Fuzzy’s Faux News: President’s Obama’s Racial Parity Plan

April 11, 2014

Among the announcements that the Obama administration made today was the exciting mention of a plan to ensure racial fairness and equality in America.  Distressed that African Americans make up only 14% of the American population, the Obama administration is in talks with the designers of China’s “One Child” policy to hammer out a means of growing this important segment of our population.  The goal is to limit the number of children that whites and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics and other non-African Americans can have, so that the African American population can grow to equal the number of whites over the next three decades.  The details of this plan have not been revealed, but some that have been released include a halt to all births of whites for a decade and a restriction on the number of children whites (and others, not African American) can have in the two decades that follow.

Another detail that was revealed is the potentially-controversial banning of abortion among America’s African American population; however, this ban will not affect access to this vital healthcare treatment for whites and, to a lesser degree, Hispanics, Asians, and those races that are difficult to codify but that are definitely not African American.  “This is a matter not only of national security, the nation’s economy, the environment, childhood obesity, and gun control” Obama noted at a recent fund-raiser/golf outing, “but it is a vital step in ensuring that the black voice is heard in America.  Can you imagine any other nation on earth allowing such a disparity in numbers of its voting demographics population segments as we have here? It just doesn’t happen in the 21st century.  This racial injustice, this disenfranchisement of the black voice must be remedied!”

Some have noted that this will mean a sharp decline in abortions because African Americans make up the majority of all aborted babies in many states.  Noting the concern of abortion care providers who are worried they will lose tax payer funding and other revenue, President Obama explained that he was going to make up the loss by requiring that all white women who are carrying a white, potentially white, or suspected white baby have an abortion.  This, he assures us, will only be in place for one decade, to “give others a chance.  It’s only fair that the African American population meet the numbers of the white population.  How can anyone reject this fundamental premise that Jesus talks about in the Bible and that such stars as Pajama Boy and that guy with the hat extol in tax payer funded rap videos?”

There is also some push back from progressives who are, according to President Obama, not adjusting their eugenic vision for the new world order and are “stuck in the 19th Century.”  Upon hearing this charge, the recalcitrant progressives promptly blushed, shuffled their feet uncomfortably, voted by finger up twinkles, and began hailing the president’s wonderful new plan for racial equality.  In a subtle message to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the president beamed at them and gave a special “shout out” to them for their proper response to his corrective taunt.

April 17, 2014

Responding to outrage from conservatives who are already saying that they will refuse government-mandated abortions and forced sterilization, President Obama remained his usual unruffled, calm, majestic self.  “Some people are calling me a fascist and are talking me about me like I’m a dog because I champion equality, because I stand firm in transforming this nation into the one I envision,” President Obama intoned at a recent pre-taped press conference at which we all watched a video of the president’s remarks.  “These people are unAmerican and are clearly brainwashed by Fox News.  Any white person who does not volunteer for the government sterilization program or agree not to have children for 10, possibly 30ish, years is clearly a racist, maybe even a traitor. All these so-called ‘black conservatives’ who are outraged should add themselves to this list; I hereby deem them no longer black.  And that’s official!”  The video is paused here, and we in the press corpse cheer enthusiastically!  After we quieted down, Jay Carney pushed the “play” button for us.  President Obama concluded, “How can anyone reject the sensible plans for racial equality that I have laid out?  They cannot! Luckily, I have my pen and my phone, and with these, I will ensure that my racial justice, equality, parity, fairest fair fairness for all plan be enforced by every agency from the DOJ to the IRS to the EPA to NASA!”

Obots, 0Care, American Values, and Our (Banana) Republic

Obama’s defenders defy logic

One of the most frustrating things about what is going on with 0Care, the numerous and varied White House scandals, the Senate rules change, and the irrefutable revelation that Obama is not only a liar but is completely unapologetic about it is the way that the Obots see all this . . . and dig in to protect and defend him.

I just don’t get it.

In 2007 and 2008. Obama presented himself as post-partisan, a uniter, someone for whom there were no “red states” and no “blue states, ” just the United States.  He repeatedly defended not only the Constitution but also the people; he made it a point of his campaign that he would do so in office while increasing transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of government.  He failed (if you can call not trying at all failing) on each and every one of these promises.  Indeed, he not only failed but actively worked to deepen and entrench partisanship, to divide this nation not only politically but along race, class, gender, religious, and economic lines.  He’s done more to trash our Constitution than any other president (and I’m including the regressives who preceded him: Wilson and FDR), while not only making the very word “transparency” a national joke but steadfastly refusing to hold anyone in his administration accountable for anything.  Obviously, his presidency has called into serious question the efficacy of big government to do much of anything beyond causing undue and seemingly irreparable harm.

