Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Democratic Party’

The combined wealth of U.S. billionaires increased by $850 billion since March 18th, 2020, the beginning of the pandemic, an increase of over 28 percent. The billionaires like that.


The billionaires who control the Republicon Party want as small of fiscal stimulus as possible since it will be directed at the needs of the 99 percent. The billionaires who control the Democratic Party support a large stimulus directed at the 99 percent, perhaps because our severe recession is only beginning. Democrats control the U.S. House of Representatives and have pared down a $3.4 trillion stimulus to $2.2 trillion in negotiations with Senate Republicons.

Republicon Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already stated no stimulus will occur before the election of November 3rd. What if, as expected, the Republicons lose the senate and President Trump loses his reelection bid? Will the Senate Republicons pass a stimulus bill before President Biden enters office on January 20, 2021?

And the answer is; not a chance.

In 2008, McConnell made it a crusade to ensure that newly elected President Barack Obama was going to be a one-term president even as the nation was burning during the Republican created Great Recession of 2007 to 2009. Expect McConnell’s job will be to ensure Biden becomes a one-term president if he wins the election, which means letting the raging coronavirus financial conflagration lay waste the United States as much as possible before Biden takes office on January 20th. For the billionaires who control the Republicon Party, no pain and no suffering is enough to achieve this end so long as the 99 percent get all the pain and suffering.

Expect McConnell to oppose any stimulus after Biden takes office, except perhaps a tiny one. This means the economy will burn, and Republcons will try to blame the Democrats in order to retake the House and Senate in 2020. This tactic will not work since once the election is over changing demographics will ensure the Republicon Party becomes a permanent minority party whose influence at the national level will consistently decrease until it can no longer stop legislation in the senate with a filibuster, and that moment is no more than ten to fifteen years away.

On the other hand, a President Biden is unlikely to ask his other billionaire controlled Democratic senators to eliminate the filibuster for one time even to pass a much needed stimulus because to do so will mean the grassroots will demand they do the same for other issues, such as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, creating a public option for health care, raising the taxes on the billionaires who back Biden and other Democrats, immigration reform, and many other issues.

If President Trump wins but the Republicons lose the senate, McConnell is still likely to oppose a major stimulus package for the reason stated above. So don’t expect a major stimulus package to help fight off this economic disaster. We may get one, but it is unlikely or will be too small to be of much help. Keep your fingers crossed.

Read Full Post »

The billionaires who own the Democratic Party are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle, and have threatened to back President Trump if Senator Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination. We know where the loyalty of the billionaires who control the Democrat Party lie, and it is with their comrades in arms, the billionaires who own the RepubliCon Party.

The billionaires that control both major political parties work hard using their news media and talking heads to get Democratic and Republican voters to side with their party and argue with one another about social issues, such as abortion, gun control, or whether or not transgender bathrooms should have urinals, and whether or not Albus Dumbledore of Harry Potter fame is gay or not, and whether or not Santa Claus should be depicted as transgender or not, rather than talking about income, wealth and the political inequality the billionaires, their politicians (such as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden) and their Supreme Court have created, and how the billionaires have rigged and corrupted the democracy we live in, while simultaneously working together to financially rob and rape the 99 percent of both Parties in whatever way possible so long as it makes them richer in the process.

The billionaires who control the Democratic Party have already supported President Trump on a number of issues, such as tax cuts for the rich.

Warren tweeted in response to the threat, “I’m fighting for an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected. I’m not afraid of anonymous quotes, and wealthy donors don’t get to buy this process. I won’t back down from fighting for the big, structural change we need.”

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in the 2020 race.

What CNBC did not say was that the vast majority of U.S. citizens need a new Franklin Delano Roosevelt as United States president in order to stave off the predations of the billionaires who own both major political parties, as well as the corrupt/corporate/conservative wing of the United States Supreme Court.

One Democratic Party senior private equity executive said, “You’re in a box because you’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump.’” This billionaire spoke on the condition of anonymity in fear of retribution by party leaders. The executive said this Wednesday, a day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would begin a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump.

