Home

Gun Control & The False Left-Right Paradigm

Leave a comment

To read the news, lately, it would seem that we have the so-called “liberal left” gun grabbers on one side vs. the “conservative” Republican “defenders of the Second Amendment” on the other, which of course, includes the National Rifle Association (NRA). No other version of the debate over gun control is ever offered or publicized by the corporate-controlled mainstream media. Thus, the debate is framed in a false perspective in which the only options are to either favor gun control or to favor less of it – while leaving the bulk of it in place. What the public doesn’t understand is that this still violates the Second Amendment.

There is a third option, one that lies outside the false left-right paradigm, and that is the Constitutionalist option, which would demand the full repeal of all gun laws. This is the only option that is truly in support of protecting the Second Amendment. Anything else simply allows the Second Amendment to remain eviscerated – if not to remove it entirely.

As I have written before, one doesn’t compromise with our inalienable rights. The moment we begin to do so is the moment we have kissed those rights goodbye. That moment was allowed to occur seventy-five years ago, with the passage of the first gun control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the fallout from that act has been accumulating ever since – with the full blessing of both “sides” of the false left-right paradigm.

While so-called Democrats have historically campaigned openly for more and tighter gun controls – if not the outright banning of guns – thus, playing the role of the “bad guys” in the debate (depending upon which side of the false left-right paradigm you look at it from), the “opposing” side – the so-called “conservative Republicans” – have played their “good guy” role, pretending to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, while voting in favor of many gun control laws and never demanding the repeal of the hundreds of existing gun control laws. Thus, the so-called “right-wing,” with its tough-sounding anti-gun control rhetoric, creates a facade of standing up for our constitutional rights, all the while supporting policy that leaves gun control intact and even allows it to continue growing.

As I have pointed out before, the NRA – the nation’s oldest and most vocal (as well as best funded) “gun rights” organization is the tip of the spear on the phony “conservative” side, having pretended for seventy-five years to be fighting against infringement of the Second Amendment while, at the same time, endorsing more laws that violate it. Even when they are endorsing laws that give the appearance of “lifting restrictions” or of “granting rights” to gun owners, they are still knowingly supporting gun control, as that is what these laws truly are. The only thing that is necessary to restore the Second Amendment – and the only action that will do so – is to repeal all the laws that violate it, in the first place. The NRA has never advocated this. Instead, they have played their role in the false left-right paradigm, pretending that asking the government to not infringe the Second Amendment quite so much as they have been is somehow a “victory” for gun owners. It is not. Anything short of full repeal does not serve the interests of anyone but the gun grabbers and until all gun control laws have been repealed, we will always remain vulnerable to the specter of gun confiscation.

While the gun control advocates of the so-called “left” are perfectly obvious (they’re supposed to be. That’s their role), not as obvious and, thus, even more dangerous to our liberties, are those on the so-called “right” who make the pretense of being defenders of the Second Amendment. It is harder for a dumbed-down public to see through their charade and to realize that both “sides” serve the same agenda.

One example of this is Rep. Mary Fallon (R-Oklahoma), who serves my district. I have met Mary Fallon, just before her election to Congress. This was before I had awakened to the horrific fact our own government staged 9/11. Once I was aware of this and had begun researching the New World Order, I found, among many things, that Mary Fallon was among those to have supported the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Fallon is but one of many in Congress who are engaged in the same sort of subterfuge.

This morning, I read an article by Rep. Fallon, in which she refers to herself as a member of the NRA and pledges that she will “continue to support the Second Amendment to our Constitution.”She is playing her role to the hilt, arguing against the passage of H.R. 45, a massive bill that will greatly infringe the Second Amendment, but then, she’s supposed to argue against it, as the NRA is appearing to do, as part of the act. Later, as usual, there will be an NRA-backed “compromise” version of the bill that will fly through the Congress, mark my words. The result: the NRA and its supporters on the phony “right” will appear to have, once again, gallantly defended the Second Amendment and they will even be lauded for having achieved a “great victory” for the Second Amendment by allowing a slightly less dangerous version of yet another gun control law to come into existence, further violating the Second Amendment. This is how they operate. By pretending to fight against further restrictions, they are actually approving them, and the NRA has been doing this for decades.

Of course, the public doesn’t know enough about “our” Constitution to realize that it is the Federalist Constitution of 1787 that laid the groundwork for the rise of a large central government with a central bank and that our original constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was replaced by it for exactly that purpose. The Articles of Confederation didn’t necessitate any amendments to protect our rights because it was written to protect them all, in the first place and provided a far superior system of checks and balances for doing so. The Federalists, who were agents of the Rothschilds – the international bankers who sought (and still seek) to rule the world through the control of its money supply – had a mission to accomplish for their masters in London and that mission was to scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a constitution that guaranteed the eventual growth of central government power. We see the result of their success all around us today.

Governments have, historically, never relinquished their power willingly and the biggest threat to a fascistic government is an aware, armed populace. The founders knew this and they also knew that, unchecked, our government would become just as despotic as every government before it had. Thus, the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to secure our existing right to self-defense.