He has proven time and again that he is not the man voters elected in 2008, yet many of these same voters either refuse to see it or, if they do see it, defend him with strained logic, bizarre excuses, and insupportable arguments.  For example, there’s a lot of talk on leftist blogs about how the 0Care fiasco is just like Katrina or just like Iraq.  The thrust is that Obama’s sinking poll numbers are like Bush’s (these posts always miss the fact that President Bush’s numbers fell with the conservative base–who would, in 2009 emerge as the TEA Party–because of his big spending, big government, anti-free market policies; Katrina and Iraq were things that the already-incensed and disapproving radical left wielded as battering rams.).  Whatever.  There is no comparison because there has never been such a radical, indefensible cobweb of lies, fraud, and tyrannical devices perpetrated on the American people as 0Care and this administration’s entire destructive agenda.

Sure, some former Obot cheerleaders have noted that Obama is a liar and a control freak bent on not only spreading propaganda and attacking the First Amendment rights of a free press but is also showing a reckless disregard for the Constitution and the American people.  Given the abundant evidence of all this and more, however, these are few and far between.  Go to any leftist website and read the comments, and you’ll see quickly enough that the Obot crowd is doubling down in their support for their Dear Leader rather than pausing to question the obvious fact that he is not anything like the man they thought they elected.

This often unhinged support for a proven liar and fraud is really puzzling to me.  Is this a self-defense mechanism, maybe?  Like those people we all know who can never manage an apology no matter what they do or say wrong: they just use painfully twisted justifications and those backhanded “I’m sorry if you’re upset” non-apology apologies?  Can these Obots just not bear to be wrong, to have been so obviously tricked by a consummate liar and poser?  There’s no shame in being the victim of fraud.  Are they afraid that they’ll seem less-than-intelligent?  It’s far wiser to admit a mistake and to correct it than to continue denying any mistake at all.  And if they don’t want to appear unintelligent by admitting the obvious, why can’t they see how much more ignorant, uninformed, and yes, stupid they seem now?  Why can’t they see that their mindless, useful idiocy wins only disdain from their messiah?  It’s baffling.

Insurance is not health care

Conservatives have been saying this all along, but even though it’s now crystal clear that one of the primary results of the 0Care monstrosity is that while more people may be “covered,” they are not going to be receiving actual health care, and the few who do, will have long waits and have to travel farther to do so (doctors and hospital limitations necessitate these).  With few choices (and often only one) on the exchanges, Americans are finding that they have not only a limited range of plans to choose from (only four: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) but will not be able to keep their doctor or even, often, use their nearest local hospital. They’re also paying more for this “free” “health care.”

Let’s count the broken promises here alone: no, you can’t keep your plan (and this will definitely included employer-based plans, the vast majority of which are projected to be eliminated entirely by 2017); no, you can’t keep your doctor; no, you will not being paying the equivalent of a cable or cell phone bill.  Between premiums, higher co-pays, and outrageous deductibles, most Americans will never be able to pay enough of the out-of-pocket expenses to get their new 0Care policies to kick in–oddly, this is also one of the reasons that Obama and his traitorous horde claim that existing health insurance is “substandard”; and no, most Americans will not be saving $2,500 per year.

Amazingly, the Obot apologists have nothing to say about these bald-faced, strategic (i.e. political only), and willful lies.  Instead, they idiotically pretend that the only alternative is to go back to the previous, admittedly flawed, health insurance system.  Again, this defies human logic, but I suppose it’s right in line with what passes for leftist logic: it’s either our way or the old way.  False choices, of course, but that’s how they “think.”  The fact that their way is actually even worse than the old way is lost on them, of course.  The fact that there are unlimited solutions to the health insurance coverage problem is also lost on them.  Heck, it would have been far less expensive, far less disruptive, and far more effective to simply send checks to the uninsured to buy health insurance.  Obviously, this is a crap solution, but in light of what is happening now, it’s far preferable.

Changing Americans’ values

U. S. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) made a rather astonishing admission, stating that the goal of 0Care is to change our country’s “values system.”  This hasn’t received near the coverage that it should, in part because there are just so many horrors to examine and so little time, but it’s something that we all need to note, question, and push back on.

In what ways does 0Care change our country’s values system?  Regressives are fond of intentionally misunderstanding the core American values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.  They twist these beyond recognition, casting them as “selfish” and lacking in “compassion.”  Of course, neither is true, but that’s their argument.  How, then, do they force people into a collective?  Force Americans to (however grudgingly) tow the statist line?  Look no further than the 0Care Tax travesty.

Nicole Hopkins’ Wall Street Journal article about her mom being forced into Medicaid garnered a lot of attention last week.  As it should.  Any American who qualifies for Medicaid will be auto-enrolled in it . . . whether they like it or not.  There is no opt-out, there is no choice.  And once you are on Medicaid, you’re stuck, and this is particularly worrying for Americans 55 and older.  But all Americans should be horrified by this.  Not only will the government–one way or another, before or after your death–collect on all monies paid out by Medicaid, whether you use it or not, but this is anathema to American values.

While Obama’s horrendously destructive domestic policy is forcing more and more people onto welfare, food stamps, and other tax-payer funded entitlements (and there is no shame in that, as I’ve noted in the past), a great many Americans living at or just above the poverty level take great pride and derive self esteem and dignity from refusing government assistance.  Forcing people onto Medicaid who are willing to–who insist on being “allowed” to–pay their own way (and simultaneously auto-enrolling them on food stamps!) is not only a budget-breaking mistake but is incredibly destructive to the American spirit, to our foundational values system.

Other values attacked by 0Care include forcing pro-life Americans to pay for abortions and birth control in violation of their own religious beliefs, using Americans’ personal and private tax and health information as political weapons in elections, carrying a “marriage penalty,” and attempting to tie patient care to disclosures of one’s legal gun ownership.  These and other “hidden” aspects of 0Care are key reasons that Obama is not going to relinquish this tyrannical law without a fight.

Obama and our new banana republic

I’ve written repeatedly about Obama’s endless attempts to silence any and all dissent and his utter disdain for and dismissal of the United States’ Constitution, so I won’t revisit them here, but there are a few new developments in our shiny new banana republic that I do want to note:

Apparently, the Census was manipulated to reflect a lower unemployment rate right before last year’s election.  Republicans, back in 2009, actually warned this would happen.  It did.

Obama himself is behind the Senate’s filibuster rules change.  Bizarrely, again, his Obot apologists argue that more of his nominees have been filibustered than those of any other president.  Well, of course they have.  We’ve never had an actual, antiAmerican, Constitution-hating, dyed-in-the-wool radical in the White House before.

With Charles Rangel calling, yet again, for Obama to seize dictator-like powers, it’s amazing that any American on the left or right supports this administration at all.

It’s going to be a very long three years.

The Real Problem With Regressives: They Live In A Fantasy Future

The most marvelous Daniel Greenfield has written (yet another) stellar piece, The Destruction of Contradiction.  He writes (in part, but do read the rest):

People, countries and ideas are destroyed through their inability to resolve their contradictions. The left gained a foothold in America by exploiting the country’s contradiction between its insistence on moral superiority and the actual way that the sausage got made. The left did not resolve this contradiction, instead it pretended that it had transcended the contradiction because when it made the sausage and broke the omelets, it was doing it for the greater good.

Under the old system, human misery was caused by the pragmatic problems of reality. Under the new system, it was caused by the idealistic necessities of the greater good.

For example, before ObamaCare someone who couldn’t get health insurance was suffering for pragmatic reasons. With the advent of ObamaCare, someone losing their doctors and getting stuck with insurance they couldn’t afford was suffering for the idealism of the greater good.

The contradiction between the aspirations of the ideal and the brutal necessities of the real were not resolved. Instead the left made the suffering of individuals and groups irrelevant.

Read that last part again.  It’s key to understanding the seeming heartlessness we perceive in the regressive, statist, and collectivist (i.e. totalitarian) policies of the radical left where “motive” (i.e. intent) matters more than outcome, where the “ends justify the means.”  We see this clearly in decades of failed leftist policies purportedly designed to help the poor; despite hard evidence that poverty is increasing and the middle class shrinking, the left clings to the welfare state not because it works but because they think it should work.  When you ignore reality (in this case measurable poverty for real people) in favor of unrealistic idealistic dreams of outcomes, you end up with Detroit, not a shining city on a hill.