During the campaign, Warren has put out multiple plans intended to curb the corrupting influence of Wall Street on government, both major political parties, and the United States Supreme Court, including a wealth tax. In July, she released a proposal that would make private equity firms responsible for debts and pension obligations of companies they buy. The billionaires surely do not want that. Trump, meanwhile, has given wealthy business leaders a helping hand with a major corporate tax cut and by eliminating regulations.

Warren has sworn off taking part in big money fundraisers for the 2020 presidential primary. She has also promised to not take donations from special interest groups. She finished raising at least $19 million in the second quarter mainly through small-dollar donors.

Trump, has been raising hundreds of millions of dollars, putting any eventual 2020 rival in a bind as 20 or so Democrats compete for their party’s nomination.

Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have raised over $100 million in the second quarter, and a record $125 million in the third quarter. Most of that came from wealthy donors who gave to their joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory. In August, the RNC raised just over $23 million and has $53 million on hand.

The Democratic National Committee have struggled to keep up. The DNC finished August bringing in $7.9 million and has $7.2 million in debt. CNBC decided not to mention this is because Democratic grassroots voters are throwing tens of millions of dollars to the Warren and Bernie Sanders campaigns.

Biden, who has courted and garnered the support of various wealthy donors, has started to lag in some polls. The latest Quinnipiac poll has Warren virtually tied with the former vice president. Biden was one of three contenders that saw an influx of contributions from those on Wall Street in the second quarter.

The business community’s unease about Warren’s candidacy has surged in tandem with her campaign’s momentum. CNBC’s Jim Cramer said earlier this month that he’s heard from Wall Street executives that they believe Warren has “got to be stopped.”

Some big bank executives and hedge fund managers have been stunned by Warren’s ascent, and they are primed to resist her. Ultimately, this means they intend to resist the will of the vast majority of United States citizens.

“They will not support her. It would be like shutting down their industry,” an executive at one of the nation’s largest banks told CNBC, also speaking on condition of anonymity. This person said Warren’s policies could be worse for Wall Street than those of President Barack Obama, who signed the Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.

Yet before Obama was elected, his campaign took over $1 million from employees at Goldman Sachs, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

A hedge fund executive pointed to Trump’s tax cut as a reason why his colleagues would not contribute or vote for Warren if she wins the nomination.

“I think if she can show that the tax code of 2017 was basically nonsense and only helped corporations, Wall Street would not like the public thinking about that,” this executive said, also insisting on anonymity.

This really means something simple: if you want to vote for your interests, as well as the interests of the vast majority of United States citizens, vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. If you want to vote for the interests of the billionaires’ vote for Joe Biden.

Billionaires Rise Up Against Elizabeth Warren

Read Full Post »


The gap between the richest and the poorest U.S. households is now the largest it’s been in the past 50 years according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. income inequality was “significantly higher” in 2018 than in 2017, the Census Bureau says in its latest American Community Survey report. Since the rich in the United States possess earnings and investments abroad, it is likely the income and wealth gaps are much larger than the Census Bureau measures.

The gap grew despite a surging national economy that has seen low unemployment and more than 10 years of consecutive GDP growth.

The most troubling thing about the new report, says William M. Rodgers III, a professor of public policy and chief economist at the Heldrich Center at Rutgers University, is that it “clearly illustrates the inability of the current economic expansion, the longest on record, to lessen inequality.”

That is because the rich are using their political power to create income inequality in their favor.

When asked why the rising economic tide has raised some boats more than others, Rodgers lists several factors, including the decline of organized labor and competition for jobs from abroad. He also cites tax policies that favor businesses and higher-income families.

To understand even a little of how labor unions have been weakened you only need to look at a few of the legal decisions made by the corrupt corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court when it sided with the billionaires and their corporations in the Janus vs. AFSCME case. The corrupt wing of the court, lead by Cheif Justice John Roberts, decided to put an end to decades of legal precedent in which labor union members who did not want to pay union dues were required to pay a lesser fee to their unions to cover the cost of negotiating new contracts with management. Now labor unions are the only organizations in the United States that must provide free services to members who do not wish to pay. The corrupt wing of the court’s intention in making this decision was to weaken the power of labor unions, and working people in general, vis-a-vis the billionaires and their corporations.

Everybody knew the corrupt corporate wing of the court was going to vote in favor of Janus and end four decades of legal precedent in the process. Everybody knew the billionaires had the corporate wing in their hip pocket.

Income inequality is measured through the Gini index, which measures how far apart incomes are from each other. To do that, the index assigns a hypothetical score of 0.0 to a population in which incomes are distributed perfectly evenly and a score of 1.0 to a population where only one household gets all of the income.

The United States has been one of the most unequal of nations in the world using the Gini coefficient. The U.S. is ranked 103 in the world by the World Bank for income inequality, behind every major industrialized country, and up there with such nations as Haiti and Uganda. The U.S. was ranked at 73 ten years ago, so inequality continues to worsen here.

The billionaires’ control the corrupt corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court, the entire Republican Party, and most Democratic politicians at the national level. Therefore, you can expect income and wealth inequality will continue to get worse in the United States.

In other words, vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for president.

US Census Bureau Report

Read Full Post »

“With its financial contributions and grassroots organizing, the labor movement helped give Democrats full control of the federal government three times in the last four decades. And all three of those times — under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama — Democrats failed to pass labor law reforms that would bolster the union cause. In hindsight, it’s clear that the Democratic Party didn’t merely betray organized labor with these failures, but also, itself.”

When Bill Clinton became president he took the party straight into the loving arms of Wall Street executives and investors, and the best way to do that was to get rid of labor unions by exporting tens of millions of labor union jobs to poverty wage nations. It began with Clinton and his Wall Street wife, Hillary, and NAFTA. The difference between the old US wages and benefits and the poverty wage workers in poverty-wage nations have always gone straight into the pockets of the rich via higher corporate profits, rising dividends, and surging share prices.

President Barack Obama followed the Clinton’s footsteps in redistributing income and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent via this and other legislative paths. Of course, they were assisted in this massive redistribution of income and wealth by such Democrats as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, who was ever so happy to join the Republican party stalwarts in doing this. The result was ominous, for the Democratic Party, the nation, and the 99 percent.

Between 1978 and 2017, the union membership rate in the United States fell by more than half — from 26 to 10.7 percent. Naturally, this decline coincides with the redistribution of income and wealth engineered by the entire Republican Party, as well as the Wall Street controlled Democratic Party with such luminaries as Ron Wyden, Earl Blumenauer, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The decline in labor union membership due to exported jobs also fuels the massive income and wealth inequality the United States suffers from today, thanks in large part to Bill and Hillary, Barack and Wyden and other Democratic Wall Street loyalists as Earl Blumenauer.

In a new study that will soon be released as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper (NBER), James Feigenbaum of Boston University, Alexander Hertel-Fernandez of Columbia, and Vanessa Williamson of the Brookings Institution examined the long-term political consequences of anti-union legislation by comparing counties straddling a state line where one state is right-to-work and another is not. Their findings should strike terror into the hearts of Democratic Party strategists: Right-to-work laws decreased Democratic presidential vote share by 3.5 percent.

This could have been a golden age for American liberalism. The Democratic Party — and the progressive forces within it — have so much going for them. The GOP’s economic vision has never been less popular with ordinary Americans, or more irrelevant to their material needs. The U.S. electorate is becoming less white, less racist, and less conservative with each passing year. Social conservatism has never had less appeal for American voters than it does today. The garish spectacle of the Trump-era Republican Party is turning the American suburbs — once a core part of the GOP coalition — purple and blue.

If the Democratic Party wasn’t bleeding support from white working-class voters in its old labor strongholds, it would dominate our national politics. Understandably, Democratic partisans often blame their powerlessness on such voters — and the regressive racial views that led them out of Team Blue’s tent. But as unions have declined across the Midwest, Democrats haven’t just been losing white, working-class voters to Republicans — they’ve also been losing them to quiet evenings at home. The NBER study cited by McElwee found that right-to-work laws reduce voter turnout in presidential elections by 2 to 3 percent.

