Uruguary Has Poorest President With Richest Ideas

It's a common grumble that politicians' lifestyles are far removed from those of their electorate. Not so in Uruguay. Meet the president - who lives on a ramshackle farm and gives away most of his pay.

Laundry is strung outside the house. The water comes from a well in a yard, overgrown with weeds. Only two police officers and Manuela, a three-legged dog, keep watch outside.
This is the residence of the president of Uruguay, Jose Mujica, whose lifestyle clearly differs sharply from that of most other world leaders.

President Mujica has shunned the luxurious house that the Uruguayan state provides for its leaders and opted to stay at his wife's farmhouse, off a dirt road outside the capital, Montevideo.

The president and his wife work the land themselves, growing flowers.

This austere lifestyle - and the fact that Mujica donates about 90% of his monthly salary, equivalent to $12,000 (£7,500), to charity - has led him to be labelled the poorest president in the world.

"I may appear to be an eccentric old man... But this is a free choice."

"I've lived like this most of my life," he says, sitting on an old chair in his garden, using a cushion favoured by Manuela the dog.

"I can live well with what I have."

His charitable donations - which benefit poor people and small entrepreneurs - mean his salary is roughly in line with the average Uruguayan income of $775 (£485) a month.

 

 

All the president's wealth - a 1987 VW Beetle

In 2010, his annual personal wealth declaration - mandatory for officials in Uruguay - was $1,800 (£1,100), the value of his 1987 Volkswagen Beetle.

This year, he added half of his wife's assets - land, tractors and a house - reaching $215,000 (£135,000).

That's still only about two-thirds of Vice-President Danilo Astori's declared wealth, and a third of the figure declared by Mujica's predecessor as president, Tabare Vasquez.

Elected in 2009, Mujica spent the 1960s and 1970s as part of the Uruguayan guerrilla Tupamaros, a leftist armed group inspired by the Cuban revolution.

He was shot six times and spent 14 years in jail. Most of his detention was spent in harsh conditions and isolation, until he was freed in 1985 when Uruguay returned to democracy.
Those years in jail, Mujica says, helped shape his outlook on life.

Tupamaros: Guerrillas to government

 

• Left-wing guerrilla group formed initially from poor sugar cane workers and students
• Named after Inca king Tupac Amaru
• Key tactic was political kidnapping - UK ambassador Geoffrey Jackson held for eight months in 1971
• Crushed after 1973 coup led by President Juan Maria Bordaberry
• Mujica was one of many rebels jailed, spending 14 years behind bars - until constitutional government returned in 1985
• He played key role in transforming Tupamaros into a legitimate political party, which joined the Frente Amplio (broad front) coalition

"I'm called 'the poorest president', but I don't feel poor.

 Poor people are those who only work to try to keep an expensive lifestyle, and always want more and more," he says.

"This is a matter of freedom. If you don't have many possessions then you don't need to work all your life like a slave to sustain them, and therefore you have more time for yourself," he says.
"I may appear to be an eccentric old man... But this is a free choice."

The Uruguayan leader made a similar point when he addressed the Rio+20 summit in June this year: "We've been talking all afternoon about sustainable development. To get the masses out of poverty.

"But what are we thinking? Do we want the model of development and consumption of the rich countries?

I ask you now: what would happen to this planet if Indians would have the same proportion of cars per household than Germans? How much oxygen would we have left?

"Does this planet have enough resources so seven or eight billion can have the same level of consumption and waste that today is seen in rich societies? It is this level of hyper-consumption that is harming our planet."

Mujica accuses most world leaders of having a "blind obsession to achieve growth with consumption, as if the contrary would mean the end of the world".

 

 

Mujica could have followed his predecessors into a grand official residence

But however large the gulf between the vegetarian Mujica and these other leaders, he is no more immune than they are to the ups and downs of political life.

"Many sympathise with President Mujica because of how he lives. But this does not stop him for being criticised for how the government is doing," says Ignacio Zuasnabar, a Uruguayan pollster.

The Uruguayan opposition says the country's recent economic prosperity has not resulted in better public services in health and education, and for the first time since Mujica's election in 2009 his popularity has fallen below 50%.

This year he has also been under fire because of two controversial moves. Uruguay's Congress recently passed a bill which legalised abortions for pregnancies up to 12 weeks. Unlike his predecessor, Mujica did not veto it.

I

 

nstead, he chose to stay on his wife's farm

 

He is also supporting a debate on the legalisation of the consumption of cannabis, in a bill that would also give the state the monopoly over its trade.

"Consumption of cannabis is not the most worrying thing, drug-dealing is the real problem," he says.

However, he doesn't have to worry too much about his popularity rating - Uruguayan law means he is not allowed to seek re-election in 2014. Also, at 77, he is likely to retire from politics altogether before long.

When he does, he will be eligible for a state pension - and unlike some other former presidents, he may not find the drop in income too hard to get used to.

Idle NO MORE, 1st Nations Resistance Movement Across Canaca

“A study was done of all band audits ever done to look for evidence of corruption. Less than three percent of all of those audits ever found anything that could even be close to an individual purposely taking money for their own purposes and mismanaging it. That’s a lower corruption rate than all of the municipalities, provinces and Canada put together. So who is the corrupt ones here? It’s not First Nations!” - Miq’Maq lawyer Pam Palmater

Idle No More is an indigenous resistance movement that has taken hold in centres across Canada. It has featured a number of flash mobs and Round dances in public places like shopping malls and traffic intersections. The movement has mostly been peaceful, although there have been a few road and rail blockades.

The focus is on pieces of legislation that the founders of the movement, four Saskatchewan women named Nina Wilson, Sylvia McAdam, Jessica Gordon & Sheelah McLean, saw as further undermining First Nations sovereignty.

The movement got a boost when on December 11, Theresa Spence, Chief of the beleaguered Northern Ontario First Nation of Attawapiskat, started a hunger strike to call attention to long-standing frustrations within the First Nations Community and to force the Canadian Prime Minister and the Queen’s Representative in Canada, Governor General David Johnston, to meet with First Nations leaders.



As of January 10, 2013, the Prime Minister has agreed to meet with First Nations leaders, although the Governor General has not, except in a ‘ceremonial’ capacity.

The fact is, a nation-to-nation partnership formed between the Indigenous First Nations and European settlers which made it possible for the territory to be opened up for exploitation by settlers. Treaties between the British Crown and First Nations were at the heart of this arrangement. However, subsequent generations of settler governments took advantage of the arrangement, and have yet to live up to these agreements signed in good faith by the keepers of the land, the First Nations.

Given these realities at the core of our society in the Western Hemisphere, it is crucial that these fundamental issues be grappled with before the cause of social justice can be meaningfully addressed.

This installment of the Global Research News Hour focuses on the movement spreading throughout Canada and the world known as IDLE NO MORE.

Guests include Sociologist, writer and Indigenous activist Robert Animiiki Horton, and Professor of Globalization Studies Anthony Hall. They discuss the challenges facing the movement, advice for non-Indigenous supporters, and some of the historical and legal backdrop to this resurging resistance.

California Voter Fraud On Prop 37? Will The Truth Prevail?

“So look, there are fifteen million votes out there we haven’t counted yet. What do you want to do?”

“How long have the polls been closed?”

“Let’s see. Two hours.”

“The hell with it. Let’s call it a defeat for Prop 37.”

“Okay.”

This isn’t over.

We’re not just looking at how many votes in California are still uncounted. We’re not just guessing how it’ll turn out and making little projections. That’s a sucker’s game.

We’re looking at real symptoms of fraud. And fraud has tentacles and arms. You see one piece of fraud, you keep digging for other pieces. You usually find them.

Start with the incredibly early projections made by media outlets on election night. Those projections sank Prop 37.

When you’re in the middle of a football game and the outcome is still in doubt, if somebody suddenly posts the final score on the scoreboard, that’s called a lie.

It isn’t an estimate or a guess or a prediction. It’s a lie.

There was once a day in American politics when news networks would wait for conclusive election results. They weren’t greedily bent on reporting projections soon and sooner and soonest.

So let’s get that projection-brainwashing out of our heads, all right?

The whole business of making early and earlier predictions on election night is a sham. And it has the effect of inducing people to tune out.

“Okay, Jones won. That’s that. What percentage of the votes have been counted? One half of one percent? Zero percent? Gee, I guess these prediction guys really know what they’re doing. They must have some fabulous computer models, honey. Let’s watch a CSI rerun…”

Here is what happened on election night in California. With many millions of votes still not counted, television stations up and down the state sealed the fate of Prop 37, by saying it had lost.

Many of those California votes are still uncounted. Yesterday, by consulting four of the 57 county registrars in the state, I found 1.6 million votes still unprocessed. That was chicken feed.

An updated report, as of noon today, November 9, posted at the California Secretary of State’s website, indicates that, for all of California, a boggling 3.3 million votes remain uncounted.

So who called the shots? Who made the early and grossly premature projection on election night? Who told all the media outlets that Prop 37 had been defeated?

I suspected it was Edison Media Research, an outfit that works for the National Election Pool (NEP). NEP is a media consortium that supplies election-night information to the press. This morning I spoke with a representative of Edison, who told me they didn’t make the projection on Prop 37.

If true, that leaves Associated Press (AP) as the leading suspect. AP is part of the National Election Pool as well. AP has awesome resources.

I spoke with Erin Madigan White, media relations manager at AP. I asked her whether AP had made the projections for Prop 37 to media outlets.

She emailed me the following tidbit. It was not quite an answer to my question, but it was illuminating:

“To clarify: AP does not make ‘projections,’ but bases our reporting on counting real votes from every precinct. As our story notes specifically, ‘With all the state’s precincts reporting, Proposition 37 failed 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent.’”

When someone gives you this kind of sleight-of-hand maneuver, it’s called a clue. Let’s start with this phrase: “With all the state’s precincts reporting.” The precincts were all reporting PARTIAL results. Even today, there are 3.3 million votes in CA still to be counted.

This tells you that AP was lying. That’s right. Let’s call it what it was. They were lying about “all precincts.” It was an intentional con.

And what does the phrase “bases our reporting on counting real votes” mean? It certainly means “calling the result of an election.” Because that’s exactly what AP did with Prop 37, based on partial results, on Nov.8. That’s a projection. They say they don’t make projections, but they do. That’s another lie.

On election night, I believe AP must have been the entity who passed voting information on Prop 37 to media outlets throughout California.

AP will not speak about their business relationships with media outlets. They will not name those outlets. They claim “client confidentiality” on this matter. Why?

I believe the answer is obvious. AP, the giant wire service, doesn’t want people to know how much influence they have on what media outlets report. AP doesn’t want the public to know how much of the news, everywhere, comes from AP. And media outlets don’t want their own customers to know how much of what they report is really flat-out or recycled AP material.

This powerful AP influence certainly would extend to election-night reporting.

Knowing how the National Election Pool basically works, I see no other entity who could have played that information-provider role for all the networks, TV stations, radio stations, websites, and newspapers in California…and in the country, on this past election night, with respect to Prop 37.

With millions of votes outstanding and uncounted, I conclude it was AP who provided the data to the networks, who then made the early calls against Prop 37 and sank it.

After I wrote the original article yesterday, which exposed the big lie about Prop 37 early projections, I received many emails. You can read that article here:

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/did-peop-37-really-lose-or-was-it-vote-fraud/

Most of the emailers stated they were glad to get the information. A few people questioned my report. They said, “Well, a hundred percent of voting precincts have already sent their vote-counts to the Secretary of State of California.”

Wrong. A hundred percent of precincts have sent PARTIAL vote-counts to the Secretary of State.

A few people said, “Well, the counties in California, who are in charge of counting all votes in their districts, have several weeks to wrap up the count. That happens in every election. Nothing new there.”

I know that. My attack is leveled at the early call against Prop 37 given to the media, on election night, when so many votes were still uncounted, when there was no way to know the final outcome.

A few people said, “Well, of the votes that remain to be counted in California, about two-thirds would have to go YES ON 37 to swing 37 over into victory. That won’t happen.”

Let’s leave that question to the actual vote-count. But we’re not only talking about the odds of getting a victory through counting the rest of the votes. With these horrendous early projections, we’re looking at a symptom of huge fraud here. The smoke in front of the fire:

Who can guarantee that the votes already tallied in California were done faithfully and honestly? Who can guarantee that the voting machines were accurately recording votes?

Given AP’s replies to me, and their policy of secrecy about their media clients, who wants to trust that news giant?

Concerning machine vote-fraud, wake up and smell the coffee. See Bev Harris’ work at blackboxvoting.org and also Victoria Collier’s important articles on this subject. Read up on the 2000 Bush-Gore fiasco and the 2004 Bush-Kerry voting nightmare (especially in Ohio).

Many people have emailed me to ask, “What can we do now?” First of all, the YES ON 37 people have to forget about their concession of defeat. They need to get busy and look into vote fraud.

They have to come back to the playing field.

To return to the football analogy, if you’re in the middle of the game and somebody suddenly posts the final score on the scoreboard, do you hang your head and walk off and accept the loss? Is that what you do?

Do you bow down to the system, because you’re afraid that, if you object, people will label you “sour grapes” and crazy? Or do you become more relentless?

YES ON 37 needs to demand to look at the voting machines, the software used in the vote-count. YES ON 37 needs to probe, with all they have, into what AP did on election night. And that’s just for starters. Bring on the lawyers. Make some real waves. Shake people up.

Think about this as well. Why was Prop 37 launched in California? Why not Arkansas or Louisiana?

Because it’s well-known that California, historically and presently, is the core of the natural health movement in America. CA is where it really took hold and spread. CA is where everybody and his brother want gluten-free bicycles and organic streetlamps and raw unpasteurized sunglasses and GMO-free underwear.

The sentiment for Prop 37 was overwhelming a couple of months ago. Then, boom. Everything went the other way. It wasn’t just the NO ON 37 ads. It wasn’t just the massive spending by the NO ON 37 forces.

The real specter of vote fraud is here, whether you like it or not.

If, indeed, AP made the early reports or projections or suggestions or advices of defeat for 37 to media outlets, let’s see their data and their models of interpretation. Did they do exit polls? I’ve never heard of AP conducting exit polls.

If as AP claims, they don’t do projections, are we supposed to believe they sent out nothing more than raw-vote counts to a few thousand media outlets in California, and each and every one of those outlets decided, on their own, through their own analysis, that Prop 37 was a lost cause early on election night?

Don’t believe that for a second. These local TV stations and newspapers aren’t independent enough to do that kind of projecting on their own. They were taking advice from somewhere. They were all falling into line. They were merely mouthpieces for someone’s projection.

This should trouble you. It should trouble you greatly. Unless you’re so enamored of projections and computer modeling and data interpretation and honest and honorable vote machines that you’re sure everything is just fine and dandy.

Early dismissive projections on election night are part and parcel of the Big Con. They are wands waved that put people to sleep and elections to bed.

So, no, Virginia. No. Everything is not okay.

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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.

Educate Yourself About The Agenda 21 Game Plan For You

US No Longer In Top 10 Prosperous Nations

Will You Be Forced To Live In A Stack N Pack Building?

Obama’s plans for a second-term plans includes an initiative to systematically redistribute the wealth of America’s suburbs and rural areas to the inner cities. It’s a transformative communist idea  and it is one that is already underway as these words are being written.

Electing or unelecting Obama would have made no difference to the implementation of this plan. Obama is merely a teleprompter reading sock puppet and Romney would have done this deed just as efficiently.



The real brains behind the coming Agenda 21-inspired mass migration from the suburbs to the inner cities is Mike Krulig and his new group of community advisors, Building One America. Their secretive agenda has been mostly achieved by Obama’s appointment of like-minded community activists to his staff. In fact, Krulig was one of Obama’s original community 
organizing mentors from the President’s Chicago Southside days.

 The word stealth applies because a damning photo depicting Krulig and Obama meeting at the Whitehouse in 2011 which appeared on the Building One America website. (The photo is displayed above).  However, this type of publicity would not have been good for the swing voters living in America’s suburbs.

Obama’s people had the video scrubbed as well as the search engine links. However, the Breitbart people retained a copy of the picture. This begs the question, if the Building One America plan is so good for America, why would the Obama people conceal his affiliation with Krulig and his group of Agenda 21 social engineers?

Kruglik’s Agenda 21 friendly group, Building One America, proposes the creation of a  regional tax-base sharing revenues in which suburban tax money is directly redistributed to nearby cities and economically depressed concentric zones of inner-ring suburbs. Building One America also seeks to move the poor out of cities by imposing mandatory low-income-housing quotas for middle-class suburban developments.

Krulig’s group also seeks to export the controversial regional tax-base sharing scheme currently in place in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area to the rest of the country. Under this program, a portion of suburban tax money flows into a common regional pot, which is then effectively redistributed to urban, and a few less well-off “inner-ring” suburban, municipalities.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul area regional government is run by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who are out of control. It is critical to know that removing the election process from this endeavor was deliberate for reasons that will become obvious as the reader will discover.
Kruglik’s group also favors a variety of policies designed to force people out of their cars and force suburbanites, robbed of their own tax money, to relocate into densely populated stack and  pack cities.

Among Kruglick’s strategies to separate people from their cars is the Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT). Road pricing for the VMT would be implemented to force drivers out their cars. This will impact all drivers except for the Obama inspired exemption of low income drivers.
The VMT is designed to give favored status to certain groups. These groups represent organizations that want to transfer wealth through the heavy hand of regional government interfering in the housing, transportation and land use market place.

This tyranny is also being beta tested in the Bay area in a project entitled One Bay Area Plan. One Bay Area Plan is a 25 year plan which combines housing, transportation, and Agenda 21 land use policies. The public cover story is that the project is designed to save the planet by reducing Green House Gasses. The generated revenue, estimated at $15 million/day, would be used to fund further Agenda 21 transportation schemes such as buses, trollies and light rail which only a few people presently ride.

This plan also calls for Upzoning which would expland the plan to even more areas in the Bay. This would mean even more requirements for high density housing in cities that do not have their “fair share” of low income people. This will result in more 200 square foot apartments being constructed near public transit lines.

This Bay Area Agenda 21 plan also contains a concept referred to as tthe Communities of Concern (read low income and communities of color) would receive funds from these windfall profits that the region would receive.  (is Obama trying to provoke a race war?). Additionally, development fees would be eliminated for affordable housing developments, while subsidies would be used for favored activities such as the creation of more micro apartments and the construction of low income housing in the suburbs.

Most people mistakenly believe that the reality of the megacities concept in which we are all herded into the stack and pack cities is decades down the road. On the contrary, as you have seen, the program is being beta tested in two large metropolitian areas. These schemes will soon be coming to a neighborhood near you.

Museum Of Modern Art Elitist Want You To Live In Stack & Pack Ghettos

Daryl Hannah Arrested Protesting Filthy Tar Sands

Does Your Pastor Serve God Or The Global Elite Political Agenda?

Judas sold out the savior of humanity, Jesus Christ, for a mere thirty pieces of silver. Today, many religious leaders are selling out their congregations for even less.
I never thought I would say that there is no place where the betrayal of the American people is no more prevalent than inside of our most treasured institution, namely, our place of worship, but I feel compelled to say so now.

 This is not meant to imply that there are not religious leaders who hold steadfastly to the word of God and stand as a beacon of spiritual and moral courage before their congregations. However, an increasing number of clergy are more interested in serving the dictates of Homeland Security than they are in accurately espousing and exemplifying the word of God. The following paragraphs will tell you who and what are responsible for this growing phenomenon and, more importantly, what can be done about it.

Who Stands Against Evil?

Any aware person is cognizant of the fact that evil is running rampant across the planet. There are days in which I doubt that the alternative media can wake up enough people to effectively rise up against the global tyranny which is invading every aspect of our lives. Yet, I have often taken comfort in the fact that God will have the final word, on the final day, when he enacts the final judgment. Yet, the very salvation which awaits so many, is increasingly being obscured from so many because many of our religious leaders have been co-opted by the federal government.

It is a well known fact that the power and viability of churches are in noticeable decline. Not only is religious affiliation and church attendance in decline, many of the leaders of our religious institutions can no longer be trusted to preach the word of God versus espousing the new American religious mantra, which is to falsely interpret Romans 13 in which these “new age pastors” are calling for blind obedience to their “God-chosen” governmental leaders.

History Speaks, Will Church Leaders Listen?

Everybody knows that when the German clergy of the 1930′s pretended not to notice the evil which inspired the actions of Hitler, millions died and evil was served by their complicit silence in the face of abject evil. Everybody knows that when the Russian clergy pretended not to notice the evil which inspired the ruthless actions of Stalin, millions died and evil was served by their complicit silence in the face of abject evil.

 Everybody should know that if the majority of the American clergy chooses to pretend to not notice the pervasive evil which is presently inspiring the ruthless actions of much of our governmental leadership, millions will continue to die and abject evil will continue to be served by their complicit silence.

Romans 13 Does Not Equate to the Divine Right of Kings

The modern interpretation of Romans 13 is pure blasphemy. This scripture has been morphed into a doctrine espousing the “Divine Right of Kings” in which God has somehow chosen a king to ruthlessly rule over a people and it is incumbent upon the people to accept their “God-given fate.”  The flock are commanded to “…submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” 

 This false interpretation is nothing but a divine coronation of a ruthless, self-serving government and Christians are expected to capitulate and honor the same kind of thievery, lawlessness and murder which inspired Jesus to expel the money-changers from the Temple.

As I contemplate what many of churches will be like as they embrace a perverted interpretation of Romans 13, I am left wondering what kind of God would condone the horrific abuses being perpetrated by the Obama administration?

 What kind of God would command its leaders to encourage, codify into law and then to tell its flock to simply ignore the American Holocaust which has witnessed the murder of over 50 million American babies, since Roe v. Wade, in 1973?

 What kind of God would not have its clergy and its followers fail to condemn the bankster controlled wars of American imperialism which have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of millions of human beings?

 What kind of God would fail to command his clergy to not speak out and to condemn the actions of the criminals on Wall Street, who inspired only by the love of money, for their continued assaults upon humanity in the form of unlabeled  poisonous GMO’s, the theft of solvent home mortgages by the mega banks, and the secret detentions and the murder of American citizens under the NDAA.

What kind of God would have its religious and government leaders fail to speak out against the fact that our current President has no hesitation in supporting the radical, Sharia Law serving Muslim Brotherhood who are committed to the execution of all Christians in lands in which they have control?

 What kind of God would order his followers to remain silent as the bankster controlled government plans to commence a world war starting with Iran in order to support the preservation of the Petrodollar which will result in the potential death of billions of human beings?

 I cannot tell you what kind of God would command complete and unquestioning obedience to such corrupt government leaders as well as the clergy members who they now control. In short, no God of the Bible would ever command his followers to both enable and to serve the evil which permeates our government.

 For any church who encourages complete obedience to a corrupt government has taken a big step towards accepting the Mark of the Beast. This is a very dangerous precedent, and this could potentially imperil the salvation of millions if Christians allow this false doctrine to expand across our nation’s churches.

The Church Has Been Invaded

It is very likely that religious leaders who do not truly serve God are repeating the mantra set forth by them from the Clergy Response Team, whose new mission is to  continually remind their flock of their Romans 13 duty to serve the wishes of their government.

 Increasingly, Christians are being asked to serve a false God created by the Department of Homeland Security and this New World Order interpretation of the Bible is being rammed down the throat of many of our religious leaders.

The Clergy Response Team

The Clergy Response Team falls under the umbrella series of programs known as National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NOVAD) which is a non-profit, member organization which shares knowledge and resources throughout a disaster. The organization helps to prepare, respond, recover and to mitigate the damage caused by some unknown disaster presumably which lies in the future of humanity.

NOVAD claims to be a faith-based coalition which is structured as a non-governmental organization and operates on a national scale and is supported by tax dollars funnelled to DHS. Instantly, Bible believing Christians should smell a rat. Since when has the federal government ever sponsored organized religion?

 The answer is not since well before the advent of the atheist activist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who was successful in banning prayer in the public schools in 1963. Then why would the government suddenly fund and support a “faith-based organization” on a national scale?  The simple answer is the that Homeland Security is seeking to control our churches and ministers, before the impending train wreck comes to fruition inside of America.

 DHS desperately is seeking to control all Christians through the perversion of Romans 13 and this is one of two cornerstones in this movement designed to control Christian leaders. What is the impending train wreck that I am referring to?

We can say that a likely false flag event, of epic proportions, will be used to usher in the new age under the iron fist of martial law. Does it really matter as to the details?

 DHS has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. Who is DHS planning on shooting? FEMA has operationalized several FEMA camps. Who is FEMA planning on imprisoning without due process under the NDAA? Additionally, it is a well known fact that millions of FEMA coffins have been strategically placed outside of many major metropolitan areas. Who is DHS/FEMA planning on exterminating?

 I can draw no other conclusion than DHS is planning on a modern-day feeding of the Christians to the modern-day lions who serve the global elite agenda. Clearly, something big is in the works and Christians, along with their fundamentalist beliefs must be neutralized before the proverbial mess hits the New World Order fan.

FEMA and Homeland Security Dictate Religious Teachings

FEMA and DHS directors have told the pastors that attend NOVAD meetings, that it is their duty to help implement FEMA and Homeland Security directives in anticipation of any eventualities of calamity and disaster.

 Pastors have further been instructed to preach Romans 13 to their followers, which of course we know was deliberately taken out of context by Hitler to fool Christians into supporting him and it is based upon the philosophy that obedience to government, even a corrupt government, is tantamount to obedience to God.

There can be little doubt that organizations such as DHS have declared war upon ordinary American Christians and one of the first precepts of war is to destroy the command and control structure of  the enemy.

And we average Americans are the new terrorists, the new enemy of the state, according to DHS documents. For many Americans, their command and control structure lies in their faith which is centered in their church and that structure is under direct assault from the federal government.

The misapplication of Romans 13 will serve the globalists well when martial law is declared. Subsequently, our collective clergy, preaching from their pulpits, will remind Americans that their government loves them and would never let harm come to them and it is their Christian duty to obey all federal government mandates.

What Is the Root of All Evil?

God-fearing Christians must wonder why so many of our religious leaders have forsaken the religious roots of their obedience to the word of God and espouse an unquestioning faith in government. The answer is surprisingly simple as every Christian knows that the root of all evil is money.

 If your church is a 501(c)(3) organization, then your church has a significant financial motivation to not truthfully interpret the true message of the Bible. The tax exempt status of being a 501(c)(3) organization is the other cornerstone of this shift away from allegiance to God and towards worshipping our new Savior, the federal government.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, no substantial part of a religious, tax exempt church may engage in any activity which may be attempting to influence legislation and the church may not intervene in political campaigns. In other words, if the government decides to secretly disappear dissidents, the church must remain silent or risk losing its tax exemption.

 If the government continues to expand its infanticide policies by extending the murder of babies to include post-delivery abortion, then the church must remain silent. If the government engages in any heinous, genocidal act, such as the murder of 1.2 million Iraqi’s under the false pretense of looking for weapons of mass destruction, the church must remain silent or risk losing the tax advantages for being a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization.

Combine the 501 (c)(3) financial motivation with the DHS inspired NOVAD directive for clergy to remind their flocks of their Christian duty to obey their government under any and all conditions, we are witnessing the neutering of our most precious institution and the ultimate salvation of millions could hang in the balance.

Christians Must Rescue Their Churches
From the Clutches of DHS and the IRS

Is your church a 501 (c)(3)? If it is, then realize that your fellow worshippers likely have a problem when it comes to worshipping in a church where the word of God reigns supreme against all else.

The proof is in the pulpit. Does your religious leader teach from the Bible?

 Does he/she apply the lessons of the Bible to daily living and does not shy away from controversy when the actions of government violate the laws of God?

Does your church renounce evil in all forms?

Does your clergy encourage their congregations to oppose evil, by being faithful to the word of God in all areas?

 Does your church organize its followers to carry the word and the will of God to society as a whole in an effort to save the misled?

 Does your pastor denounce abortion, war, thievery, murder and all behaviors which violate the Ten Commandments?

 If not, it would be prudent to find a church in which the word of God is honored and unquestionably supersedes the word of government when the two conflict.

 

Is Opposition to Tyranny
Obedience to God?

There is clearly a time when Christians should disobey civil authority. Acts 5:27-29 states that “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’ Peter and the other apostles replied:

 ‘We must obey God rather than men!’

 Could it be more clear that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the with the law of God, Christians are commanded to obey the government. However, if  the law of the government contradicts God’s word, Christians are commanded to disobey the government and obey God’s law.


Today’s religious leaders who bow down to the holy temple of Homeland Security are bought and paid for at a very cheap price. What does a church gain by accepting a 501 (c)(3) tax exemption? Ten Percent? Twenty Percent off from its tax obligation?

This makes the thirty pieces of silver that Judas took to betray his Lord, look like a good deal. Compromised pastors should take warning of Judas’s ultimate fate.

My message to pastors is clear. Be faithful to your religious training above all else.

Yes, opposing the government is indeed frightening. However, none of us are safe with the increasing levels of tyranny which are overtaking our country. In fact, I have just discovered that FEMA is spying on my website by subscribing to my RSS feed. FEMA’s  link to my website’s RSS feed is posted here. Through my faith, I remain undeterred in my opposition to tyranny because it is too late to do otherwise.

If your church does not pass the litmus test mentioned here, then find another church. If you cannot find another church where the laws God reign supreme over the laws of man, then start your own home study group.

Of course, be prepared for persecution as witnessed by the fact that one such brave soul, Michael Salman, went to jail for conducting religious services in his own home in opposition to the dictates of the civil authority. Clearly, Pastor Salman is a faithful man who understands the meaning of Mark 8:39 which states “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” He possessed the courage to pay a price for his faithfulness. This kind of faithfulness should be embraced by all who claim lead our congregations in the name of God.

I take great solace in the fact that more than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.

 These pastors hope that this will force a showdown with the 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements which effectively silences pastors. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment, which it clearly does.

If anyone would care to send me examples of pastors acting according their Biblical conscience in opposition to the Christian-muzzling 501 (c)(3) mandates of the IRS code, I will publicize these pastors and their churches on my talk show with the hope of providing Christians with a safe haven from which to worship.

There is a spiritual solution to all problems

Dennis Kucinich Believes Monsanto's Political Process Is Corrupt

Watch Nixon End The US Gold Standard

Aug. 15, 1971... Tricky Dick abandons the gold standard. Nixon announces the end of the Bretton Woods International Monetary System 41 years ago today. This was one of the most important decisions in modern financial, economic and monetary history and is a seminal moment in the creation of the global sovereign debt crisis confronting the U.S., Europe and the world in 2012. The dollar has since fallen from 1/35th of an ounce of gold to 1/1750th of an ounce of gold. Text below from Youtube page: On August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced on TV 3 dramatic changes in economic policy. He imposed a wage-price freeze. He ended the Bretton Woods international monetary system. And he imposed a temporary surcharge (tariff) on all imports. The Bretton Woods system was created towards the end of World War II and involved fixed exchange rates with the U.S. dollar as the key currency - but also a role for gold linked to the dollar at $35/ounce. The system began to falter in the 1960s because of an excess of dollars flowing out of the U.S. which foreign central banks had to absorb. A run on gold in 1968 was stemmed by a patch on Bretton Woods known as the two-tier gold system. All of this was ended unilaterally by the Nixon decision.

Vote For Nobody! The Only Candidate Who Listens

NOTE: Do vote locally for initiative & referendums. WA state Cannabis legalization 502 isn't legalization, it's 68 pages of regulations designed to double the price, limit access of currently legal Cannabis for medicinal use. It will create billions of dollars in revenue for Wa state, new classes of criminals and force medical users to suffer. Who wins? The state wallet!

The Hypocrisy Of government

The Lessor Of Two Evils Is Still Evil

The devil always sends errors into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites. ~ C.S. Lewis

In the South Park episode "Douche and Turd," South Park Elementary holds an election for a new school mascot, and the students are given a "choice" between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. The episode has been praised for encapsulating the libertarian attitude toward voting. It certainly encapsulates the libertarian attitude toward politicians, but the episode has always bothered me as a libertarian and a Christian. Despite its seemingly subversive message, it supports America’s civic religion and promotes the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils." Christians who take their beliefs seriously should do neither.

Civic Religion

Democracy is a "religion" in every sense of the word: It deals with an unseen, mystical force (the popular will); it has a priestly class that discerns the popular will (politicians and the media); it has martyrs (soldiers), rituals (voting) and dogmas ("every vote counts"); it aims to fulfill the spiritual need of human beings to be a part of something larger than themselves; and it treats non-believers (non-voters) as heretics to be shamed and ostracized.

In South Park, Stanley says he not going to participate in the election: "I think voting is great, but if I have to choose between a douche and a turd, I just don’t see the point." His attitude gets him banished from town. Puff Daddy even tries to kill him as part of his "Vote or Die" campaign. When Stanley eventually comes to terms with the imperfections of democracy, he returns to town to do his civic duty, and his candidate loses in a landslide. Nonetheless, Stanley is once again part of the tribe, and he is assured that his participation had meaning:

Sharon: You can't judge the merits of voting on whether or not your candidate won.

Randy: Your vote still mattered.

South Park lampoons America’s civic religion but ultimately endorses it. In that way, "Douche and Turd" is no more "libertarian" than the political satire in The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, or The Simpsons. These shows ridicule the state of politics in America, but they never go so far as to question the system itself. George Carlin was the only entertainer that I know of who dared to commit the heresy of saying that people should stay home on Election Day.

To quote James Bovard: "Voting is a process that consecrates the government’s control of the people." If the choice is between a douche and a turd, (moreover if you do not consent to ever-increasing levels of government control, regardless of whether the person wielding that control would be a douche or a turd or Steve Jobs or Mother Teresa), then not voting, or voting for a third-party candidate, is the best way for libertarians to make their voices heard.

Here’s my problem with the much lauded South Park episode from a Christian perspective: Note that Stanley’s opinion that "voting is pointless" fails to take into account the question of evil, or what man should do in the face of it. The episode portrays elections as absurd (fair enough), but the question of evil never enters the equation, and the potential consequences of the election are understood to be negligible. Hence, Stanley’s attitude of blithe indifference can only be considered understandable, rational and appropriate.

When it comes to modern day American politics, though, there are serious stakes involved. Given the destructive potential of America’s military might and the clear desire in Washington to make use of it at every turn, and given the State’s unique ability to destroy prosperity, trample civil rights, and generally make life a living hell for people, any Christian who believes in the Fall must concern oneself with Presidential elections, if for no other reason than this: Systematic evil is practically guaranteed when power is so concentrated.

 Even if you don’t believe that the "douche" and "turd" are evil human beings, per se, (even if you can listen to Hillary Clinton’s giddy laughter here at the mention of "taking out" Iran and not be bothered by what is either her blithe indifference toward the horrors of war or her brazen bloodlust), one would be hard pressed to argue that there is not some kind of evil, pervasive and persistent, lurking in the corridors of power in Washington.

How else could one explain wars of aggression based on lies, the mass killing of innocents, the surveillance state, rigged elections, fascist economic policies, propaganda, the destruction of the dollar, the unfettered accumulation of debt, the glorification of violence, the culture of fear, the militarization of the police, the control of the press, the suppression of free speech?

If you believe that we, as a country, continue to go in the same horrific direction regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power, and that supporting either one would be akin to supporting these evil endeavors, what do you do?

The Lesser of Two Evils

Some people insist that, even when both options are reprehensible, a voter still cannot afford to sit out an election. To fail to vote or to "throw away" your vote by voting for someone other than a Democrat or Republican would be taking a defeatist or quietist stance. Man has a responsibility to squelch evil (they might say), to prevent it, combat it, but man must also be practical. So the question becomes: How to combat evil? For this group the answer is a simple: Vote for the lesser of two evils. (This is also known as the "Anyone but _______" argument.)

This position is essentially pragmatic, and I recently came across an essay called "No, Not One" written by George Orwell in 1941 that articulates it perfectly. Mind you, in this essay, Orwell is not writing about voting. He is writing about war. The impetus for the essay was book called No Such Liberty, which had a message of pacifism, an ideology which Orwell opposed and repeatedly denounced.

Though he is not writing about elections, I believe Orwell’s words here effectively convey the logic behind the "lesser of two evils" argument. Moreover, those who promote this logic with regard to voting are often, to my mind, chauvinists and demagogues. They inflate the evil of the "other guy" and exaggerate his vices, while disregarding or excusing the infractions of "their guy" and playing up his virtues, in order to create the illusion of contrast.

So while I’m writing here about voting, and Orwell is writing about war, I think the parallel works: Orwell is talking about evil that presented an immediate threat to the world in 1941, and as for the "lesser of two evils" crowd, they always turn into alarmists as the election draws near, painting a cartoonish picture of the evil inherent in the other party and likening the election to an apocalyptic showdown akin to a war against the forces of evil.

Here’s what Orwell had to say:

    Underneath this lies the hard fact, so difficult for many people to face, that individual salvation is not possible, that the choice before human beings is not, as a rule, between good and evil but between two evils. You can let the Nazis rule the world; that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands.

It seems to me that the text for our time is not "Woe to him through whom the evil cometh" but the one from which I took the title of this article, "There is not one that is righteous, no, not one." We have all touched pitch, we are all perishing by the sword…There is no such thing as neutrality in this war.

Orwell is saying that while war is evil, it is not as evil as the Nazis; therefore it should be employed to conquer them. In terms of logical reasoning, it seems one could just as easily write:

    The choice before Americans is not, as a rule, between good and evil but between two evils. You can let the Democrats rule the world; that is evil; or you can overthrow them by voting in the Republicans, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you.

The lesser-of-two-evils crowd admits that both options are evil, but maintain, like Orwell did, that one is less evil than the other. Orwell was a clever chap, and it is my suspicion that the majority of readers would agree with his logic, which could readily be applied to voting; they might say something about the "real world" and the impracticalities or hypocrisies of pacifism and anarchism and personalism and all other forms of "utopian" thinking that promote the conquering of evil with something other than evil, and I can forgive Orwell his pragmatism and compromise with the world because he was certainly an ambiguous and lukewarm Christian, if he was a Christian at all, and while he may have considered himself a member of the Church of England and believed in a certain Judeo-Christian moral code, he did not, it has been suggested by scholars, believe in an afterlife or in the eternity of the soul.

No Other Choice?

The question, to my mind, is: Can a Christian stop here? Can a Christian join the lesser-of-two-evils crowd? Do we believe what Orwell says, that "there is no other choice" before us?

I read something years ago by a writer who was a contemporary of Orwell and no lukewarm Christian: C.S. Lewis. It was a passage in Mere Christianity only a few lines long that got lodged in my head, and I think it has an eerie relevance to this whole issue of voting and the lesser of two evils. In the passage, which follows, Lewis is writing about the idea that that we are all one, as in "one body," yet we are all different parts.

He says that people usually have a tendency to go too far in one direction: Either they overemphasize the point of "oneness" and become "totalitarians," or they forget that we are all connected and become "individualists." But that’s not the idea that struck me. He was using this example to make a larger, more important point about the way the devil works, and if you’ve ever read his book The Screwtape Letters, you know that Lewis had incredible insight into the psychological dimension of evil. The larger, more important point he was trying to illustrate is this:

I feel a strong desire to tell you – and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me – which of these two errors is the worse [becoming an individualist or becoming a totalitarian]. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern that that with either of them.

This passage perfectly explains our habits of mind with regard to American politics and perhaps the sinister nature of a two-party system. Is it merely the "devil getting at us," by presenting two errors that we begin to concern ourselves with, and no matter which way we go, it is still error, and he has won? Think about it:

Christians’ "extra dislike" of Democrats draws them into the camp of the Republicans (or vice versa). If only Christians could make a psychological break with the "two errors" we are presented with! If only Christians would try harder to think seriously and honestly about good and evil, and keep our eyes on the goal, instead of concerning ourselves with the lesser of two evils.

What should one do to combat evil? For starters, I would say stop endorsing it, supporting it, approving it and condoning it with your vote.

Woe to him through whom the evil cometh.

If you are choosing the lesser evil, it is still evil, and you are registering your consent to that evil. If you refuse to vote, you are at least depriving them of that: your consent. Flannery O’Connor once wrote: "Does one’s integrity ever lie in what one is not able to do? I think that usually it does." So stay home. Bake a cake. Say a prayer. Mow your lawn. Smoke a joint. Do anything except vote. After all, the whole point of a Christian life is to try your best to "come out with clean hands," right?

At this point I expect the "lesser of two evils" Christians to object with: "But evil prevails when good people do nothing!" But of course that argument rests on assumptions about what qualifies as "doing something." Contrary to the methods of politics, which seek to affect external change through the use of force, this kind of "doing something" starts from within, in the individual’s heart and soul. First off, a refusal to vote is a kind of resistance.

To a Christian who believes in temptation and sin and the reality of evil in the world, the act of resisting qualifies as a very important kind of "doing something," even if it appears to be a negative act. But beyond that, a refusal to participate in the civic religion can represent the positive act of giving-up of false idols. If done mindfully, it entails an effort to ground yourself in a deeper truth. It can mean a conscious commitment to a new way of thinking about your choices, and a whole new way of orientating yourself towards the world.

 It can act as a concrete expression of your trust in a different kind of power. If you are a Christian, you believe that all of this is not insignificant. The work of faith is often quiet, and all change starts from within. Any effort to water the mustard seed counts for something. It has "real world" power, even if we can’t foresee or predict what it will eventually result in or lead to.

If you must vote, then don’t vote for the evil that you think is better. Vote for that which you believe is good, for that which you believe is best of all. In any case, voting, like everything else in life, should be seen as a spiritual exercise, a psychological test. This November would be a great time to practice what Lewis preaches.

Do not let yourself be fooled. Find a way of going straight through.

Ban Monsanto's Birth Defect/Cancer Causing ROUNDUP

Ban Monsanto's Birth-Defect-&-Cancer-Causing RoundUp! Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate Take Action Now! The EPA is currently conducting a "Registration Review" of glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide RoundUp. The EPA will be making a final decision no earlier than 2015. The EPA has the power to ban glyphosate, and it should, given glyphosate is: linked to cancer causing birth defects worse than DDT spawning super-weeds that reduce yields, and responsible for a deadly new pathogen that is plaguing plants with new diseases and animals (including humans) with infertility. A new peer-reviewed research paper by the French group of Gilles-Eric Seralini reveals devastating effects on rats fed diets containing genetically modified corn, with and without the herbicide Roundup, as well as Roundup alone. Rats that spent their lives drinking water contaminated with RoundUp (at levels allowed in U.S. drinking water) developed enormous cancerous tumors and died prematurely. Seralini's study extends the work of others which have demonstrated the toxicity and/or endocrine-based impacts of Roundup. This peer-reviewed study has been criticized by scientists with ties to the biotech industry whose views have been widely reported in the popular press, but independent scientists back the study.

DEMAND GMO Labels On Your Foods

Prop 37 Ad Wars: Monsanto's $ vs. The Truth About GMOs According to the latest Los Angeles Times poll, California supporters of Prop 37 – the November 6th ballot initiative that will mandate labeling for genetically engineered food – outnumber our foes almost three to one. We’re going to have to fight hard to hold onto this lead. Opponents of our Right to Know – Monsanto, DuPont and their allies – are currently outspending us seven to one, and we expect that margin to grow to ten to one before election day. Big Food Inc. and the Biotech Bullies have $35 million to spend on TV ads, and they're already bombing the airwaves. We're not raising enough money to get our ads on TV as often as theirs, but we've got something else they don't. The truth! And people like you. If you share our Right to Know TV ads with your friends, the videos are sure to go viral. Also, please sign up to volunteer for the campaign – you don't have to be in California to contact the state's voters via phone, email or social media.

Four Simultaneous Monsanto Attacks on Organic Food in California and A Monsanto Hostage

Dees Illustration

Sam Jennings
Activist Post

There are at least four major active Monsanto attacks on food in California going on right now. The last listed exposes the iron fist Monsanto tries to hide.

1. Monsanto is pouring millions into defeating Prop 37.

Prop 37 calls for the labeling of genetically engineered (GMO) ingredients in food. Monsanto lawyer and VP, Michael Taylor, was responsible when Clinton put him in at the FDA, for the first GMO in the food chain - rBGH, a GM-bovine hormone linked to a large increase in risk of breast, colon and prostate cancer, for deregulating the approval process for GMOs, and for keeping GMOs unlabeled (even coming up with a white paper for Monsanto on how to sue farmers for attempting to label their milk as not based on rBGH. It was during this time at the FDA that 40,000 documents were hidden which showed extreme toxicity of GMOs, before Taylor arranged for GMOs to begin to be planted regardless.

The truth about GMOs is out now. A scientist whom Monsanto has repeatedly attacked, to the point where the scientist went to court to stop them, has proved beyond a doubt now that Monsanto's GM-corn causes cancer, organ failure and rapid deaths. (Source) This study is having effects internationally, with Russia immediately banning the import of Monsanto's corn, and groups in Europe calling for a ban of any GMOs in Europe and of all importation.

2. Stanford University in California has attacked organic food right before the vote on Prop 37, to Monsanto's benefit, and devised plans with DHS to "subdue" organic food as a biosecurity threat.

Stanford put out a study suggesting that organic food is no better than convention (most of which is GMO and pesticide laden now). The study is a fraud. One scientist involved had previously done studies for the Tobacco industry suggesting smoking was not a problem. Money is flowing in from Cargill which sells Monsanto's GMOs.

Another scientist on the same fraudulent study has been working with Homeland Security to declare organic food a biosecurity risk, setting it up to be "subdued" - attacked by military. Monsanto benefits and may even be directly involved since Monsanto lawyer and VP, Michael Taylor, designed food "safety" laws that operate in a similar fashion.

 

 They arrange for the extermination of any agricultural threats (organic food not excluded), with Monsanto determining what constitutes those threats. (Right now the USDA has earthworms listed as an invasive species and Monsanto through either the FDA and USDA, could order the spraying of a pesticide including Agent Orange - a pesticide it is pushing hard for - sprayed on all farms to protect US agriculture. Or against any other bogus threats.)

This article is a deep education in how Taylor created "surface" language to allow for deniability as he disguised the transfer of massive power to the FDA (run by Monsanto) to destroy organic farms, organic farmers markets, organic food shops, organic food buying clubs, restaurants, and even organic gardens in the US.

3. Monsanto from the FDA, orders a recall of organic food during the Jewish Holidays 

A recall suggests that food is unsafe to eat. Organic nut butters are included with the conventional (pesticide loaded and GMO-sugar included) nut butters that are being recalled. The fraudulent Stanford study suggested to the public there is no difference in nutritional value between organic and conventional food. With a recall, Monsanto is now suggesting to the public that organic is equally dangerous to your life as conventional food containing Monsanto's GMOs and Roundup.

Most nuts in the country are grown in California so this recall would be powerfully felt there. What's more, the Monsanto-FDA recall of nut butters would have its most serious impact on small companies, and the small ones are the organic ones. They are very vulnerable both in terms of cost and lost revenue to having their products pulled but also in terms of attempting to recover their reputation. (The FDA and the state ag departments are infamous for this ploy against Amish farmers selling raw milk - declaring their milk contaminated, having media splash the story across the new, shutting farmers down for weeks, and only later declaring the milk was fine but with no media on the safety of the milk).

The early vote on Prop 37 begins in October. Monsanto did the recall during the High Holidays - Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur - with a large Jewish vote in California, and with Jews being a group most likely to vote.

4. Monsanto is behind illegal arrest and criminal attacks on the owner of an organic food co-op in Los Angeles and destruction of his life's work.

Please read the petition below which lists multiple examples of misconduct by California officials. But it leaves off the most significant piece of information- Monsanto is behind it all.

The FDA ordered the raid and set the felony arrests in motion, and Monsanto lawyer and VP Michael Taylor, runs the FDA "food safety" division. Monsanto ordered the arrest of an innocent man, the destruction of his organic food business, and one might assume they are behind his torture in jail (including questioning him as though he were a terrorist) and the fact that he faces multiple felonies for the crime of selling fresh goat milk.

Those government agents involved in the first raid, including those mentioned, had any no signed oaths of office on file, so no sworn allegiance to the law. The arrest was therefore illegal and his lawyers are seeking to have the whole case dismissed.

Stewart missed a hearing assuming he was no longer needed in court, but was rearrested,this time not be government agents without the legal right to arrest him, but this time by armed bounty hunters, with no license plates on their cars, who physically attacked out in the open. He is still in jail. This petition seeks to free him and expose what is happening in California, which is being used as a test case for Monsanto brute power over organic food and anyone who dares provide it.

An aside: 

Are you wary of raw milk? Are you thinking, maybe Stewart did something dangerous in selling raw goat milk? If so, you can thank Monsanto, the corrupt dairy industry and the corrupt CDC (which participated in the armed raid on Stewart) for your being convinced not to buy milk that is actually 35,000 times safer than any other food - by the CDC's own data. And if you have Crohn's disease, you can thank them again for your continuing to suffer for working to make what is healing, unavailable. In fact, Monsanto is working to genetically engineer milk itself.

Raw milk is the only safe milk and it is a prime Monsanto target. Raw milk means no money to the industrial food system, it means local food and adequate money to keep local farmers in business, it means money stay in the local communities, and it means healthy people who do not support the drug industry. For Monsanto, that puts a big target on it and from there one can understand the brutality against James Stewart and how important it is to get the petition out to free him.

All of the four attacks in California are different sides of the same coin - "food safety." It is a massive corporate lie to take control over the food system. Food safety law in every state needs to be nullified because all of them include a Monsanto trick - they require no evidence whatever. The state can act against people like Stewart based not on contamination or harm - he'd done neither - but merely based on technicalities and plan to destroy real food . Food laws must written that only apply to proven contamination, confirmed by independent scientists, and no prison terms can be applied unless a person or company has been proven, as the peanut company was, to have known in advance that its food was contaminated and to sell it with that knowledge.

Monsanto, is selling products it knows are lethal.

Meet Monsanto's No 1 Lobbyist And Most GMO Dedicated Politician In America

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 infamous 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 preciously 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 perhaps, 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 home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor does it seem 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.

Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, 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:

Does Obama Use NLP?

"Is Barack Obama a brilliant orator, captivating millions through his eloquence? Or is he deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis developed by Milton Erickson, M.D.?

A fundamental tool of "conversational hypnosis" is pacing and leading - a way for the hypnotist to bypass the listeners critical faculty by associating repeated statements that are unquestionably accurate with the message he wants to convey.
In his Denver acceptance speech, Obama used the phrases "thats why I stand here tonight," "now is the time," and "this moment" 14 times. Paces are connected to the lead by words such as "and," "as," "because," or "that is why." For example, "we need change" (who could disagree?)"and that is why I will be your next President."

Techniques of trance induction include extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities, vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion. Hypnotists often have patients count. In a speech after the primaries closed, Obama said: "Sixteen months have passed (paused) "Thousands" (pause) "of miles" (pause) "Millions of voices".

Hypnotists call this a distraction technique: sending the dominant hemisphere on an assignment involving linguistic processes, thus opening the nondominant hemisphere to suggestion."

Deep Background On Assange, South America, US, Argentina, IMF & More

By Nicola di Cora Modigliani
From an Italian Blog

August 18, 2012

Important Note: Re-edited in English from Google translation by Sandhya Jain.

Today we talk of geo-politics and the freedom of information. But what is happening today technically (i.e. politically) began on 12 December 2008, though some say September of that year, but it took four years for the shock waves to reach Europe and America.

The issue relates to Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and the Republic of Ecuador. Mind you, it was assumed in the entire American continent, Australia, and Europe that the world was the same as ten years ago. But the world does not work that way anymore.

In Italy, no one was told of the fight growing between Brazil and the United Nations, badly managed by Christine Lagarde who heads the International Monetary Fund, whereby Italy was officially relegated from the eighth largest to the ninth largest economy in the world. It was overtaken by Brazil. So at the next G8, Italy will not be invited, but Brazil will. So we had the decision to abolish the G8 and G10 becoming the new standard.


Europe, with England and Germany at the helm, simply cannot accept the “Keynesian” triumph of South America. In essence the western guideline remains: “Let them stay home and remain grateful that we let them survive like the Africans. Otherwise one by one they will all end like Gadhafi.” This is the warning in a nutshell So, quietly, South America has in the last 40 days sent three powerful messages; the last and most important was on August 3, and it was televised live from the New York office of the International Monetary Fund. Now for some facts.

On 15 June 2012, Julian Assange understands that for him it’s over. He knows that he will be arrested in Stockholm, picked up at the airport, not by police forces of His Majesty the King of Sweden, but by two officers of the CIA and a US diplomat, using specific formal agreements between the two nations to claim that Assange “actively intervened” in the NATO conflict in Iraq while the war was in progress. He will then be taken directly to the US, to the state of Texas, and subjected to criminal prosecution for terrorist activities. There will be a demand for the death penalty based on the provisions of the Patriot Act.

So Assange consults with his group, and at 9 a.m. on 19 June, enters the Embassy of Ecuador. His team opens negotiations with British agents in London, with the Swedes in Stockholm, and American diplomats in Rio de Janeiro. They agree to let the Olympics pass, after which he can quietly go to South America, ‘just do not talk about it.’ But somehow they don’t trust the Anglo-Americans and rightly so. So they carry out two masterstrokes on 3 August and 4 August.

On 3 August 2012, 16 months ahead of schedule, Argentina President, Cristina Kirchner, arrives at the headquarters of the IMF in Manhattan, accompanied by finance minister and foreign minister of Ecuador, Patino, representing ‘Alba’ (Labour Alianza Bolivariana America), the economic union between Latin America and the Caribbean.

On that occasion, Kirchner hands a cheque of €12 billion to the IMF (whose loan was due on 31 December 2013). She announces that with this installment, Argentina has shown itself to be solvent, to be a responsible nation, trusted and reliable for anyone who wants to invest money. Argentina in 2003 went in default of $112 billion, but refused to seek cancellation of the debt; it declared bankruptcy and sought 10 years to return the money,including interest.

For 10 years, Argentina fought IMF’s attempts to impose restrictive measures of economic austerity. It opted for a different path, in line with Keynesianism, and based on financing infrastructure, research, innovation, instead of cutting expenditure. And it recovered. And it paid off the last installment of the IMF loan 16 months in advance. It thus proved once more that the ideas of the IMF and World Bank on economic ideas are noxious and wrong headed. TINA (“There is no alternative”) is a lie forced upon the majority of the world’s population by the oligarchic elites.


Fifteen minutes after making the payment, Kirchner lodges a formal complaint against the US and UK to the World Trade Organization, on the basis of files made available by Wikileaks, that is, Assange.

Argentina, having settled the debts, now wants damages; with compound interest. It’s a fight between Kirchner and Lagarde. Thanks to Assange, as his team has the transcripts of several conversations in different governments of the globe, involving the US, Britain, France, Italy, Germany,the Vatican, where money is the master: Osama Bin Laden has been sent to the attic and replaced as the arch villain by John Maynard Keynes in the minds of the financial hegemons.

Assange has become public enemy number one of the great powers since he has gained the classified records of these long conversations about how to cripple the economies of South America, how to take away their energy resources and prevent their recovery; how to prevent their governments from pushing through Keynesian economic plans instead of applying the dictates of the IMF, whose sole purpose is to pursue a neo-colonialist policyprincipally for the benefit of Spain, Italy and Germany, with British capital.

Most files have already been published on the internet. Those and others were handed over by Assange in Britain to the Ecuadorian ambassador there.

On August 3 in New York, Ecuador became the first nation in the Americas and only nation in the Western world since 1948, to apply the concept of “immoral debt” or the political and technical refusal to pay foreign debts because they were made by previous governments through corruption, in violation of constitutional laws and requirements.

On 12 December 2008, Rafael Correa the new president of Ecuador (whose GDP is around 50 billion euros, or 30 times less than Italy’s) announced on television that he had decided to cancel the national debt considering it illegal, because it violated the constitution to oppress the people. Today in Ecuador, the new constitutional principle is that what is right for the community is legitimate.

Amount of debt: € 11 billion. The IMF literally expunged Ecuador from the list of civilized nations. “The country is isolated,” declared Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then IMF Director General. The very next day, Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would contribute
free oil and gas to Ecuador for ten years. Four hours later, President Lula announced that Brazil would give 100 tons/day of wheat, rice, soy and fruit free to feed the population, for a long as the nation takes to recover. In the evening, Argentina announced it would give 3% of its beef production free to Ecuador to ensure adequate protein for the population. The next morning, in Bolivia, Evo Morales announced the legalization of cocaine for domestic production and collection, and free coca leaves to Ecuador with aloan of 5 billion interest-free, repayable in ten years in 120 installments.


Two days later, Ecuador denounced the United Fruit Company and Del Monte & Associates for “slavery and crimes against humanity”, nationalized the agricultural industry in bananas (Ecuador is the world’s biggest banana exporter) and launched a national organic label.

Ten days later, Bavarian Green of Schleswig Holstein, Conad in Italy, and Denmark, and Haagen Daaz were prepared to sign contracts with the new entity on the basis of “fair trade”. On 20 December 2008, taking note of the protest of the United Fruit Company, President George Bush (still in office until 17 Jan 2009), denounced the ‘criminal decision’ of Ecuador and called for its expulsion from the United Nations.

Bush said that the US was even ready for a ‘military option to safeguard US interests.’ The next morning, the powerful New York law firm of Goldberg & Goldberg submitted that there was a legal precedent for Ecuador’s action. Six hours later, the US gave up and called on the international community to challenge the legitimacy of the concept of “immoral debt”.

The United Fruit Company has a record in systematic political corruption; it was ordered to pay damages of $ 6 billion.

Interestingly, the legal precedent was dated 4 Jan 2003, and signed by George Bush. Yep. This happened in Iraq, which at that time was ‘technically’ an American possession since it was occupied by US forces and the interim government was not yet recognized by the UN. Saddam Hussein had left debts of 250 billion euros (40 billion euros against Italy, thanks to the transactions concluded Tareq Aziz, deputy to Hussein and an ally of Vatican’s Opus Dei), which the US erased by applying the concept of “immoral debt”, thus creating the recent historical precedent.

New York lawyers for the government of Ecuador offered Washington a choice: either accept and be silent, or if you challenge the decision of Ecuador then also cancel yours for Iraq and get the US Treasury to immediately pay the €250 billion, including compound interest for four years. Obama, not yet in office but already elected, asks Bush to throw in the towel. The New York lawyers are paid by the Brazilian government.

Rafael Correa, Ecuador’s president-elect, is not a farmer like Morales, or trade unionist like Lula, or a military officer like Chavez, he comes from an upper class family and is an intellectual. He is a graduate in economics and economic planning from Harvard, and self-described as a “Christian socialist”. His first official act was to freeze all bank accounts of the Church’s IOR in Quito’s banks and divert the amount into a social welfare program for the economically disadvantaged.

He put on trial the entire political class of the previous government, most of whom were sent to jail, with average sentences of 10 years, confiscated their property and nationalized it and and redistributed it in ecological agricultural cooperatives. Correa sent a letter to Pope Ratzinger in which he called himself “always the humble servant of Your Enlightened Holiness” and in which he officially bade the Vatican send to Ecuador only “clerics gifted with deep spirituality and eager to serve the needy, avoiding profiteers who would incur the rigor of human laws”.

Today, the new South America says no to colonialism and slavery of the European and US multinationals. For 400 years, ever since Europeans discovered bananas rich in potassium, Ecuadorians have lived in poverty, exploitation, destitution, while for hundreds of years a group of brutal oligarchs got rich at their expense. It is no longer the case. And it never will be again. The example of Ecuador is alive and can be replicated in any African or Asian, or European, nation in the world.

But the decisive blow to the system was a bombshell made public on 4 Aug 2012, when Julian Assange assigned the Spanish judge Garzón, the public enemy number one of organised crime, the most ferocious enemy of Silvio Berlusconi, and absolutely the most dangerous enemy of the global banking system, to defend him.

The Spanish judge has 35 years experience and has been responsible for the prosecution of the most important cases of his country for the past 25 years. He is an expert in ‘media and finance,’ and rose to international prominence in 1993 after Interpol issued a warrant on his behalf against Silvio Berlusconi and Fedele Confalonieri (Berlusconi’s right hand man) regarding transactions involving Telecinco, Pentafilm, Fininvest, Reteitalia and La Cinq.

From this it came out that the Pentafilm (Berlusconi and Cecchi Gori members, namely PD and PDL together) bought at $100 the rights of a film that it sold to Columbia Pictures for $500 to Telecinco that sold them at $1000 to an Italian network which then ultimately sold for $2000 to Rai, and so on a total of 142 times. The same film.

That is, the Rai (or us) paid the rights to a film 20 times the value of the market and bought it three times, so that all parties were taken care of.When it came to the crux of the matter, Berlusconi was prime minister, and so Garzón was stopped by the European Union. He got a half victory. He closed the Telecinco and sent its Spanish executives to jail.In 2003 the battle re-opened, with Berlusconi’s new front Mediaset. Garzón was always there.

In 2006, the Italian government at the time (Prodi & co.) helped Berlusconi to escape conviction. In 2004, Garzon opened a dossier against Pope Wojtyla and against the management of the IOR in Spain and Argentina, in relation to funding and support from the Vatican to the military juntas of Pinochet and Videla in South America.

In 2010 Garzón resigned under pressure from the Spanish Government, but before he retired, he opened a law firm dedicated exclusively to international ‘media & finance’ in The Hague, The Netherlands. And now as official legal eagle to Assange, judge Garzón has access to 145,000 files still in possession of Julian Assange that have not been made public. He has already made it known that his office is prepared to denounce several Western heads of state to the court of civil rights in The Hague. The charge will be ‘crimes against humanity, crimes against the dignity of the person.’

The battle is therefore open. It is going to be decisive for the future of freedom in the network [internet]. In the US, they make no secret of the fact that they want him dead. So do the British. But they are having trouble because Assange has taken steps to bring about a global group that deals with counter-information (real, not the Italian one). Its members are anonymous. They do not have an identified site. They simply enter the data, news, information and events. Besides, who wants to know where to look and who wants to understand? When the temperature rises, everything comes to the surface.

The British Empire has lost its composure and wants to seize Assange who has access to direct source material. And the mere fact of releasing it in public turns the tables on those who rule, and reminds the people that we are caught in an invisible war. The rulers do not know how to stop the dissemination of information about what is happening in the world.

There are people who risk their lives by the mere act of uploading information from some anonymous Internet location in Canberra, Bogota or Saint Tropez. Wikileaks should not be read as gossip. It is not. Its anonymous team deserves our respect.

We can no longer say tomorrow, “but we did not know”. Whoever wants to know today, is well served. Just try.

Translated, this means: until we send home the foul political class that poorly represents us, the chatter will have no effect. Because now we all know how things are. Otherwise, you cannot complain or be surprised that in Italy no one has ever spoken before of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, or of what happens in South America, the furious battle taking place between the Argentine President and Brazil on one hand and Christine Lagarde and Merkel other. Why wonder then, that the British want to invade a foreign embassy?

This never happened even in the hottest days of the so-called Cold War. As they say in South America when someone asks “What do they do in Europe, what’s happening there?”, you answer “In Europe they sleep. They do not know that there is life out there.”