posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by Runaway1977
I watched the entire interview a bit ago as it was rerun on television and Paul's justificiation confused me. This claim that the free market would
prevent people from running racist business seems to ignore the history of the United States. As Chris points out, it happened before and no one
seemed to care how green the money black people had was. What was the difference between then and now other than the laws Paul wants to take back?
I am not trying to be confrontational. I have no real opinion of Paul as of yet but as I watched it, I felt like we were going in circles. He said the
civil rights act is not needed because of the success of the civil rights act. That confused me.
Please read my whole post so you can see why Private Property Rights are so important. To some one sitting in an apartment they may seem useless,
until he finds he can no longer buy food or walk the streets without fear and then it is too late.
This is why the return to "racism" dog will no longer run:
Back in the sixties and seventies the whole population viewed blacks and women as second class citizens. We (I am a female) accepted it as just and
right that a WHITE MAN had the RIGHT to higher pay and we did not have the right to step out of our roles. I had a knock down drag out fight (and
lost) over whether I could compete as a long distance runner in Junior High, whether I could take shop instead of home EC, and whether I could become
a Chem Engineer instead of a Chemist.
Since then we have had two generations of kids raised with "Equal Rights" The old guard has mostly died off, black and women own their own
Do you really think I or most others would actually BUY from a racist these days??? I think a racist is more likely to end up bankrupt before he has a
chance to even start his business! Either that or a non racist will open next to him and steal his business.
So yeah we as a society gained, however we also lost big time. We have lost our freedom of speech and we have lost our freedom to living without the
intrusion of others on our private property. We lost our freedom from government spying. This is the classic PTB trick of candy wrapping the poison
pill. We had to give up freedom to correct "racism" or so they led us to believe.
A classic example of the loss of our property rights thanks to the "Sixties" is Monsanto:
Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser
...judge dealt a crushing blow to Farmers' Rights by ruling that Percy Schmeiser, a third generation Saskatchewan farmer, must pay Monsanto thousands
of dollars for violating the corporation's monopoly patent on genetically engineered (GE) canola seed....
Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola seeds blew onto
his land from neighboring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbors and an estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GE canola). Monsanto's GE
canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his consent. Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed samples
without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution from GE crops--but the court says he must now pay Monsanto US$10,000 for
licensing fees and up to US$75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop.... www.ghorganics.com...
This is happening here in the USA too.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches
and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse
of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant...
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched
party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy". en.wikipedia.org...
This means someone can not break into your home to get evidence BUT they can trsspass onto your property open your shed or car door and take samples,
photos or anything else and it is allowed as evidence in court. No search warrant needed. It is also the underlying basis for searching people
walking down the street with out need of warrant because on a public street the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy!!!
Once those "private property rights" were taken with away out a peep, many of the rest of our rights followed.
An American example:
....The seed cleaner is the man who makes sustainable agriculture possible.
So, Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners now across the Midwest, in Missouri,
...now in Illinois where they are going after Steve Hixon.
Shortly after someone broke into Mr. Hixon's office and he found his account book on his truck seat where he would never have left it, evrey one of
his remotely located and very scattered customers had three men (described as goons with "no necks") arrived at each farm, going out onto it without
permission..... Mr. Hixon and state police who were called in, believe a GPS tracking device may have been put on Mr. Hixon's equipment. All of his
customers being sued and are being intensely pressured to settle, with the men coming back again and again and with daily calls and letters. It
appears they are being a choice between being sued or settling out of court or testifying against him that he encouraged them to clean GE-seeds....
Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture
“One of my biggest concerns is what biotechnology has in store for family farmers”, said Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture
under Bill Clinton, in his well-known speech on 13 July 1999, causing a good deal of irritation to his colleagues in the US Department of Trade.
“We’re already seeing a heated argument over who owns what. Companies are suing companies over patent rights even as they merge. Farmers have been
pitted against their neighbors in efforts to protect corporate intellectual property rights….. Contracts with farmers need to be fair and not result
in a system that reduces farmers to mere serfs on the land.” 
The former Secretary of Agriculture was referring to Monsanto’s policy of protecting its GM technology through patents that ensure the company has
total control not just over its seeds but also over the farmers who use them. When Monsanto’s researchers invented the “genetic cassette” which
allowed the creation of RoundUp-resistant crops, the firm filed a patent in the US that gives it a monopoly on production of the technology until
2014. The company also introduced its “Technology Use Agreement” (TUA), a usage clause that allows it to dictate to farmers. The clause requires
the payment of a “technology tax”, collected via specified seed merchants to whom the farmers must sell their crops, and also, importantly, an
agreement not to save seed for use the following year. Added to this is a clause compelling “clients” to use only Monsanto’s RoundUp, and not
any of the many generic alternatives on the market, after the expiry of its patent in the year 2000.
The “Enserfment” of Farmers by Monsanto
It’s essential to understand how this patenting system for biotech and its unprecedented clauses are fundamental to Monsanto’s control of the
agricultural sector. The Technology Use Agreement is one in which Monsanto has all the rights, giving it control over the farmers, and hence Dan
Glickman’s reference to “serfs on the land”. To illustrate this power, one only has to look a little closer at the agreement, in which one of
the clauses specifies that: “If Monsanto reasonably believes that a grower has planted saved seed containing a Monsanto genetic trait, Monsanto will
request invoices or otherwise confirm that fields in question have been planted with newly purchased seed. If this information is not provided within
30 days, Monsanto may inspect and test all of the grower’s fields to determine if saved cottonseed has been planted.”  But behind these
politically correct phrases a much more aggressive reality is hidden, which has made Monsanto very unpopular among its own clients....
Witch hunt in the American countryside
...In November 2004, the Center for Food Safety in Washington published a report titled “Monsanto vs US Farmers”, a very well-researched document
which confirmed the existence of what are known in North America as the “gene police”, effectively provided by the Pinkerton agency in the US and
the Robinson agency in Canada.  It also revealed that since 1998, Monsanto had been carrying out a veritable witch hunt across the American
prairies, leading to “Thousands of investigations, nearly 100 lawsuits and numerous bankruptcies”. 
..... Mendelson added that “no farmer is safe from Monsanto’s brutal investigations and implacable legal actions: some farmers have been accused
after their fields were contaminated by pollen or GM seed from a neighbour’s field; or when “volunteer seed” left over from a previous crop had
germinated in the following year, in the middle of a non-GM crop; some of them had never signed up to a contract for the technology at all. In all of
these cases, because of the way in which the law on the patents is applied, all the farmers were considered to be technically responsible”.
....When Monsanto’s agents investigate possible offenders, they use bullying methods which are not at all appreciated by farmers, for example
they come onto the farmers’ own land to threaten them or station agents outside the farmers’ homes, sometimes for several days at a time, as
described by Percy Schmeiser (see the article above – Canada - The case of Schmeiser v Monsanto). These snooping agents don’t hesitate to
impersonate official agricultural bodies in order to take samples of suspect crops, and if they can’t get away with that, they sneak onto the
farmers’ private property illegally. People who are victims of genetic pollution therefore find themselves harassed by “Monsanto’s
militia” who threaten them with hugely expensive legal action.... www.combat-monsanto.co.uk...