The Democratic leadership had a choice; side with the 99 percent or side against them and with the 1 percent. Obama, the Clintons, Wyden and other Wall Street Democrats chose to side with Wall Street and corporate parasites against their own grassroots. Now many of the grassroots have abandoned the Party that no longer represents them. Who can blame them? Oh, that’s right! The Democratic Leadership and their corporate news media blames the grassroots and calls them “deplorables,” but only after the leadership has exported tens of millions of working-class jobs.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/democrats-paid-a-huge-price-for-letting-unions-die.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-b

Read Full Post »

The Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has significantly reduced the number of regulations it is supposed to enforce. Quite naturally, as was shown in 1929, 2007-09, 2001, the entire 1980s and 1990s, as well as many other times in US and world history, Wall Street millionaires and billionaires will break the law while redistributing income from the 99 percent to themselves. Then the taxpayers (that’s us folks) will bail them out after the financial disaster, and this will make the rich even richer, and not a soul will go to jail.

The Journal reports that Trump’s appointees to the SEC have significantly slowed down on enforcement. Trump, along with every Republican office holder in the US congress, wants to eliminate the weak Dodd-Frank legislation that makes it a little bit harder than before to screw over the US public.

The Republicans chief economic policy is to unleash Wall Street as a destructive force in the world, allow it to wreck financial on everybody else, in order to knock the economy flat on its face. That is the Republican Party economic policy in a nutshell.

Of course, the Republicans have always had help from the Democratic Party, which is largely, if not completely, controlled by Wall Street billionaires. Many Democrats have been instrumental in helping the Republicans achieve the desires of their Wall Street masters. President Clinton signed legislation repealing Glass-Steagal, as well as NAFTA. The president was supported in this by Hillary Clinton. Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden. These folks continued to serve Wall Street’s interest under then Wall Street President Barack Obama.

The Clinton’s get $225,000 a piece for making speeches from Wall Street, while Obama gets $400,000.

Read Full Post »

donna-brazile
The Week reports:

The Democratic Party finds itself at a crossroads in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s unexpected loss to Donald Trump, and party progressives want to see the “Clinton-corporate wing” of the Democratic establishment purged from the party. That will not likely happen absent an economic crisis.

The Democrats’ power struggle currently centers on who will be the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, a seat presently held by embattled interim chair Donna Brazile. That’s right. She’s the person fired from her job at CNN for illegally leaking town hall and televised debate questions to candidate Hillary Clinton. Candidates for the position have rapidly multiplied as too many Washington connections have become a liability.

“There is no question there is a civil war taking place inside the Democratic Party,” said Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks of the post-election climate. “And the progressive side is going to win.” Still, it won’t be an easy fight: The Democratic establishment will “hold on to the party mechanisms until you rip it out of their dying hands,” said Jonathan Tasini, a Bernie Sanders surrogate. “It’s all about power and money and influence for them.”

Read Full Post »

berniesanders-wallst

Bernie Sanders said Clinton lost to Donald Trump because the Democratic Party no longer works for working people. It works for Wall Street billionaires. Specifically, Sanders told the Associated Press,

“It is an embarrassment, I think, to the entire Democratic Party that millions of white working-class people decided to vote for Mr. Trump, which suggests that the Democratic message of standing up for working people no longer holds much sway among workers in this country.”

“You cannot be a party which on one hand says we’re in favor of working people, we’re in favor of the needs of young people, but we don’t quite have the courage to take on Wall Street and the billionaire class. People do not believe that. You’ve got to decide which side you’re on.”

US Senator Elizabeth Warren also said of Trump’s win, “There are millions of people who did not vote for Donald Trump because of the bigotry and hate that fueled his campaign rallies. They voted for him despite hate. They voted for him out of frustration and anger — and also out of hope that he would bring change.”

Click here for the Bernie Sanders interview with the Associated Press.

Click for Warren’s talk with Politico.com.

Read Full Post »

Citibank of Wall Street pretty much chose who was going to serve on President Obama’s cabinet, as well as who was going to fill the key positions elsewhere in his administration.

John Podesta is the campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks released some of Podesta’s emails, many of which go back to 2008 when Podesta was the co-chair of the transition team for President-elect Barack Obama. A month before the election, the primary staffing of the key positions in the Obama administration was almost complete.

In 2008, Michael Froman was an executive at Citibank. According to the New Republic, Froman “wrote an email to Podesta on October 6, 2008, with the subject “Lists.” Froman used a Citigroup email address. He attached three documents: a list of women for top administration jobs, a list of non-white candidates, and a sample outline of 31 cabinet-level positions and who would fill them. “The lists will continue to grow,” Froman wrote to Podesta, “but these are the names to date that seem to be coming up as recommended by various sources for senior level jobs.

The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.

This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that.

These revelations also reinforce the need for critical scrutiny of Hillary Clinton, and for advocacy to ensure the next transition doesn’t go like the last, at least with respect to the same old Democrats scooping up all the positions of power well in advance.”

In 2016, Michael Froman was the US Trade Representative negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership, the largest income and political power redistribution scam in world history. Froman was negotiating to export millions of US jobs to third world nations. The difference between the old higher US wages and the new lower third world wages will go straight into the pockets of the wealthy via higher corporate profits, surging share prices and rising dividends. Wall Street banks would be a primary beneficiary at the expense of the 99 percent.

Obama is doing exactly what his Wall Street masters want him to do, just like Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden does. Will Hillary do the same if she is elected?

As an aside, I mention Wyden because he is the Democrat who will lead the charge for the TPP in the US senate on behalf of Wall Street and Nike.

Read Full Post »

income-inequality

 

Originally published in September 2016.

The next recession will hit sometime during the next twelve months, most likely by June of 2017, give or take a month or two. It will be worse than the last one, and the impacts of it will last longer than the Great Recession of 2007-2009. The effects of that recession are still being felt. Median household income, for example, is still below what it was in 2007. That is one of the reasons why the next recession will be worse than the last.

99 percent of all US income growth from 2009 to 2014 went to the top 1 percent. They invest their money in the bond, stock and political markets. This does not create demand for goods and services. It destroys that demand by using financial and political leverage to export US jobs to low wage countries.

So all of this means that roughly 23 to 36 percent of all income produced in the United States has been stolen by the 1 percent, depending on whose figures you’re using. This inequality is destroying the demand for goods and services. Back in 1980, the 1 percent were able to steal only 8 percent of all US income. That’s why job and wage growth was much greater then than now.

Nowadays, the 99 percent earn roughly 62 to 77 percent of all income, down from 92 percent in 1980. This means demand for goods and services will be weak, much weaker, in fact, during the next recession than might be imagined.

The current economic expansion is the weakest in modern US history because of that lack of demand. It’s also been illegally contrived.

Home mortgage applications

The big banks withheld 3.4 million homes from the market by 2011. This is a violation of a variety of US laws, and is called a conspiracy in restraint of trade. As you can tell from the graph above, demand for home mortgages have been historically low compared to the last housing bubble, yet prices continue to bounce up because that 3.4 million homes represented more than 50 percent of the entire available housing stock, according to Bloomberg news. Click the following link for the Bloomberg report $382B Shadow Inventory Weighs on U.S. Housing-Bloomberg News.

This has driven home builders to construct more homes in the USA, and panicked people into purchasing overpriced homes that the banks illegally benefit from. This illegal housing bubble is what has powered this economy forward, and also to its doom.

The above suggests a few ominous things.