And leftists do this all the time, on every issue.  In their drive for equality, they ignore the fact that everyone is not the same and that “equality” doesn’t and shouldn’t mean “sameness.”  Instead of allowing for this in their blueprint for the perfection of the human race, they plow ahead, lowering the bar for all in every arena they touch, be that education, law enforcement, or the military.

For example, the purportedly “equality-based” push for women to hold combat positions in the United States military sounds great, right?  Women can do anything a man can do as well as any man can do it.  Except we can’t.  Likewise, men can’t do everything we can do as well as we can do it.  That’s the way it is, that’s reality.  Leftists have no time or patience for facts or reality; they think they can bend both to their will.  So instead of carving out roles in the military that foreground women’s abilities and strengths, that take advantage of our superiority in some areas (face it, women are damned good shots, make excellent pilots, are great at strategy, make great diplomats (as long as they aren’t pretending to be men when they do it), etc.), leftists instead insist on their faulty “equality means everyone is the same as” rubric.  As one female Marine and Iraq veteran notes, “the best woman is still no match for the best man” in combat situations.  That’s just fact.  Indeed, leftists have conceded this very point by lowering physical training standards for women.  That’s not okay, and it’s a clear and obvious threat to our national security, but that doesn’t matter to the radical left.  Only that distant (and impossible) future matters.

Everyone should be the “same,” they think, and if they aren’t, we’ll just change “sameness” . . . and, while we’re at it, we’ll also punish people who’ve been “privileged” (be this because they are born white and male–a shameful thing to regressives–or because they are young and/or healthy).  It’s madness.  They don’t want to redistribute only wealth; they want to redistribute race, heritage, heredity, genetics, values, and a host of other things they have no power or control over.  It doesn’t work, can’t work, but they plow “forward!” working on the principle that destruction and misery are just the temporary but necessary steps toward some sort of fantastical Utopia that they envision as some sort of heaven on earth with our government overlords acting as our beneficent and loving council of gods raining manna down on the unwashed masses from their Olympian perches.

Breaking eggs is just part of the process.  Yes, Obama and his hordes, including House and Senate Dems (and Republicans), knew that millions upon millions would lose not only their health insurance plans but also their doctors.  They knew that Sarah Palin was right about death panels.  They also knew that millions upon millions would lose their jobs or have their hours drastically reduced.  This is built into 0Care.  Logic dictates that you don’t screw up a health insurance system that covered 253.4 million people to accommodate 35-50 million (depending on the estimates) people.  Logic dictates that if you have a government panel meting out treatments, you have not only rationing of care but a handful of people in DC deciding who lives and who dies.  Logic dictates that when you reduce the work week from 40 to 30 hours and make it financially onerous for employers to comply with the 0Care mandates, millions upon millions of people will lose their jobs and/or their health insurance.  But we’re not talking about logic.  Or results, at least not immediate results.  We’re talking about that drive toward a perfected human race living in Utopian harmony in the new Garden of Eden.  And yeah, shrugs the regressive, radical leftist, a bunch of people will suffer, even die.  That can’t be helped because some distant, fantasy future is the end goal (and yes, they actually do believe it’s achievable, but they also know that the only people living the new American dream will be the tiny segment of the population who do not live in abject poverty.  They are okay with that.).

So back to Daniel’s point that the suffering of individuals and even large groups does not matter to the self-proclaimed most “compassionate” of all people.  You see this when they attack cancer victims for complaining about losing the health insurance they like, for losing the long-term doctors they trust.  You see this when they dismiss more than 5 million people losing their health insurance as a “small percentage” of the “market.”  We’re not a “market,” we’re actual people, and the inability to grasp that in the here and now is what really distinguishes regressives.  They aren’t interested in the here and now.  They are only interested in that magical future they march in blinkered lockstep toward.

This is why they are totally comfortable trampling the rights of individuals and groups in the present.  It’s all for “The Greater Good” and that distant future they envision.  So a few thousand or even hundred thousand cancer victims die today . . . well, they were really just a drain on society anyway, right?  They can’t contribute to the brave, new world.

Remember when the Occupiers were calling for the overthrow of the government, a return to “nature”?  And remember how they dismissed the fact that millions of people can’t (physically or mentally) live the lifestyle they want?  One interviewee (I think it was in a Breitbart piece, but extra points to anyone who can find it) actually evoked Darwin in stating, with a dismissive shrug, that though it’s “mean” to say, some people have to die to fulfill the leftist mission.  Incredible.  Or not really at all incredible when you understand that the radicals running America into the ground have no compassion for anyone living in the present, their entire purpose is focused on an unrealistic, unachievable future replete with rainbows, sunny skies, and Skittles-pooping unicorns.

Stand in their way and prepare to be trampled under a herd of cloven-hoofed unicorns and to have your trampling cheered by the “compassionate” left.

Fuzzy Shorts: Individual Market, Regressive FAIL, Obama’s Latest Lie, and 2016

Not Just the Individual Market. D’oh

Everyone is focused on the current massive (in the tens of millions) cancellations of health insurance policies–that people liked and wanted to keep–in the individual market.  I guess that makes sense as these are the ones that are being sent out . . . now.  But it won’t be long before that Obama delay of the employer mandate kicks in, and pretty much everyone with employer-based insurance will find themselves in the exact same boat.  Or actually, without a boat.  Or a paddle.

I cannot wait to see how the leftists who are currently ridiculing, bullying, and otherwise being their usual holier-than-thou selves will react when it’s they who are hit with losing the plan they like and being forced into the 0care exchanges at not only higher monthly rates but with higher co-pays and deductibles.  That’s mean.  I shouldn’t be eagerly anticipating that . . . ugh.  But I kind of am (bad Fuzzy!).

Of course, as I predicted in 2009, the blame will go to the companies who are doing exactly what the law demands: paying the slight fine rather than subsidizing ridiculously expensive “comprehensive” plans that few want and no one needs.  This is the same scheme built into 0Care that rewards the young and healthy for NOT buying a plan (who wouldn’t pay the comparatively small tax-fine-abomination instead of being hit with insane costs for coverage they neither want nor need?).  The law was designed to fail in this way, and anyone who has employer-based insurance now . . . get a clue, you won’t have it in two years.  Period.  So get over your “but I’m not on the individual market” so I’m not speaking up nonsense.  Soon, they are coming for you.

Regressive’s Whining Introspection Provides Food for Thought for TEA Partiers

This is pretty “old” now, but obviously, I feel it’s worth mentioning.  Absolutely ages and ages ago (in today’s “if it was said yesterday, it doesn’t matter” blog cycle), some regressive blogger I’d never heard of bemoaned the failure of the “progressive blog movement.”  It’s a lot of belly-button gazing, myopic, unintelligent drivel for the most part (gee, we had so much POWER! We were meeting IMPORTANT people! We MATTERED!), but there was one part that really caught my attention:

Unlike the Tea Party, most left wingers don’t really believe their own ideology.  They put partisanship first, or they put the color of a candidate’s skin or the shape of their genitals over the candidate’s policy.  Identity is more important to them than how many brown children that politician is killing.

So progressives have no power, because they have no principles: they cannot be expected to actually vote for the most progressive candidate, to successfully primary candidates, to care about policy first and identity second, to not take scraps from the table and sell out other progressive’s interests.

The Tea Party, say what you will about them, gets a great deal of obeisance from Republicans for one simple reason: they will primary you if they don’t like how you’ve been voting, and they’ll probably win that primary.  They are feared.  Progressives are not feared, because they do not believe enough in their ostensible principles to act on them in an effective fashion.

I, of course, have been saying this for years.  The real legacy of this century’s “new” progressive movement (that would take us back to the 1930’s, not exactly a banner decade for America) will be not only utter failure but loss of any and all credibility (how seriously will ANYONE take regressives when a Republican is elected and he or she chooses to continue Obama’s policy of continuing Bush’s policies?  Not. At. All. They–everyone from the remarkably silent during Obama’s reign Code Pink to the not-quite-as-silent-but-still-complicit at sites like the Daily Kos and Firedoglake–will be laughingstocks and ridiculous jokes to one and all.).

This regressive blogger guy is exactly right: their lack of principles is what failed them, what will always fail them.

The Sorry President and His Sorry Acolytes

Poor old Ron Fournier, devout Obot, worshiper at the Styrofoam columns of a Styrofoam president.  Fournier bemoans the Liar in Chief’s latest lie, and he actually gets some things right:

I’m sorry you couldn’t finesse a single Republican vote for health insurance reform in 2010.

[snip]

I’m sorry you campaigned for reelection on the famous false promise: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”

I’m sorry your aides debated whether to tell the full truth (that people could keep their insurance only if it hadn’t changed and if it met your standards) and decided instead to institutionalize the lie.

I’m sorry that when Americans recognized the deception you tried to reinvent history: “What we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.” No, no, no, no, no—that’s not what you guys said.

I’m sorry you didn’t trust Americans with the truth.

Heh. It’s hard not to laugh, isn’t it?  Poor, sad, pathetic Fournier, still pinning his “hope” for “change” in a liar and a charlatan.

Dear Ron: Obama cannot trust Americans with the truth because the truth is not, and will never be, acceptable to us.  Period.  You live in a crazy utopian dream world that has nothing to do with actual American values, and if you think that Obama can stand up and just say, woot!  I wanna be king of the world, and that anyone will do anything but laugh. Long and loud. You are delusional.  But then, we already know you’re delusional because we read your columns.

Brief Note on 2016

I’m pretty much done with the crazy.  I voted for McCain in 2008.  I voted for Romney in 2012.  Neither man I really liked for the job, they were just better than the alternative (well, in McCain’s case, perhaps, not so much).  This time, it looks like we’ll get another nonentity, regressive Obot (Christie seems to be the main one at the moment, and I can’t even begin to tell you how much I loathe the man.).

Next time . . . I’m all for swinging this crazy pendulum far far far right.  We need a frothing-at-the-mouth, rightwing nutjob, and we need him or her now.  Sadly, we don’t really have one, so I’m looking at Ted Cruz . . . and I’m looking at Rand Paul.  I’m not thrilled with Rand because he’s been too cautious lately, too . . . calculating.  I distrust that.  A lot.

And I want someone like Allen West on either ticket because he GETS it with regards to the Islamofascist threat and will know how to undo the immense damage that Obama has done to our military.  If West can’t or won’t run for president or VP, he simply has to be involved in fixing the military mess that Obama and his traitorous horde have created.

Why the #MarchAgainstMonsanto Matters to Conservatives

Until I read this post at the ever-delightful Adrienne’s place, I had never heard of Monsanto.  Never.  I can’t think now how that’s possible, but there you have it.  Anyway, she wrote in part:

This is the company that won’t allow farmers to save seeds.  If a farmer buys  GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds from Monsanto, they must sign an agreement not to save seeds.  I guess that means the farmer is only renting the plants they grow.  By Monsanto’s reasoning, they developed the seed, the farmer buys the seed, grows the plant on his land, but doesn’t really “own” the plant because he can’t use any seed produced.

If you dare to break the agreement, they will squash you like the little bug (no pun intended) they think you are.  Over the years, they have brought lawsuits against many farmers and have generally won.  My guess, and it’s only a guess because I have not read the court cases, is Monsanto won on contract law.  If the farmer signed the contract, then he is bound to uphold the terms.

These GMO seeds are already crossing with non-GMO plants.  I predict, due to my knowledge of hybridization and my life-long gardening, that this will prove to be a disaster in the future.

Imagine, if you will, a world where nothing you grow will produce seed that is usable.  Most hybrid plants will not reproduce true to form.  If you save the seeds from the hybrid tomatoes you purchased at a store and try and grow the seeds the following year, don’t count on eating any tomatoes.

Huh?! A company “owns,” essentially, the rights to food seeds?  How is that even possible?  If anyone else had written this, I would probably have dismissed it as hysteria and hyperbole, but as it was written by someone whom I know not to be given to either hysteria or hyperbole, I thought I better look into it further.

Monsanto is a vast, multi-national corporation that has genetically modified its canola, soy, wheat, and other crop seeds to be resistant to its own RoundUp sprays.  The crops will not die when RoundUp is sprayed to control pests and weeds, and these GMO seeds have been patented by Monsanto.  Pause, digest this: the SEEDS are patented.

Monsanto has also genetically-modified seeds so that even though a plant will produce seeds, they will not germinate (grow); they are modified to self-destruct, in other words.  Seeds, then, must be bought year after year . . . from Monsanto.  Indeed, even if you are a farmer using GMOs that are not “programmed” to self-destruct, you must sign a contract stating that you will not only buy new seeds each year from Monsanto but that you will also pay a “fee” per harvest for the privilege.

On the one hand, this makes a certain amount of business sense if you’re Monsanto, but the problem is that these genetically-modified seeds are contaminating non-GMO seeds that are planted within X number of miles of the patented seeds.  When the GMO seeds travel by wind, insect, bird, or beast to pure, natural-seeded crops, they cross-pollinate, making the produced seeds GMO hybrid monsters that are, courts have ruled over and over, the property of Monsanto.

So. Let’s say you are growing heirloom corn in your field, and the guy or gal next door or down the road is growing Monsanto GMO monsters.  The wind blows, a bird or bee flutters from field to field, a mouse or raccoon skitters between the two, and your corn is contaminated.  Guess who owns your corn and its seeds.  Monsanto.  Not you.  Not only that but your Monsanto’s seeds are now forever monsterfied by genetic modification.  They may be RoundUp resistant, they may not produce viable seed, or they may be both.  But they’re not yours whatever they may be.  They belong, on your land and in your fields, to Monsanto.

This could be problematic on the small scale, but as Adrienne points out, there is no way that eventually all crops will not be infected.  Eventually, by the process of nature, no crops will be free of GMO’s; eventually all seed will be good for only one season because the resultant crop seeds cannot be resown (not only will Monsanto sue you if you try, but why bother? They won’t germinate, they won’t grow).

Learning all this I was horrified (especially as I’ve begun my own feeble attempts to grow tomatoes and such in pots on my porch), and felt the need to learn still more, so I watched David vs. Monsanto on my fabulous Roku.  Through the entire film, I just kept thinking, why don’t we know about this?

A brief overview of this excellent documentary and its focus, Mr. Percy Schmeiser of Canada:  Mr. Schmeiser is a Canadian canola farmer whose fields were contaminated by a neighbor’s Monsanto crops–the seeds from the neighbors crop pollinated Schmeiser’s crops by wind (or insects or whatever, certainly not by Schmeiser’s hand).  This was not, obviously, Schmeiser’s desire, but it was beyond his–and importantly, beyond Monsanto’s–control.

Shmeiser harvested his crops and separated the seeds for next year’s crops as farmers have been doing since forever, but Monsanto stepped in and sued him for stealing their patented GMO seeds.  Schmeiser was almost ruined by this suit and was terrorized and harassed by Monsanto thugs; his wife, at one point, was afraid to leave their home.

At the end of years of harassment, hundreds of thousands dollars spent, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto does indeed “own” the canola seeds and that they cannot be reused, even if they were not planted in the first place!.  They also ruled that Schmeiser, because he was not actively stealing the patented seeds, was not liable for damages.  Small victory, but at least he didn’t have to pay the ridiculous amount Monsanto was demanding on top of having insisted Schmeiser’s entire crop and seeds be destroyed (you can read more about it here).

Schmeiser is just one in a long, long line of small farmers who are being threatened, harassed, sued, and shut down by Monsanto; there are more than we even know small American farmers who’ve suffered the same treatment (some were discussed in this documentary).  Governments in Canada and the U. S. are complicit in this, of course, with laws dictating what can and cannot be grown, how it can be used, etc.  Farmers are faced with the choice of either planting these government-approved GMO crops or going bankrupt.

Why isn’t the entire freaking nation not only alarmed and afraid but speaking out about this travesty?  Turns out that they are, en masse, across the globe today in the #MarchAgainstMonsanto.

Now I know it’s easy (perhaps a bit too easy) to reject such protests simply because regressives and assorted anarchists, commies, et al. are also involved.  But here’s the thing, so the frack what?  If this is wrong, then it’s wrong.  Period.  No matter who else thinks it’s wrong.  One of the things that angers me most about leftists (everyone from regressive loons to more centrist Obots) is the incredible lack of any principle at all.  They hate when Bush does something, but when Obama does the same thing or worse, they defend and support it.  They claim to hate government oppression and champion freedom of speech and the press, but the minute Obama shows his true tyrant colors, they tune out, defend it (oh, well, as long as it’s only conservatives being targeted, who cares? The TEA Party deserves to be silenced, they say!), and minimize every Constitutional and legal violation.

I refuse to do that, I refuse to consider issues and important encroachments on life and liberty only in light of whether or not leftists support or condemn them.  Too many conservatives are of the mind that if leftists hate drone strikes on civilians or on American soil, then we should automatically support them (ditto Obama’s illegal war in Libya and a myriad of other issues).  That’s mindless, knee-jerk nonsense, and we conservatives are better than that. Heaps better, actually.  So if you see anything wrong with the whole Monsanto thing–and our government, BOTH sides of the aisle, is not only complicit in but profiting from it–then learn more and stand up and be heard.  If not today, then in the near future before we are all dependent on “public-private partnerships” (aka fascism) for our food.