside the American educational hierarchy, and even more alarmingly that he was instrumental in launching the political career of Barack Obama, which we shall come to shortly.
So while Matthews savages anti-big government activists as representing a dangerous threat to America, he concurrently portrays Ayers, a domestic terrorist who bombed government buildings in an attempt to collapse America into a Communist tyranny and butcher 25 million dissenting citizens, as a reasonable, progressive and reformed individual.
Matthews, despite the fact that he could have been killed by one of Ayers’ bombings when he was working as a cop on Capitol Hill, throws softball questions to Ayers throughout the interview and repeatedly seeks common ground with a man who once, according to Grathwohl, expressed his desire to incarcerate and kill Americans who refused to allow Chinese and Soviet troops to occupy the country as part of a communist invasion.
“I agitate my way, you agitate your way,” Matthews tells Ayers.
So this is a man who not only planned and helped to execute bombings against government buildings, but decades later expressed no remorse, said that more bombings should have been carried out, and even hinted that he would consider carrying out acts of terror once again. Matthews defends Ayers while pointing fingers at grass roots Americans and saying that they represent a violent threat.
Contrast MSNBC’s approach to Ayers with the network’s treatment of critics of big government as a whole. Carlos Watson told his viewers that people who called Obama a socialist were racist radicals who in fact were using it as a secret code for the n-word. Dylan Ratigan said that Tea Party organizers wanted to “kill blacks and Jews,” an incendiary smear regurgitated in MSNBC’s upcoming hit piece. MSNBC’s David Shuster attempted to portray anger being expressed by the majority of Americans who opposed the health care bill as some kind of vicious and deadly mass assault, casting Democrat proponents of the legislation as poor victims of a bloodthirsty mob. In reality, while the corporate media and particularly MSNBC has repeatedly claimed that anti-big government activists are dangerous and intent on violence, the only violence dished out during public events has come from maniacal Obama supporters who are loathe to accept anyone exercising their free speech to criticize their dear leader.
Matthews’ cosying up to communist revolutionary Ayers is unsurprising given the fact that the MSNBC host once named communist ideologue Saul Alinsky as one of his heroes. Recall too that Matthews once let slip during a live broadcast that he analyzes politics from a Marxist perspective, stating “I’m Marxist when it comes to analysis”.
His authoritarian bent also came to the fore during a debate in which it was implied that anyone who is skeptical of, or expresses disdain toward, anything the government does is psychologically insane. This harks back to the former Soviet Union, psikhushkas — mental hospitals — which were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. The Soviet state began using mental hospitals to punish dissidents in 1939 under Stalin. The notion that distrust of government is a psychological illness, as Matthews and his guests promoted during this debate, is a hardcore communist statist principle that has only ever been historically applied by the most brutal dictatorships on the planet, and one that is currently employed by Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea.
Despite being an unrepentant domestic terrorist, Ayers has been rewarded by the establishment with an influential position as a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Following his absorption into the ranks of the elite, Ayers was instrumental in helping to launch the political career of Barack H. Obama.
The notion that Ayers, the communist revolutionary and domestic terrorist, was a close friend and confidante of Obama, is not an invention of John McCain or Sarah Palin, it’s a manifestly provable fact. Indeed, as people who dismiss the Ayers-Obama link rightly point out, some of McCain’s top campaign contributors also worked closely with Ayers. However, Obama’s intimate connection with Ayers does not merely stem from the fact that they jointly served on the same board of a Chicago education reform project in 1995, Barack Obama’s political career was launched from Bill Ayers’ own living room.
“In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohr,” reported Politico’s Ben Smith. Again, the corporate media attempted to downplay this controversy when it first appeared in 2008 as a neo-con talking point exaggerated by McCain and Palin. In reality, the fact that the man who wanted to kill millions of Americans who resisted a communist takeover of the country was instrumental in setting Obama on the path to become President was admitted by an Obama-supporting liberal who attended the meeting.
Maria Warren, a liberal activist who attended the infamous Ayers-Obama function, stated plainly that Ayers helped to kick-start Obama’s political career by ingratiating him with the Chicago political elite.