  1. The big banks can’t take many more houses off the market during and after the next recession, leaving them unable to create another housing bubble sufficient to power the next economic expansion forward.
  2. Earning 63 to 78 percent of total US income will not allow the 99 percent sufficient financial strength to power the US out of the recession.
  3. Instead, people who have borrowed against the rising value of their homes and used credit cards to sustain their standard of living will be trying to dig out of their debt.
  4. The value of housing will drop, as it always has done during recessions. This time the drop could be 30 to 50 percent in many areas. Maybe 60 percent.
  5. Deflation, caused by a lack of demand, will likely happen.
  6. Expect negative interest rates.
  7. The stock markets will fall more than they did last time. Expect major stock indices like the S&P 500 and the Dow to plummet 50 to 90 percent.
  8. The Federal Reserve will bail out the big banks and rich investors to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars, like during the last recession. But the Fed won’t bail out the 99 percent.
  9. The government must bail out the rich, or the 99 percent, but it can’t bail out both. The politicians will chose to bail out the rich, just like last time.
  10. Unemployment will be in double figures at some point, and perhaps for a long time.
  11. A political revolution will likely be forced into place at some point to replace the current corrupt government, and the corrupt politicians of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

As a final note, it should be pointed out that very few news sources have reported the housing conspiracy. No politician of note has mentioned it to my knowledge. This suggests something ominous, and this is only a suggestion.

It is possible the CEOs of the big banks gathered together, either in person or electronically, with Republican Party, Democratic Party and Federal Reserve officials, to conspire to engineer this housing bubble in order to power this historically weak economic expansion, and to make certain they wouldn’t face federal charges in doing so.

Now this is just a suspicion, so don’t get all heated up. But since the government has made it a point not to do enforce US laws against drug money laundering and other criminal activities on the part of the bankers, it might also be reasonable to assume this housing bubble has been created with a nod and a wink from the politically powerful.

When this recession begins, there will be virtually nothing to power us out of it except a political revolution of some kind. We’ll need a new FDR. Are you listening Senator Warren?

 

Read Full Post »

GMO labeling

Monsanto President Barack Obama is expected to sign the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know Act) this week. Democratic and Republican politicians voted this piece of legislative cover up through both the US house and senate this past week. This is a GMO labeling law that effectively makes it impossible to determine if a product has GMO poison in it without scanning every package.

The reason Wall Street Democrats like Obama and Wall Street Republicans want to protect the GMO industry, and allow it to continue poisoning US citizens is real simple. GMO crops are filled with pesticides and herbicides, making them less labor intensive, and therefore cheaper than non-GMO crops. Much of the milk you drink, the meat you eat, the corn and soy you snarf down, are all loaded with GMOs.

If GMOs in the USA were not part of the human food chain, the price of food would go up considerably and all across the board. The primary economic policy of both major political parties is to consistently redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent, which is exemplified by the looming Trans Pacific Partnership, the largest international income redistribution agreement in US history, which is falsely being marketed by its supporters as a trade agreement.

In order to keep you eating and buying cheap plastic crap made in China, given the ever increasing inequality of income devised by both major political parties running the country, your political leaders and the rest of the 1 percent have decided they would rather feed you poison than give you a pay raise to purchase higher costing but healthy food. If they didn’t feed you poison, and then lie about your food’s toxicity, there’d probably be significant internal unrest in the USA.

In other words, GMO poison is supported by the government to keep people from rioting over the high cost of food as their income is repeatedly redistributed to the 1 percent. Such unrest might lead to a dramatic overhaul of the politicians representing the people, and people would be elected that don’t support the continuous redistribution of income from the 99 to the 1 percent. These new politicians might even want to reverse that 35 year old trend of the government redistributing your income to the 1 percent.

As for how poisonous GMOs are, take a look at the photo below. Those are rats fed GMO’s and they began getting those monstrous tumors after eating only GMO poisoned food for a mere three months. That’s what you get for eating herbicides and pesticides. For more information, click Vermont’s GMO Labeling Law About to Go Into Effect–JohnHIvely.wordpress.com

Just imagine, President Obama and the Republican Party leadership continue to claim GMOs are safe, but they know there are plenty of studies showing how unsafe they are.

As for how those rats got to look like that, and to understand the absolute corruption that the billionaires in the US will go to in order to ensure you continue to eat poison, see Professor Seralini’s-team-wins-defamation-and-forgery-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research

rats-gmo-group

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: