Saturday, March 26, 2016

London mayor Johnson blasts Obama over Brexit

Nana's Commentary

When the so-called terrorist attack hit Brussels, it made me wonder what message was being conveyed and to whom? This article helps put it into perspective. Call me a conspiracy theorist, I appreciate the title.. you have to think outside of the
box. This article speaks loudly, Question: "Your safety? or Your Freedom?"

I heard one announcer say, Europe was on lock down. Imagine that, it made me want to go look at a map and see how far the military lockdown of Europe could stretch. Then another announcer said, the United States was an experiment of the NWO, and it should not be called a new world order but an old world order with a new face.

Think about it, the US an experiment for the NWO, established by well known and well established Freemasons. Illuminati anyone?

After reading this article, this song played in my mind, so I am sharing it with you all. It has a message if you listen carefully.

London (AFP) - London mayor Boris Johnson on Monday accused Barack Obama of "hypocrisy" following a report that the US president is heading to Britain next month to make the case for the UK to stay in the European Union.

Barack Obama will visit Britain towards the end of April, around two months before a referendum when the country will decide whether to leave or stay in the 28-country European Union, The Independent on Sunday said (AFP Photo/Mandel Ngan)
London mayor Johnson blasts Obama over Brexit

"Coming from Uncle Sam, it is a piece of outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy," Johnson, a leading member of the campaign for Britain to leave the EU in a June referendum, wrote in his regular column for the Daily Telegraph.

"Can you imagine the Americans submitting their democracy to the kind of regime that we have in the EU?" he asked, adding: "This is a nation born from its glorious refusal to accept overseas control."

Johnson went on to point out that the United States does not accept that its own citizens could be subject to the rulings of the International Criminal Court and does not recognize other jurisdictions.

"In urging us to embed ourselves more deeply in the EU's federalising structures, the Americans are urging us down a course they would never dream of going themselves," he wrote.

"That is because they are a nation conceived in liberty. They sometimes seem to forget that we are quite fond of liberty, too."
The Independent newspaper on Sunday reported that Obama, who has already expressed support for Britain's EU membership, was expected to come to London at the end of April.

The visit would take place around two months before the June 23 referendum in which British voters will decide whether to leave or stay in the 28-country bloc.
A spokeswoman for Prime Minister David Cameron's Downing Street office on Monday declined to comment on the report.

"Other people will set out their views, the choice for the British people is whether or not they listen to them but then they get to make up their own minds," she said.
- 'Special relationship' -

But on a visit to Brussels, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said it was important to hear from other countries as part of the debate ahead of the vote.
"I think it's important that we hear from those people in the Anglosphere, not just President Obama but the leaders of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and beyond the Anglosphere, Japanese and Chinese leaders," he said.

"Let's just hear what they actually think about their relations with Britain, let's just hear how much they actually value Britain's membership of the European Union, just so that the British people are properly informed."
Obama is heading to Germany in late April to talk trade with Chancellor Angela Merkel and promote US exports at the Hanover industrial technology fair, which takes place April 25-29.

Washington has long backed Britain playing a central role in the EU, the world's largest economic bloc, and has warned the UK-US "special relationship" could be at risk if it were to leave.

Cameron favours keeping Britain in the EU, following a renegotiation of the country's relations with Brussels.

Opinion polls indicate that the race is finely balanced, with those who want to remain at 51 percent and those in favour of leaving at 49 percent, according to a survey of polls by the What UK Thinks research project that excludes undecided voters.

Up to 20 percent of voters have said they have not yet made up their minds which way to vote.

Related Stories

  1. White House jabs London mayor over Brexit outburst AFP
  2. Boris Johnson says Brits should copy Canucks to trade MarketWatch
  3. Lawmakers accuse London Mayor Johnson of exaggerating arguments for Brexit Reuters
  4. Obama to visit London in bid to keep UK in the EU: report Reuters
  5. Report: Obama To Visit London To Discourage Brexit Huffington Post

False Flag: Belgian Intelligence Was Warned About Exact Bombing Targets (Video)
Saturday, March 26, 2016 11:34

No matter how paranoid or conspiracy minded a person may be, what governments are doing is far worse than most of us can imagine. It is easy to understand however, how “normal” people who have fallen into the trap of actually believing the mainstream media must be nauseated at this point by alternative media outlets purported to be filled with “conspiracy theorists” always crying “False Flag,” after each and every horrific event where there are mass casualties. 
I base that assessment on my own nausea of actually BEING one of those alternative media outlets always crying “False Flag” after each and every horrific event where there are mass casualties. As one who studies these events, I roll my own eyes every time I hear the words “false flag,” but the evidence always keeps their attention once I begin following the evidence, so it goes without saying I don’t care for the term, “Conspiracy Theorist.” We conspiracy theorists aren’t crazed, tin foil hat wearing loons, but rather we are people with the conviction to stand up and question the statements of those who are known liars. 
First, let’s be clear about what a “False Flag” event means. It does not mean that all the deaths reported are fake. In most alleged recent false flags, the overwhelming majority of carnage appears to be legitimate. Wikipedia defines a “False Flag” event as:
The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.
In the modern era, false flags are repeatedly being carried out by shadow governments for one primary purpose: To promote the lie that an increasing and far overreaching militaristic police state is advantageous citizens because to achieve safety, all they must do is give up “a little liberty.” Our Founding Fathers were students of history, something modern Americans are the antithesis of. That is why as far back at 200+ years ago, people like Benjamin Franklin once warned us: 
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve NEITHER Liberty nor Safety.” 
The police state benefits only the political class, not the governed, and as you’ll learn below, there are enough holes in the narrative being told about Belgium to drive a fleet of 18 wheelers through. 

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Hillary Wants a Crusade to Defeat Trump’s “Bigotry” – and Leave Her Bankers Alone

Hillary Wants a Crusade to Defeat Trump’s “Bigotry” – and Leave Her Bankers Alone
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
“It took the emergence of a grassroots movement against police terror, to wake a critical mass of Black folks to the reality of their condition.”

"If Hillary Clinton can make the general election into a crusade against “bigotry” and “intolerance” as embodied by Donald Trump, she can win with an otherwise issue-less campaign, thus shielding the 1% from harm. Black folks will be happy, imagining the election is all about them. “The great task of independent Black politics is to pry Black folks loose from the Democratic Party’s lethal embrace.” For that, we need a movement in the streets."
Tuesday’s primary victories will allow Hillary Clinton to get busy planning her “big tent” general election crusade against racism and incivility, in the person of Donald Trump. It will be a corporate Democrat’s dream campaign, with the prospect of the party garnering majority white support for the first time since 1964. Clinton will allow Bernie Sanders’ delegates to craft much of the language of the party platform, in Philadelphia – a meaningless exercise designed to convince the Sandernistas that there is still hope to transform the Democratic Party “from below.” Clinton – who is permanently primed to lie on any subject, at any time, in the interests of the Lords of Capital – may give forked-tongue service to a Sanders-inspired platform, especially if Trump continues his hype on jobs losses to “China” because of “bad deals.” But, Wall Street will have little to worry about. Clinton’s central project will be to build an historic Democratic super-majority by appealing to all “decent” Americans to reject “bigotry” and embrace “fairness” and “tolerance” – by which she will mean nothing more than that they reject Trump.

Such civil rights-sounding rhetoric will signify to Black voters that their faith in the party, and the Clintons, has been bounteously rewarded; that the campaign is really all about them. They will be reassured of the continuity of Barack Obama’s policies under Hillary – as if that were a good thing, and as if Obama and the Clintons were not political triplets all along, rooted in the same right-wing of the party.

When Hillary Clinton is sworn in, there will be no Great Black Hajj [3] of millions to the Washington Mall, as in 2009 – no dizzying euphoria. But, the effect of a huge Democratic triumph over the Trump Monster could reproduce much the same disastrous Black political passivity as in the early Obama years, when folks thought they were on track to the Promised Land. Despite having been set back as much as 30 years by the Great Recession, in terms of their relative position to whites, African Americans clung to the delusion that things had never been so good, simply because there was a Black family in the White House.

“The effect of a huge Democratic triumph over the Trump Monster could reproduce much the same disastrous Black political passivity as in the early Obama years.”

It took the emergence of a grassroots movement against police terror, under the general heading of Black Lives Matter, to wake a critical mass of Black folks to the reality of their condition. For two generations, the dead, hegemonic weight of the Democratic Party had subverted and suffocated the Black Radical Tradition, diverting all Black political energies into a corporate dominated electoral enclosure. However, no sooner had the “Ferguson movement” (as many initially called it) gained traction, than it was partially co-opted by young opportunists with corporate ambitions. Campaign Zero immediately set out to become a player in the Democratic Party. (Its twittering star, DeRay McKesson, is currently running for mayor of Baltimore.) #Black Lives Matter was endorsed by the Democratic National Committee, with its founders mentioned by name. However, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, rejected the endorsement [4]. “The Democratic Party, like the Republican and all political parties, have historically attempted to control or contain Black people's efforts to liberate ourselves," they said. "True change requires real struggle, and that struggle will be in the streets and led by the people, not by a political party."

In a caricature of confrontation with power, activists held two cozy “chats” [5] with Hillary Clinton, in which they made no substantive demands. Clinton easily dominated the discussions, and succeeded in projecting herself as a stern but sincere supporter of the movement – an undeserved reputation that would benefit her presidential campaign.  

The brazenly opportunist Campaign Zero group and the Garza-Cullors-Tometi network dickered with [6] the Democratic National Committee over campaign events. Campaign Zero agreed to collaborate with the Democrats on a televised town hall-type event on racial justice issues.  The #Black Lives Matter network preferred a televised debate. Either way, participation in such projects relegates the collaborators to the status of annexes of the party, like

“Being controlled by the two-party system is hugely problematic and is disempowering and oppressive to black people.”

It was refreshing, and heartening, therefore, to hear another founding member of #Black Lives Matter explain why the network will not endorse any presidential candidate. Prof. Melina Abdullah, chair of the Department of Pan-African Studies at California State University, Los Angeles, told Democracy Now! viewers that “neither Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton have a strong command of the particular issues related to race in the specificity of black oppression.” (Actually, a more knowledgeable Democratic Party leader would be, if anything, even more dangerous.) More definitively, Prof. Abdullah said “being controlled by the two-party system is hugely problematic and is disempowering and oppressive to black people.” The movement needs to “think about what democracy is,” and “we need to really kind of redefine what that means and break away from this notion that the only way of being democratic is engaging in electoral politics.” The #Black Lives Matter Network “is pushing the real revolution,” she said.

Revolutionary movements – movements of any kind – require the formulation of demands. “We need to develop a plan that really deals with the specifics of blackness – black jobs, black employability, moving toward black wealth,” said Abdullah, the political scientist.

Hillary Clinton hopes to build a super-party this election season, packed to overflowing with “moderate” Republicans fleeing the taint of Donald Trump, who will bring their otherwise conservative politics with them into the Democratic “big tent” – an ideal infusion to reinforce Hillary Clinton’s (and Barack Obama’s) corporate wing of the party. Black folks will emerge from this electoral process even more marginal to party policy than before. But, most will not realize it.

The great task of independent Black politics is to pry Black folks loose from the Democratic Party’s lethal embrace. For that, you need a movement that is armed with proper demands. The #Black Lives Matter network is not there, yet, but at least some members are aware of the general path that must be taken.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [7].


Sunday, March 13, 2016

FAST FOOD NATION, Eric Schlosser

Nana's Commentary

After sharing the video on how Fast Food has changed the world, it seems only fitting to share "The Dark Side of the All-American Meal with my readers..... Watch the video, read the book.

(Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal (2001) is a book by investigative journalist Eric Schlosser that examines the local and global influence of the United States fast food industry.[3])

Published on Aug 21, 2013
Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal (2001) is a book by investigative journalist Eric Schlosser that examines the local and global influence of the United States fast food industry.

First serialized by Rolling Stone in 1999, the book has drawn comparisons to Upton Sinclair's classic muckraking novel The Jungle. The book was adapted into a film of the same name, directed by Richard Linklater.

The book is divided into two sections, "The American Way," which interrogates the beginnings of the Fast Food Nation within the context of post-World War II America; and "Meat and Potatoes," which examines the specific mechanizations of the fast-food industry, including the chemical flavoring of the food, the production of cattle and chickens, the working conditions of beef industry, the dangers of eating meat, and the global context of fast food as an American cultural export.

Fast Food Nation opens with discussion of Carl N. Karcher and the McDonalds brothers, examining their roles as pioneers of the fast-food industry in southern California. This discussion is followed by an examination of Ray Kroc and Walt Disney's complicated relationship as well as each man's rise to fame. This chapter also considers the intricate, profitable methods of advertising to children. Next, Schlosser visits Colorado Springs, CO and investigates the life and working conditions of the typical fast-food industry employee: fast-food restaurants employ the highest rate of low-wage workers, have among the highest turnover rates, and pay minimum wage to a higher proportion of its employees than any other American industry.

The second section of the text begins with a discussion of the chemical components that make the food taste so good. Schlosser follows this with a discussion of the life of a typical rancher, considering the difficulties presented to the agriculture world in a new economy. Schlosser is perhaps most provocative when he critiques the meatpacking industry, which he tags as the most dangerous job in America. Moreover, the meat produced by slaughterhouses has become exponentially more hazardous since the centralization of the industry: the way cattle are raised, slaughtered, and processed provides an ideal setting for E coli to spread. Additionally, working conditions continue to grow worse. In the final chapter, Schlosser considers how fast food has matured as an American cultural export following the Cold War: the collapse of Soviet Communism has allowed the mass spread of American goods and services, especially fast food. As a result, the rest of the world is catching up with America's rising obesity rates.

The book continues with an account of the evolution of fast food and how it has coincided with the advent of the automobile. Schlosser explains the transformation from countless independent restaurants to a few uniform franchises. "The extraordinary growth of the fast food industry has been driven by fundamental changes in American society... During that period, women entered the workforce in record numbers, often motivated less by a feminist perspective than by a need to pay the bills. In 1975, about one-third of American mothers with young children worked outside the home; today almost two-thirds of such mothers are employed. As the sociologists Cameron Lynne Macdonald and Carmen Sirianni have noted, the entry of so many women into the workforce has greatly increased demand for the types of services that housewives traditionally perform: cooking, cleaning, and child care. A generation ago, three-quarters of the money used to buy food in the United States was spent to prepare meals at home. Today about half of the money used to buy food is spent at restaurants - mainly at fast food restaurants."

Regarding the topic of child-targeted marketing, Schlosser explains how the McDonald's Corporation modeled its marketing tactics on The Walt Disney Company, which inspired the creation of advertising icons such as Ronald McDonald and his sidekicks. Marketing executives intended that this marketing shift would result not only in attracting children, but their parents and grandparents as well. More importantly, the tactic would instill brand loyalty that would persist through adulthood through nostalgic associations to McDonald's. Schlosser also discusses the tactic's ills: the exploitation of children's naïveté and trusting nature.

In marketing to children, Schlosser suggests, corporations have infiltrated schools through sponsorship and quid pro quo. He sees that reductions in corporate taxation have come at the expense of school funding, thereby presenting many corporations with the opportunity for sponsorship with those same schools. According to his sources, 80% of sponsored textbooks contain material that is biased in favor of the sponsors, and 30% of high schools offer fast foods in their cafeterias.