“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread,” wrote Warren.
Imagine if someone like Rand Paul had launched his political career in the living room of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had bombed government buildings. He’d be shot down in an instant. And yet Barack Obama’s political career was launched with the help of domestic terrorist and, according to Larry Grathwohl, would-be mass murderer Bill Ayers, a man who can rely on people like Chris Matthews and the rest of the talking heads at MSNBC to downplay his violent past while claiming that Tea Partiers are the real threat.
The depth of Ayers’ relationship with Obama is revealed by the startling and voluminous indications that suggest Bill Ayers wrote the majority of Obama’s acclaimed 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father.” Writer Jack Cashill has summarized a barrage of evidence that shows the writing style of the book mimics almost entirely that of Ayers. Indeed, author Christopher Andersen subsequently published another book that came to the same conclusion as the argument advanced by Cashill – that the terrorist Ayers significantly contributed to the memoir, dispelling Obama’s claim that he and Ayers merely shared the same neighborhood.
In reality, the implications of Obama’s ties with Ayers, bearing in mind what measures Ayers advocated as part of a violent communist overthrow of the U.S. government, are truly frightening and go beyond the scope of this article. The fact that Ayers has been one of the most frequent visitors to the White House since Obama took residency in the Oval Office only adds to the alarming scope of this story.
What can be succinctly affirmed at this juncture is the fact that while MSNBC and Chris Matthews are busy smearing peaceful Americans as domestic terrorist and radical racists who are a threat to the government and indeed Obama himself, they are concurrently part of a deliberate effort to cover-up and run defense for Bill Ayers, a confirmed domestic terrorist who bombed government buildings before going on to become an influential figure in steering Obama’s path to the White House.
The sheer scale of the hypocrisy exemplified by this comparison renders Matthews’ and MSNBC’s “Rise of the New Right” hit piece a completely agenda-driven and biased smear which should be vehemently debunked on the basis of the network’s shocking efforts to assuage and pacify the outrage surrounding Bill Ayers’ terrorist past and his intimate ties with Barack Obama
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive. Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency. “The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh. The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.” The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks. The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time. “If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh. Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”. As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence. We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away. The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers. Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website. The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.
A monopoly is exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes it possible to manipulate prices. This is accomplished through governmental regulations used to enforce the monopoly. The way to break a monopoly is to remove those laws. This is simple, but not easy in the case of Monsanto, because the roots extend to international, federal, state, and local government regulations. Monopoly owners corner a market by taking control of the resource AND preventing others from using the resource.
The famous robber baron JD Rockefeller refined this method of monopolization with Standard Oil; he created a cartel (an agreement between companies to avoid competition) with the companies he could not buy or force out of business through extraordinarily corrupt business practices. Competition creates a free market; JD Rockefeller is famous for saying, “Competition is a sin.” Of course, the Rockefellers have an enormous stake in biotechnology and the Rockefeller Foundation funded the biology centers and research that led to the creation of GMOs; F. William Engdahl’s book, “Seeds of Destruction”, is highly recommended for the complete details.
This article is intended as a brief sketch to explore the expanse of the roots of Monsanto & understand the machinery of a monopoly, therefore, the science and health issues behind GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be covered in detail. GMOs are created by injecting virus and/ or bacteria into a plant or animal cell, along with the DNA of life forms that would never mate in nature (like spiders and goats).
There is extensive proof that GMOs are detrimental to health.(1) Monsanto’s business practices are corrupt- for example, there have been cases where seed sold as non- GMO were actually contaminated. GMOs are not limited to food; industrial chemicals, plastic and drugs can be grown in plants like corn, and there is an overwhelming chance that you have ingested these chemicals and drugs, if you live in America.(2) Cross pollination is rampant and is an enormous problem, thereby polluting non-GMO farms and endangering America’s food supply. Most Americans are unaware that up to 75% of their daily diet is comprised of GMO food.
