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.

Vote Your Conscience! Vote Neither

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

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!

Some People Say I'm Stupid

Ain't Nobody Going To Take Congressman Barrow's Guns & Rifles

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.

Does Cannabis Stop Cancer From Spreading

The data is very strong and there’s no toxicity associated with A compound found in cannabis could halt the spread of many forms of aggressive cancer, scientists say. The first research to show marijuana’s anti-tumor properties was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Los Angeles in 2007 demonstrating that THC may activate biological pathways that halt cancer cell division or block development of blood vessels that feed tumors. It then became a target of synthetic research into THC for drugs such as ImClone System Inc.’s Erbitux and Amgen Inc.’s Vectibix. Researchers have now found that the compound, called cannabidiol, had the ability to ‘switch off’ the gene responsible for metastasis in an aggressive form of breast cancer. Importantly, this substance does not produce the psychoactive properties of the cannabis plant. The team from the California Pacific Medical Center, in San Francisco, first spotted its potential five years ago, after it stopped the proliferation of human breast cancer cells in the lab. Last year they published a study that found a similar effect in mice. Now they say they are on the verge of publishing further animal study results that expand these results further. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. CBD (Cannabidiol), one of the main constituents of the cannabis plant has been proven medically to relieve many diseases including the inhibition of cancer cell growth. Recent studies have shown it to be an effective atypical anti-psychotic in treating schizophrenia. CBD also interferes with the amount of THC your brain processes, balancing the psychotropic effect of marijuana. That is precisely why the power of raw cannabis is turning heads. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, study co-leader Dr Sean McAllister, said: ‘The preclinical trial data is very strong, and there’s no toxicity. There’s really a lot or research to move ahead with and to get people excited.’ While he, along with colleague Dr Pierre Desprez acknowledge that they are some way off from turning their finding into a pill, they are already developing human trial models. They hope to eventually test the drug in combination with current chemotherapies. Professor Desprez had previously found that a protein called ID-1 seemed to play a role in causing breast cancer to spread. Meanwhile Dr McAllister had discovered the cannabidiol had anti-cancer potential. The pair teamed up to see if they could treat a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer called ‘triple negative.’ This form, which affects 15 per cent of patients, doesn’t have three hormone receptors that the most successful therapies target. Cells from this cancer have high levels of ID-1. When they exposed cells from this cancer to cannabidiol they were shocked to find the cells not only stopped acting ‘crazy’ but also returned to a healthy normal state. They discovered that the compound had turned off the overexpression of ID-1, stopping them from travelling to distant tissues. Other potentially treatable cancers are forms of leukaemia, lung, ovarian and brain cancers, which also have high levels of ID-1. Dr Desprez has a particular reason for wanting to create a treatment as quickly as possible – his sister was recently diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer at the age of 41. Her condition is currently receptive to hormone therapies but Professor Desprez fears it could recur in a form that lacks hormone receptors. He said: ‘I want to be ready for that. There is a deadline.’ Cannabis is a Class B drug that is illegal to have, give away or sell. “If cannabis were discovered in an Amazon rainforests today, people would be clambering to make as much use as they could out of the potential benefits of the plant,” said Donald L. Abrams, MD, Chief of Hematology and Oncology at San Francisco General Hospital and Professor of Medicine at the University California. Dr. Abrams is widely known for his research on medical cannabis applications. “Unfortunately, it carries with it a long and not so long history of being a persecuted plant,” he added.

Washington State Joins California With Label GMO Initiative For Nov Ballot

In news out earlier this week, food and farming leaders from the Evergreen State are taking up the issue of labeling genetically engineered foods on the state’s ballot. Despite the fact that federal and state governments have largely either ignored or assiduously avoided the issue, Washington joins California in taking the matter directly to the voters. This should be no surprise, as ballot initiatives have proven the last resort when other policy arenas fail to take up or take action on public issues.The Food and Drug Agency (FDA) has failed to add labeling to everyday grocery products, despite repeated requests by millions of Americans. Earlier this year, over 500 organizations across the country in the Just Label It coalition, including PAN, sent a million petition signatures to FDA. Their response? “Don’t call us, we’ll call you,” reports Grist’s Tom Laskawy. After more than 19 state legislatures rejected measures mothers, farmers and farmworkers had no other recourse than to take the issue to the ballot. And they are in good standing. A majority of Americans support labeling in general and a statewide poll out this week by the Los Angeles Times, demonstrates that more than 60% of Californians support labeling. Eyes on the prize…California All eyes are on California. The stakes are high as labeling in the populous state with the ninth largest economy in the world promises to shift the entire marketplace. That’s why the opposition to the “Right to Know” Proposition 37, funded largely by the “Big 6” GE seed/pesticide corporations, is pumping millions more into PR efforts in the weeks leading up to the election. California's precedent-setting potential is likely also why other states are following suit. "Don't make any mistake, this is chemical companies" opposing labeling, said Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs at Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets and one of the lead groups taking up the measure in Washington. "It's the same people who brought us Agent Orange, DDT and PCBs, and they're saying now, 'Trust us with your food.'" Shining a light on industry’s 'dirty little secret' As PAN’s senior scientist Marcia Ishii-Eiteman points out on Civil Eats, the public is now seeing through industry’s “dirty little secret,” given new information out from scientists in the Evergreen State. In a report out this week drawn from USDA data, Washington State’s Chuck Benbrook documents the increased pesticide use as a result of GE crops. The treadmill of weed and insect resistance, and more pesticide use, presents challenges for farmers, rural communities and consumers alike. Benbrook had this to say: "Things are getting worse, fast. In order to deal with rapidly spreading resistant weeds, farmers are being forced to expand use of older, higher-risk herbicides." But if both California and Washington state used their purchasing power to push pause on the pesticide treadmill, what then?

JFK's Last Speech Ever Just Prior To Assisination

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.”

One Term More?

Anticipation of them bursting out laughing is dampened by the fact that they're really serious.

Of course, whichever puppet is being yanked won't improve the situation. Isn't the lessor of 2 evils still evil?

Romney Supporters Hide Massive Ron Paul Banner

Carlin Says Don't Vote! IF You Vote You Have No Right To Complain About What You Get!

Ron Paul Will Not Endorse Romney

Vets For Ron Paul

European VW Passat's Get Almost Double US Mileage

Censorship & Disinformation

You will not see an article like this appear in any American mainstream media outlet.

Barack Hussein Obama is an illegal President. He is not now nor has he ever been eligible to be a candidate for or hold that office because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates for the Presidency be "natural born citizens." As defined in the binding Supreme Court precedent of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and confirmed in the subsequent ruling of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and others, all candidates for the offices of President and Vice President must be second generation Americans, that is, US citizens of citizen parents at the time of birth.

President and Vice President are the only U.S. political offices with that requirement. It was the intent of the American Founding Fathers that the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces would not have dual allegiance or loyalty to a foreign power.

There is no ambiguity, although the Democrat and Republican parties and the media are and have been deliberately trying to confuse the American public as to the true meaning of natural born citizenship.

Case in point.

Print version
+ - Font Size
Send to friend

On May 1, 2012, Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier posted an explanation of the term natural born citizen that was so factually incorrect that it must be considered propaganda.

It is well beyond the scope of this or perhaps any single article to document the full extent of the censorship conducted and the amount of disinformation disseminated, which has continued non-stop since the onset of the 2008 election cycle.

Why did that happen? The cause stemmed from political expediency and cowardice.

Since 1975, there have been numerous attempts by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to redefine or amend the Article II "natural born citizen" clause.

Having failed to change it legally, politicians seized the opportunity to amend the Constitution by a political fait accompli through the unexpected victory of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary.

Long before the 2008 campaign, however, Obama supporters were already helping the candidate either hide his genuine personal history or create a false one.

The censorship and disinformation campaign about Obama's ineligibility had its origins in February 2008 about the time he began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary.

Anticipating a likely challenge, Obama supporters, instead of reacting defensively, went on the attack through a fabricated controversy, sustained by the media, which questioned the eligibility of Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain. The basis of the challenge was that McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital while his U.S. Navy officer father and his U.S. citizen mother were serving at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

The fake controversy was settled in April 2008 through Senate Resolution 511, which, in essence, was a political deal struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide validation for McCain and, at least, cover for Obama on the issue of eligibility.

SR 511, a non-binding resolution with an unrecorded vote, had no force of law, but by passing it Congress created the conditions whereby the Constitution could be amended de facto through a back-room political agreement.

Republican involvement in SR 511 and the fear of being branded a "racist" prevented any meaningful vetting of candidate Obama after he secured the Democrat Presidential nomination in June 2008.

Thus began the conspiracy of silence and the disinformation campaign by the political establishment and the media.

Given the effort to prevent discussion of Constitutional ineligibility, it should come as no surprise that the politicians and media also protected Obama from investigation of allegations involving a forged birth certificate, a forged Selective Service registration and the use of a Social Security Number not issued to him.

The Democrats and the media don't want to discuss ineligibility and criminality because they want Obama re-elected.

The Republicans can't talk about those issues because of their dereliction of duty, their complicity in a cover-up and their unashamed cowardice.

Regardless of who wins the election in November, it is and has been the intention of both political parties and the media to bury forever questions regarding Obama's ineligibility and crimes.

The truth would shake the American political system to its core because exposing Obama would also expose the endemic political corruption in Washington, D.C.

It is all about power and the financial rewards it reaps. The politicians and the media have it and they intend to keep it by any means necessary.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership". He receives email lawrence.sellin@gmail.com