The Bill of Rights was tacked onto the Constitution, not by “the founders,” as we were told in our government run schools, but by the seldom mentioned Anti-Federalists who opposed the Federalist Constitution, to begin with and who insisted upon protecting our rights by adding a Bill of Rights and the ten Amendments to the Federalist Constitution. The two factions fought tooth and nail over this, the Federalists fighting to exclude these additional measures, as they were not aligned with the objectives of their corporate masters in London.

For all we know, the Anti-Federalists may well have been role-playing, just as the NRA and the Republicans are today. They succeeded in getting a Bill of Rights and the ten amendments added to the Constitution, but, obviously, that wasn’t sufficient to prevent the rise of a centralized totalitarian state, for the Federalist Constitution itself laid the groundwork for that centralization, despite the addition of the Bill of Rights and the ten amendments. Perhaps, as today, that was also by design. We may never know the truth.

Privatisation and commercialisation of seed–There is a global effort — some call it a master plan

Leave a comment

Ground Reality                                                                              farmer_s

http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com

by Devinder Sharma

Let there be no doubt. There is a global effort — some call it a master plan — (involving not only seed corporations, but also governments, CGIAR and the FAO) to control the entire seed heritage. Privatisation and commercialisation of seed, which means through it controlling the entire food chain, began several decades ago. With governments, CGIAR/World Bank/FAO facilitating the process, the private seed companies are slowly and steadily ensuring that farmers all over the world fall in line. They are left with no choice but to buy seed every cropping season from the agribusiness companies.

The new seeds are not only being genetically modified but are also being genetically programmed. We will talk about the genetic programming of these seeds sometimes later, but first let us look at the ways of the seed mafia.

The WTO provides the legal instruments to make it possible. Strengthening of intellectual proprietary control over seed comes through UPOV and WIPO, both being the public face of the seed industry. These IPRs are being further tightened through the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), bilateral and regional agreements. All these agreements seek IPR-Plus treatments, and developing country governmets are being made to swallow the bitter pill.

The governments are more than willing to facilitate the process. India is a classic example, where the Agriculture Ministry appears to be on a fast track mode to increase the seed relacement ratio. In the next 15-20 years, it wants to replace 50 per cent of the farmers seed with so called ‘improved seeds’ being produced and marketed by the private companies. No wonder, more than 500 seed companies are operating India now. All looking forward to the farmers pocket, keen to take out the last penny from his soiled kurta.

As the article below (excerpted from the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith) tells us briefly, an alert civil society and some farming groups worldwide have slowed down the process of takeover of the seed supply — as per the master plan. For the full article, scroll down to the end of this post.

On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa [1] using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe’s “unfounded, unscientific fears” of these foods for thwarting recovery efforts. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded U.S. exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed down from president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisements.

The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world’s food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan.

First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

Integral to the plan was Monsanto’s influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, “The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.” [2]

UPOV
The anticipated pace of conquest was revealed by a conference speaker from another biotech company. He showed graphs projecting the year-by-year decrease of natural seeds, estimating that in five years, about 95 percent of all seeds would be genetically modified.

While some audience members were appalled at what they judged to be an arrogant and dangerous disrespect for nature, to the industry this was good business. Their attitude was illustrated in an excerpt from one of Monsanto’s advertisements: “So you see, there really isn’t much difference between foods made by Mother Nature and those made by man. What’s artificial is the line drawn between them.” [3]

To implement their strategy, the biotech companies needed to control the seeds-so they went on a buying spree, taking possession of about 23 percent of the world’s seed companies. Monsanto did achieve the dominant position, capturing 91 percent of the GM food market. [4] But the industry has not met their projections of converting the natural seed supply. Citizens around the world, who do not share the industry’s conviction that these foods are safe or better, have not “just sort of surrendered.”

Widespread resistance to GM food has resulted in a global showdown. U.S. exports of genetically modified corn and soy are down, and hungry African nations won’t even accept the crops as food aid. Monsanto is faltering financially and is desperate to open new markets. The U.S. government is convinced that EU resistance is the primary obstacle and is determined to change that. On May 13, 2003, the U.S. filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization (WTO), charging that the European Union’s restrictive policy on GM food violates international agreements.

On the day the WTO suit was filed, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick declared, “Overwhelming scientific research shows that biotech foods are safe and healthy.” [5] This has been industry’s chant from the start. It is the key assumption at the basis of their master plan, the WTO challenge, and the president’s campaign to end hunger. It is also, however, untrue.
The following chapters reveal that it was industry influence, not sound science, which allowed these foods onto the market. Moreover, if overwhelming scientific research suggests anything, it is that the foods should never have been approved.

References:

[1] See the White House press release on this available here. The comments mentioned are about two-thirds of the way down the web page.
[2] Stuart Laidlaw, “StarLink Fallout Could Cost Billions,” The Toronto Star, Jan. 9, 2001. Article can be purchased in the Toronto Star archives available here, or find a free copy by clicking here.
[3] Robert Cohen, Milk, The Deadly Poison, Argus Publishing, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998, p. 133
[4] See www.foodfirst.org/media/news/2003/butterfliesvsusda.html
[5] See www.ustrade-wto.gov/03052102.html

(See the full article at: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds-of-Deception-10-pg-by-Rady-Ananda-090322-919.html)


Posted By Devinder Sharma to Ground Reality at 3/24/2009 08:34:00 AM

%d bloggers like this: