The Chris Christie-Barack Obama School Of “Punishing Your Enemies” Thuggery

Well, someone I like very much and respect a great deal is asking that we not pile on Christie for Bridgegate.  Yikes.  That poses a dilemma for me because, quite frankly, I don’t see the logic in the argument that, essentially, we defend the indefensible because one day the same media now screeching for Christie’s head will come screeching for some other GOP head (one we value more than . . . not at all).  I don’t want to “feed the beast” that is the leftist commie propaganda machine.  Of course I don’t.  But frankly, the beast doesn’t need our feeding, it’s self-sufficient and well-fed all on its own.  My tossing a well-earned crumb its way doesn’t tip the scale, and it certainly doesn’t endanger any future conservative I may support.

Such a conservative would not believe his own press, for starters.  Christie apparently thought, as have useful idiots McCain and Graham before him, that hugging Obama and chirping happily about gay marriage and carbon taxes would win him support among the regressive media . . . that they’d see him as one of their own.  This has been tried by every RINO of the past forty years, and it’s always a fail . . . not because they aren’t recognized as like-minded regressives, of course they are, but because the media has to pretend to the ignorant masses that (R) is the “enemy” to keep the balance of power off-kilter with regressives from both parties winning in “opposition” to the last regressive.

And it’s worked.  We haven’t had a conservative in the White House since Reagan.  Not because we refuse to “feed the beast” but because we don’t speak up against the real beast’s latest incarnation when we should.

Let’s face it, nothing we have said or done or can say or do will change the propagandists’ game one whit, and if we try to play their game, we start out with a losing hand.  It’s their game, their rules (to be changed without notice), their playing board, their pawns and pieces.  Playing on that field is folly, particularly if it also requires that we support that which we claim to hate as long as it’s Obama or any (D) being the petty tyrant.  According to this logic, we love tyranny, big government, big spending, and corruption as long as it comes from a (nominal) Republican.

No, thanks.  I don’t think I’ll play the role of useful idiot in this regressive commie farce.

I also don’t want to fall into the trap that regressives set for themselves when they defend every horrible, bad policy, including ones antithetical to their own principles, simply because the person behind it is another regressive.  Doing this damaged not only the “progressive” brand but their credibility on all their own pet issues.  They know this.  We know it.  So why would we jump on that loser machine and do the exact same thing?  They at least have the power of the media on their side to mask their hypocrisy and lack of principles.  We’d have nothing but the knowledge that we did not stand for anything at all.

I can’t live with that; I must stand by my principles to hold my head high each day.  I’m not a soulless scheming creature who can protest something one day and then loudly support it the next.  The thing is wrong or it’s not, no matter who does it.  Do I want to be a regressive who loudly and correctly protests the historic lynching of innocent black people and then equally loudly and incorrectly proclaims that modern-day lynching of TEA Partiers is well-founded and just?  Do I want to have to defend lynching itself as a legitimate course of action against peoples we dislike. . . if only the “correct” party were lynched?  Um, no thanks.  Lynching is either right or wrong, and it is wrong.  The persons being lynched should not be the root of contention as it is on the radical left.

Sure, we’re not talking about lynching when we talk about Christie’s abuse of power to “punish his enemies” but if it’s wrong for Obama to use the IRS and other government agencies to punish his enemies, then it’s wrong to do for Christie. I suppose there’s always the argument that abusing power to punish political enemies is not wrong . . . , but I would hope that no one is arguing that.

So, no, I’m not falling on my sword for any Republican (nor any politician, period), and certainly not for one who has called me a “crazy” and “ignorant.”  If Obama’s abuse of power via the IRS targeting his political “enemies” was repugnant then so is Christie’s abuse of power to target his own political enemies.  That the latter only involved a New Jersey bridge few have heard of and fewer care about and not the entire nation is only a function of his own limited power as governor of New Jersey.  Anyone who would be that petty, spiteful, and vindictive, anyone who would use their power to use as pawns and dupes the people he “leads” on a state scale would be exponentially more dangerous and horrible at a national level.

There is no “but” there.  This is about the character of the man, and Christie’s character is, to me, indiscernible from Obama’s: Chicago thug meets New Jersey thug.  As is his stance on any number of issues:  he’s pro-amnesty, prosharia, pro-AGW hoax, pro-gun control . . . I can’t think of one thing about which he is conservative.  Maybe his fiscal policies . . . but hasn’t he actually raised taxes in New Jersey?  Embraced the 0Care Medicaid expansion?  We defend him . . . why?  I just can’t wrap my head around it.  I can’t stand Chris Christie; I think he’d do well to become a democrat, actually.  He may yet.  But then the whole early-1900’s “plan” would fall apart, wouldn’t it?  I mean, if all the commie regressives joined together in one party, how could they possibly convince people to vote again and again for more regressives by plastering a fake (R) or (D) after their name?

Principles matter to me, and I will not stand by someone whom I deem to be unworthy of my support.  And Chris Christie embodies everything that I cannot stand about Obama:  he uses his power to “punish his enemies,” he’s petty, spiteful, mean-spirited, nasty, and thin-skinned.  There is nothing admirable about Christie, nothing.  And for those who think his firing and “holding accountable” his staff members is laudable, let me just remind you that they did not “go rogue” any more than the IRS agents did under Obama.  They’re merely new bumps under the heartless, egocentric Christie’s bus.  Bumps that will pile up just as surely as they did under Obama’s bus . . . or perhaps to be redistributed in his administration.

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.

Establishment GOP As Clueless As Ever

I was watching this clip of Mitt Romney being interviewed on Hannity, and I sighed. A lot. I shook my head with disbelief and not a little sorrow.  Here it is, watch it, see how you respond:

 

Although I definitely believe that we’d be in much better shape right now as a country if Mitt Romney had won last November, I (almost) can’t believe how . . . seriously, truly, deeply stupid he is about the “mistakes” he claims to have made.  Hispanics.  Really?  That’s why he lost?

This is a deep and serious problem with establishment GOP: they honestly believe that their own big spending, big government solutions are way better than leftists’ big spending, big government solutions, and because they are so invested in this big spending, big government ideology, two major things happen (neither good for either the GOP or our republic):  one, they compete for Democrat voters on Democrat turf, and two, they do so at the expense of their own base . . . failing to care that the base is deserting them in record, wacko bird numbers. They seem to think that GOP numbers are tanking because of the left; that’s only half right–they’re also tanking because conservatives are fed up with them and have been for years.  What they don’t seem to understand is that they will never ever win by running as Democrats against actual Democrats.

Sure, if Mitt could have turned out Hispanics in the numbers (both real and fraudulent) that turned out for Obama, he’d have won.  He didn’t lose by all that much, after all, but the people who didn’t turn out, who didn’t vote for him weren’t only the Democrat and Obama’s base; they were prominently, in large numbers conservative voters (seriously, this is what Mitt worries he did so wrong: he didn’t win over enough Obama voters. Yet if the GOP had run an actual conservative, conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers as we did in 2010).  Instead of worrying that he, amazingly, turned out fewer conservatives than that national disgrace John McCain, Romney is worried that he didn’t turn out enough of Obama’s voters.  You can’t make this stuff up, you really can’t.

It’s insane.

Yet this is what the GOP elite are thinking, planning for, and worrying about.  How, they fret, will they ever convince Obama voters to vote for their big government instead of Obama’s big government?  Gee, they wonder, what can we do to show that we’ll hand out just as many phones and other freebies as Obama?  That they’ll grant amnesty without secure borders (ahem Rubio and Paul Ryan) just like Obama?  How can they convince Obama voters that their big government solutions to “national” health care, “national” education, and a myriad other issues they want to solve via the federal government and increased tyranny are better than the Democrats’ federal programs, regulations, and general tyranny?  If only they could solve that problem, they are certain, they’d win a presidential election.

Never mind that Americans are sick of, don’t want, and actively reject all that big spending, big government nonsense that does nothing for the American people (except enslave them and whittle away at that their God-given rights) and does everything for the political class and their cronies.  Who cares what Americans want?  Not the Dems.  Not Obama.  And no, not the GOP establishment who are trying to compete on regressive turf with regressive policies for regressive votes.  They think that’s a winning strategy, and they think that even as the American public declares that it wants less government spending and fewer federal programs.

Never you mind that it doesn’t work, that an election that Obama never should have won was not won by Obama but lost by these regressive GOP establishment types who really, truly, deeply believe that their key to success is to out-regressive the regressives, to win over regressive voters with their bigger, better, more policies, programs, regulations, laws, mandates, and dictates.  They just keep churning out unacceptable candidates that the conservative base of the GOP continuously rejects in hopes that they’ll finally hit on one who will appeal to not only indies but to a good portion of the Obama base.  That’s the plan.

And they think it’s a good one.

They see headlines like Ted Cruz now leads GOP presidential pack and The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states, and they conclude, as Mitt Romney does in the above video, that . . . Hispanics!

You can’t fix stupid.  You can only vote it out of office, out of power, sweeping it out of the way.

A Leaderless America? Not So Much

If one more person tells me some variation of “there is no leader in the WH,” my head may explode. Of course there is.  This idea that Obama is somehow removed from, above, or not up to his scrawny neck in what his administration is doing must be dispelled. Now, do I think he’s the brains behind the operation?  No way, I don’t think he’s that bright, but I do think he’s surrounded himself with people who have plenty of brains and plenty of nefarious, traitorous plans.  I also believe that he’s well-aware of and ideologically happy with every single thing that has led to the myriad scandals that stink up our White House.  Do I think that he gets his hands dirty (beyond going out and spreading vile lies, doubts, and suspicion of the TEA Party and conservatives more generally), that some “smoking gun” will be found tying him directly to the IRS, DOJ, AP, Rosen, NSA, or any other scandal we currently know about or ones that may yet be revealed?  Nope.

But it’s his Chicago stench that permeates every single scandal, up to and including Benghazi.  The bullying, the thuggery, the blackmail, the boot on the neck, the manipulation of events for a specific end . . . all of it is straight out of Chicago, specifically, and leftist “thought” more broadly.

It’s no mistake that his czars and other appointments are a rag-tag assortment of dirty dealers, traitors, commies, anti-Semites, radicals, and fascist zealots.  Those people didn’t just materialize around him; remember, he sought out this type of person all the way back in college.  That never ended, as we can see all too clearly.

What kind of a person appoints the freaks and fringe fanatics that Obama has?  Remember his TSA nominee who stated that white supremacists and “Christian identity groups” were America’s “biggest threat”?  That’s what Obama believes with all his tiny, shriveled evil little heart. Hell, his DHS said as much in their memo to all of America’s law enforcement in 2009.

Last week, Obama announced the war on terror over; for him, it is.  Indeed, it was never really about Islamic terror for him; he happily supports both in word and deed (and with our money) all sorts of Islamic terrorism and terrorist groups.  Hell, he calls various Islamofascist groups his “peace partners.”  That he’s droned a bunch of them doesn’t change that fact.  And it’s right in line with Obama, anyway, he’s famous for sacrificing friends, family, leftists, whomever for “the cause.”   But Islamic terror isn’t his focus, what he does has been a means to an end–his support for the Arab Spring wasn’t an accident, nor was he unaware that Islamofascist states would emerge (everyone was saying so from Glenn Beck to John Bolton).  Neither were any of Obama’s moves an accident from basically encouraging Iran to nuke up to removing the missile defenses in Poland.

We may not be able to connect the dots yet, but it’s becoming pretty clear that it’s all of one piece, including what he’s been doing right here in America.  To Obama, the nation’s real enemies, his real enemies, are people who “want to make America a better place to live,” people who support the 10th Amendment, people who are pro-life, Christian, Jewish, white, patriots.  He’s made this crystal clear since practically Day One with every appointment, every czar, every policy, every word.

Back in September of ’09, I wrote:

[Van] Jones is a racist, a self-proclaimed communist, a “truther,” and a proponent of destroying the American system and replacing it with a . . . well, with another one that favors people of color and subjugates whites.  I’m not making this up.  Van Jones has said it.  All of it.  He talks of white people purposely poisoning minorities with pesticides, he signed a document demanding investigation into our government’s role in either allowing or actually perpetrating the 9/11 attacks on this country, he’s spoken of using the green movement to install minorities in key positions of power and remaking the system to favor them, and he’s called republicans assholes.  Well, okay, that last one doesn’t matter; we’ve all said worse about our political adversaries at one time or another.  But the other points, they matter.  Each of them alone should exclude him from the president’s inner circle, and together, they paint a picture of a dangerous, racist, anti-American communist who should not be allowed to enter the White House gift shop let alone sit in the Oval Office and snuggle with the president.

. . . . .

You have to wonder, if you’ve got a brain in your head, what is going on with the other BO czars.  Who are they and what are they hiding?  What is BO’s agenda in having such radical and controversial figures surrounding him, advising him, making policy for all of us and doing so well outside the checks and balances set up by the Constitution?

Well, there’s John Holdren, BO’s Science Czar, who has a neato idea to control population.  Apparently, he’s a big fan of China’s forced abortion policy and even advocated putting sterilization drugs in America’s food and water supply.  He’s also said that forced abortions “could be sustained under the current Constitution.”  Um, okay, but don’t you think that’s a bit much?  And this man is in key policy position, unchecked by Congress or anyone else, advising the president of the United States.  He’s not in some think tank or university espousing crazy theories and philosophizing, he is actually helping shape American policy.  This is the problem, not his wacked out ideas.

Holdren apologists point out, correctly, that Holdren preferred “milder methods” of population control.  Um, okay, so what happens if the people don’t line up for population control abortions of their own free will?  Do you honestly think that if the government controls the healthcare system and Holdren or BO decide that “population growth” is a threat to either the environment or the economy/healthcare system that they won’t start limiting the number of children people can have, forcing abortion on those who’ve maxed their “quota”?  This sounds crazy, but what the hell is someone with crazy ideas like this doing in the White House if not to put those ideas in motion?  Again, the apologists say that these ideas were expressed in the 1970′s and as such are “dated” and not relevant today.  Another apologist angle is that the book presents a “theory” and does not recommend a “practice.”  Well, so did The Communist Manifesto.  Remember that nifty little book?

Another fun BO czar is Mark Lloyd, BO’s Diversity Czar.  He’s a fun guy who thinks that Chavez’s coup in Venezuela was beautifully accomplished and that his control of use of the media should be emulated here in the U. S.  God forbid the people have access to anything that might be anti-BO.  I wonder how much he had to do with the “flag the fishy” campaign?  Anyway, he finds free speech rather pesky especially from the conservatives, having the unfortunate effect of allowing people to express their dissent.  The best place to stop free speech, according to this lovely man, is by forcing right wing radio off the air with 100% taxes on their operating costs; once that pushes them off the airwaves, their license will be handed over to a (liberal or progressive) minority group (this is where the “diversity” thing comes into play, I guess, you know making sure that all talk radio leans left.  Lots of diversity there.).  I never listen to talk radio, but apparently, there are far right discussions taking place on those stations.  So what?  If you don’t like it, don’t listen.  The people who are listening are obviously of the same mind, so shutting them down won’t do anything about changing ideology, it’ll simply drive people to the internet (if BO doesn’t declare an “emergency” and shut it down, anyway) or to Fox News (which I do watch).  At least until they figure out a way to push Fox off the air.  Again, though, not being able to see or hear views with which you agree does not change your own views, so I find this rather silly.  And frightening.

And let’s not forget Michael Copps at the FCC and “net neutrality”:

And there it is, the admission.  There is a narrow window of time, while BO is still prancing around the WH playing grown up, to force through his radical agenda, an agenda that apparently includes regulating (or whatever you call “filtering and funneling” the right information to the American public) the internet, ensuring that information (the correct information, Herr Copps) reaches the masses in the correct manner and correct measure.  Can’t rely on “flag the fishy“campaigns forever, now can we?  And note, too, that like all good progessives, Copps understands that they may need to settle for a “down payment” (aka “a starter home“) on the publicly-funded, government-run propaganda machine of the (not so distant) future.

Part of what we’ve seen develop over the past few weeks is the Obama camp’s purposeful promotion of the image of a detached, disinterested, ditzy dimwit so that we will all blame someone, anyone other than Obama himself.  I’ve bought into it myself, so I understand where people are coming from, but if nothing else has become clear over the course of the past several months, it’s that Obama is central to what is going on in terms of discriminating against conservatives, Christians, veterans, and pretty much everyone who disagrees with him on any point.  Might he be a puppet?  Sure.  That’s even likely, but it does not exculpate him.  He is not an innocent victim here.

The innocent victims are we, the people and our Constitutional Republic.  People keep thinking that he’s incompetent, a failed leader, but that’s true only if his goal is to support America, keep her and her people safe, to protect and defend her Constitution.  Because, yes, a thousand times, yes, he’s totally incompetent at that.

But here’s the secret: he’s not applying himself to those goals.  He never has and he never will.

Listen again to the great and fearless Andrew Breitbart:

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.