This is all part of the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development depopulation program (remember that the Rockefellers have overwhelming influence with the UN). Monsanto promises their seeds are more prolific and can feed more people, but the opposite has often proven to be the truth. The most shocking part of this is that the USDA co-owns a patent, along with Monsanto, on a gene (the Terminator) that can destroy food and be used as a bioweapon.
Monsanto’s monopoly is firmly entrenched within the US government:
1. US Patent Office: this where the problem began, in allowing a patent on life. Monsanto’s seeds are protected under an ‘Intellectual Property’ patent; the seeds are good for one season. When a farmer buys Monsanto seed, he also signs the Technology Agreement that stipulates he may not collect seed and replant it. While the farmer is free to plant any type of seed he wishes, the courts have maintained that farmers are not tied to Monsanto seeds in future seasons. However, it is difficult and costly to stop using Monsanto seed once a farmer has planted it because he may not collect and replant the Monsanto seeds collected after harvest, and must buy all new seeds for the new season. Even if a farmer, having once planted GMO seed, then wishing to switch back, faces the issue of “volunteers” (seeds in the ground from the previous planting) which appear and Monsanto has aggressively sued farmers for patent infringement.(3)
Monsanto is the GMO leader because it has a proprietary patent on the method for creating GMOs, so other companies pay an exorbitant fee to make GMOs.
Monsanto is now patenting non GMO seed as well; this is essentially a patent on nature.(4) Monsanto owns over 20,000 patents
2. FDA (US Food & Drug Administration)*: Many people rely on the FDA to determine the safety of food or a product. The FDA is corrupt, particularly within the realm of GMOs. The only “testing” for safety that is required is for the GMO producer to submit a self authored report on the new GMO’s safety. This fraud was accomplished by Michael Taylor, a lawyer who went to work for the FDA and established the “no testing” policy by reasoning that GMOs are “SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT” to food, and food has already been determined to be safe. However, this is an oxymoron because in order to receive a patent, the new product must be different. Michael Taylor (second cousin to Tipper Gore) is notorious for his “revolving door” employment within the US government and Monsanto- he was recently chosen by Obama as the Deputy Commissioner for foods in the FDA.(6)
GMO seed companies prohibit any testing of their products, by contract, to their buyers.(7)
The FDA has made it illegal to label GMO foods as containing GMOs, as they are GRAS (generally recognized as safe). Some companies, like Whole Foods, are starting to label their products as NO GMOs.
3. *President George HW Bush*, under executive power, mandated the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence of 1992, the same year that Agenda 21 was introduced. This policy requires NO health or safety testing before a GMO product is released into the public.(8)
4. *USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)*: This government body determines whether a plant is safe to grow. GMOs are unsafe to grow; wind, seeds blown from trucks and insect pollination bring GMO pollen and seeds into non-GMO farmland and contaminate the nearby non-GMO farms
Outrageously, the USDA co-owns the patent on the “Terminator Gene”, which means that the seeds have been modified to “commit suicide” after one season, and will not germinate if they are planted in a subsequent season. This technology could potentially wipe out food on the planet in one season. The US government has been funding GMO research since 1983; William Engdahl has said that this will give the owners control of the food seeds over entire regions and nations, when commercialized.
The USDA and the co-owner of the “terminator” patent promised not to commercialize it in 1999, however, in 2001, they signed a commercialization agreement. Seven years later, Monsanto bought out the co-owner and is now partnered with the USDA for the “Terminator” patent. Food can be used as a weapon.(9)
The USDA has also engaged in illegal dispersal of subsidies to Monsanto as well as giving farmers a break on crop insurance premiums if they used Monsanto seeds, which is tantamount to product endorsement.
Remember the USDA is business partners with Monsanto. This is where your tax dollars are going. We are paying for our government to poison us.
5. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency)*: The EPA is responsible for determining the safety of GMOs in the environment. GMOs can withstand more pesticides and herbicides than normal crops, so more of these toxins are used and a resistance to the toxins has occurred. GMO pollen has been proven to be detrimental to certain insects; many believe that the great bee die- off in the US is a result of large quantities of pesticides sprayed on GMO crops plus, some crops have pesticides contained in their the DNA. The EPA often relies on the chemical producer for its research and safety testing.(10)
The EPA is a corrupt agency that continually fails to protect public health: there are over 80,000 chemicals used today, but only a few hundred have been tested for safety.(11)
6. The US Supreme Court* is an agency of the US government, which has usurped untold power. Currently, there is a case in the Supreme Court, to uphold a ban on GMO alfalfa, as GMOs often contaminate nearby farms via cross pollination; a decision is expected this month. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto from 1976 to 1979, but he has failed to disqualify himself due to a direct conflict of interest.
A ban was placed on the GMO alfalfa due to danger of cross contamination (not safety of the food, but whether the plant is safe to grow- the USDA failed to carry out a proper Environmental Impact Study); the prior rulings have been against Monsanto, and this is their 3rd appeal.
Justice Scalia has made remarks that contamination isn’t “the end of the world”. However, it does affect farmers regarding international trade because there are many GMO bans in Europe, and they don’t want GMO crops from the US. A judgement against contamination and in favor of safety would put the USDA’s lack of ethics in preventing contamination in the news and could negate prior lower court decisions that failed to protect non- GMO farmers from contamination. And a ruling in favor of food safety could put the USDA in the news again, connecting the dots of collusion because of their refusal to ban GMOs, in order to protect their own patent on the Terminator Gene. So, given the evidence of governmental complicity in GMO monopolies, incompetence and ignorance, don’t expect the miracle of common sense to prevail in this case.
Incidentally, Elena Kagan, Obama’s candidate for the Supreme Court, sided with Monsanto in the alfalfa case, during the petition period, although it was outside of he jurisdiction as solicitor general.(12)
7. State governments* have also contributed to the monopoly by blocking local bans on GMOs. Mendocino and Marin Counties, in Northern California, banned GMOs in 2004. California’s Central Valley, the nation’s largest produce provider, did not follow the GMO ban. Lobbying from GMO seed producers was intense, as the monopoly became threatened.
The response was that a number of States enacted pre-emptive laws preventing local governments from declaring bans on GMOs within their jurisdictions.(13)
8. Monsanto has a long history of lying, lobbying, bribing and pressuring government scientists and government officers in order to keep their monopoly in place.(14) Monsanto has used very dirty business practices to corner the market on seeds. Within Monsanto contracts there are provisions that mandate the destruction of all Monsanto seeds when a seed company changes ownership: the result is that this makes it very easy for Monsanto buy seed companies cheaply in the bidding process. Another way that Monsanto has eliminated competition is through withholding non GMO seeds from the market. They have also undercut their prices, making their cheaper product appear to be a good deal to farmers. News stories about the detrimental effects of GMOs have also been suppressed, as in the case of some news investigators who got fired from a Fox news investigation over rBHG.
9. US DOJ (Department of Justice)* is currently conducting an investigation regarding anti-trust violations (like the concentration of the seed supply being in the possession of 2 companies), but the investigation seems skewed in the favor of Monsanto as farmers are under-represented and the US interest in the GMO monopoly is deeply rooted. In other words this will be a lightweight investigation.(15)
Maybe the 7 States that are investigating Monsanto’s monopoly on seeds will be more authentic, but I doubt it as DuPont’s complaint against Monsanto accuses them of offering rebates to seed distributors for excluding rival seeds; DuPont offers GMO seeds and is acting in its own interest- this investigation will likely avoid looking into how Monsanto edged out healthy non GMO seeds.(15)
In conclusion, it is undeniable that the our government is deeply complicit in depopulation through food control, especially the USDA’s patent on the Terminator Gene. Frighteningly, amateur garage laboratory scientists and other hobbyists are pursuing new GMO creations on their own, which could have catastrophic results.(16) While this option could break Monsanto’s monopoly, it is certainly not the preferred way to go
The solution is to educate your family, educate friends, and especially educating farmers is crucial. The US government involvement is particularly disturbing, regarding the sterile Terminator Gene and needs to be exposed far and wide. Please share this information with everyone you know, in order to support the growth of organic and non-GMO farming. Source List:
