Assasinating American Citizens Is Now Officially ETHICAL, WISE, and LEGAL

The idea that everyone is inocent until proven guilty – also referred to as Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – has been a staple of civilized law for centuries. I grew up with this idea that if accused of anything that I would have the chance of rebuttal. I grew up with the notion that in America I couldn’t be taken away, thrown in a cell, and held indefinitely unless someone had proven that I had done something worthy of such treatment.

Things have apparently changed in today’s world in this regard. Today as Americans we are filled with fear of the unknown. We seem far removed from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s words which were later echoed by John F. Kennedy where they said, the “only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Today we fear something on every corner – we fear that a terrorist is standing in line with us to blow up a plane, we fear that we will die of some new super-flu, we fear that Iran will bomb us tomorrow, and we fear that our neighbor will use their AR-15 to shoot down our children. Many of these things are largely unfounded – very few planes have been hijacked and used as weapons in the history of humanity, very few people die from some contagious virus, nobody has indefinitely proven that Iran is building a bomb, and you’re more likely to die from a kitchen knife or a hammer than an AR-15.

But it is fear that motivates us to do things or to give up things we normally wouldn’t do with logic and reason. Fear is irrational and our government knows this – Rahm Emanuel infamously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” In other words, when people are confused and cowering in fear, the impossible then becomes possible.

I am specifically speaking today about the idea of what we allow when we fear uncertainty. Nobody wants to be killed by a terrorist so to combat this fear we allow our government to handle the issue. However, when we allow the government to handle the issue we allow them to impede on us and our freedoms. In recent history our American government has passed legislation, implemented agency policy changes, or signed Executive Orders to seek out Americans they deem unsavory and assasinate them… without trial… or without any definitive proof that they have actually done anything other than talk bad about America or hang out with bad people who don’t like America.

When will Americans find such an action intolerable? For now the policy is distant – we are killing American citizens in other countries. Our news barely reports on it and when they do they are sure to invoke two American fears – that they are an Islamic and that they are a terrorist. In doing so, we disregard teh fact that the person was just as we are – an American citizen who is supposedly protected under law practice such as due process, burden of proof, and starting an investigation with a valid probable cause. This is what we citizens here are afforded here in Arizona, Ohio, and the rest of the United States so why isn’t this courtesy also afforded to citizens overseas?

I believe this is a very slippery slope and especially true when you consider how many times the government has accidentially killed the wrong person (for example, there was no wrongdoing found at Ruby Ridge but that didn’t stop them from shooting half a family). I am sure that Americans won’t care about this policy until they are the ones being detained or killed. Sounds like something Martin-Niemöller wrote about with Nazi Germany.

See associated article here.

Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists and taken out by American military drone strikes, three men — all killed in the fall of 2011 — were U.S. citizens.

And their lives illustrate the complexity of the issue, recently brought to light amid a newly discovered government memo that provides the legal reasoning behind drone strikes on Americans.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed by a missile strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011, while al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, was killed in the country just weeks later.

Since the attacks, family members have called the deaths unjust and sued the U.S. government, calling the killings unconstitutional.

Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, became well known for his fiery anti-American sermons posted throughout the Internet.

Samir Khan, who’d lived in both New York and Charlotte, N.C., produced a magazine called “Inspire” that became known for its extreme jihadist views.

But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.

Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.

Nassar al-Awlaki, grandfather of Abdulrahman and father to Anwar, said he tried to protect his grandson as Anwar al-Awlaki’s profile grew.

In December, Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN, “In Anwar it was expected because he was under targeted killing, but how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman. Small boy, U.S. citizen from Denver, Colorado.”

Nassar al-Awlaki said his grandson snuck out of their Yemen home one night, leaving a note for his mother saying he would return in a few days. The boy never returned, killed instead while eating at an outdoor restaurant.

“Since the issue regarding Anwar came, I tried to insulate the family of Anwar from everything, regarding this matter,” Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN. “I took care of him, and suddenly after 2 year absence from his father, he decided to go to our government in Yemen to seek information from his father. That was the only reason he went, and he did not tell us.”

The Obama administration has remained mostly mum regarding Abdulrahman’s death, and at times has struggled to explain it.

“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children,” former White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said to a gaggle of reporters in October. “I don’t think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

During his presidential campaign, Republican Rep. Ron Paul criticized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, saying: “Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. … But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad.”

Anwar al-Awlaki’s ties to the United States go back to his father Nassar, who came to the country to earn a master’s degree. His son was born in New Mexico, and though the family returned to Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki came back to the U.S. for college, eventually becoming an iman.

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, he became a popular spokesman for moderate Islam, and was often used to juxtapose perceptions that Islam is a religion that spreads hate. But less than a decade later, he was hiding in Yemen as a name on the CIA’s kill list.

“I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said in an audio message in March 2010.

Conversely, Khan was never interested in the peaceful side of Islam. The New York Times reports that as a teen, Khan’s attraction grew exponentially to militant sites on the Internet after 9/11. Parental concerns and intervention from community leaders proved unsuccessful. Khan was 25 when he died in Yemen.

In July 2012, Samir Khan’s mother, Sarah, joined Nassar al-Awlaki in a lawsuit against four senior national security officials.

“I don’t really necessarily agree with some of the things Anwar said against the United States, but does that mean they should kill him outside the law?” asked Nassar al-Awlaki.

Why outlaw milk in a free country?

As I get older I am constantly amazed that people in society believe that it is government’s job to take care of us and make everything safe for us. They want to take care of our finances via Social Security (that very well may be bankrupt). They want to take care of our bad business decisions via bailouts (that have usurped money and power from the people into corporate interests). They want to keep us safe via engaging every country that refuses to become our ally (only to create more animosity around te world). They want to make sure we are healthy via giving us all “free” health care (which as my momma always said, “nothing is ever free,” which in turn means that in the end Obamacare will cost us dearly). They want to make sure that we are all cognizant via outlawing drugs (even the ones that have little to no scientific negative evidence such as marijuana, while promoting the BigPharma medicine that kills more people every year than car accidents).

But the one that makes me the most furious is that they control what we can eat via the Federal Drug Administration. For centuries people have eaten raw food out of the ground and from local animals with little to no issue. Make no mistake about it, people have gotten sick from such food but then again… people have got sick from processed food as well.

For a “land of the free” it seems plausible to believe that it’s government would believe that people should do as they please to themselves regardless of whether it is good or bad. Although, that isn’t the case in America.

I’ve always been interested in American government and what laws meant and why they were created. For the first time in history America vested all powers in the people. The only thing that the government did was what the people ceded to them. Anything that was unable to do by a citizen to their neighbor was unable to be ceded to the government to regulate or manage.

For years this is how it was.

Then the government started creating powers to regulate and manage what the citizens never even had rights to do. Citizens didn’t have the right to legislate what their neighbors did unless it imposed on their property. Nobody in their right mind would tell their neighbor that they couldn’t eat a steak or eggs because that would be absurd and rude. However today we do just that through the FDA. The FDA dictates what we can and cannot eat “for the better of society.”

I was browsing the WhiteHouse.Gov petition site. A petition was signed by 25k people asking the government why it didn’t allow us to drink raw milk (unpasteurized). This was their answer.

By Doug McKalip

Thank you for signing a petition about legalizing raw milk and for participating in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov. We appreciate consumer concerns on food issues and understand the importance of letting consumers make their own food choices.

This Administration believes that food safety policy should be based on science. In this case, we support pasteurization to protect the safety of the milk supply because the health risks associated with raw milk are well documented.

Pasteurization of milk was adopted decades ago as a basic public health measure to kill dangerous bacteria and largely eliminate the risk of getting sick from one of the most important staples of the American diet. In 1987, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation prohibiting the interstate sale of raw milk to reduce the number of illnesses and outbreaks associated with its consumption.

In recent years, some Americans have rejected pasteurization in favor of raw (or unpasteurized) milk, citing a range of taste, nutritional, and health benefits they believe are associated with raw milk consumption, as well as a general preference for unprocessed food.

As a science-based regulatory agency, the FDA looks to the scientific literature for information on benefits and risks associated with raw milk. While the nutritional and health benefits of raw milk consumption have not been scientifically substantiated, the health risks are clear. Since 1987, there have been 143 reported outbreaks of illness – some involving miscarriages, still births, kidney failure and deaths – associated with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products that were contaminated with pathogenic bacteria such as Listeria, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli. The FDA’s position on raw milk is in concert with the Center for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatricians.

The FDA does not regulate intrastate raw milk sales, or selling raw milk within a state, which is left up to the individual states. Today, 20 states explicitly prohibit the intrastate sale of raw milk in some form and 30 allow it. FDA bans interstate raw milk sales, or selling raw milk across state lines. The FDA has never taken, nor does it intend to take, enforcement action against an individual who purchases and transports raw milk across state lines solely for his or her own personal consumption.

Thank you for participating in this important process. We appreciate your opinions and look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Doug McKalip is Senior Policy Advisor for Rural Affairs in the White House Domestic Policy Council

Of course each state should be allowed the latitude to legalize (or not legalize) whatever they want. This is a right of a state. But why would the federal government not allow states to trade such an item such as raw milk? It seems ridiculous. But it really isn’t all that ridiculous because the FDA is a business – they control the market. It is no coincidence that the milk industry (the pasteurization type) lobbies the FDA vigorously. Why do you think the food pyramid is set up as it is even though there are studies that grains and pasteurized dairy is hard for our bodies to process?

I say, let us put what we want in our bodies. As an adult I should be afforded the ability to take chances as I see fit – one of them being raw milk.

A Little Gun Disarment History

 A LITTLE GUN HISTORY:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!  Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II said, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT’S A NO BRAINER!
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It’s time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people

Maricopa Arizona — were you aware that the Federal Government labels you as a hotspot for terrorist activity?

I like Arizona. I have never felt unsafe here. Admittedly this is probably largely due to the fact that I live in suburbia-Chandler where there is barely a bar around. Nevertheless, I feel that Arizona does a lot right and that I feel safe.

However, according to a report written by the University of Maryland for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) in January 2012 Maricopa County is a hot spot for terrorism (p 2).

Terrorism? I honestly have no idea what they are talking about but apparently we have had 7 “single issue” terrorist attacks from 1970-2008 (p 18) with 6 of them being in the 2000′s (p 23).

What is more troubling is their definitions of who is considered “extreme right-wing.” They describe someone as extreme right-wing as a,

“group that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty,and believe in conspiracy theories that involve great threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.” (p 8-9)

Now mind you, the START report is the report that was written for the Department of Homeland Security to combat terrorism. So I must ask, why is one that trains with firearms or survialism considered terrorism? Or why is it considered terrorism if one believes that sovereignty is a good thing?

I’m already shooting myself here in the foot in regards to this START report, but this just goes hand-in-hand with the 2009 Department of Homeland Security report entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (here). In this specific document the DHS also calls out people concerned about “martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps” (p 4). So now we have two separate government documents that are labeling anyone that is concerned about the role of government… to be terrorist. The 2009 report also specifically calls out anyone that has purchased ammunition in bulk or that is a returning veteran.

Pair all these reports with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that allows indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial and you have the making of a police state that even North Korea would be proud of. The only difference is that in America people still think they are free and will call you out as a kook (or now a terrorist) if you try to say otherwise.

Why Mitt Romney is not a Conservative

First off, I want to be clear here. I’m not saying who you should vote for. The main thing I want is for you to vote AND know who you are voting for and why. If you don’t know who you are voting for or why then I don’t really see a point in voting except to pat yourself on the back, put on your “I voted sticker,” and feel all warm inside that you were a good-American doing your duty.

For far too long I’ve heard people say that they are tired of having crappy politicians to vote between. That neither candidate really matches their views and that all politicians are snakes in the grass. Long has America been ensnared in the two-party system of a false-dichotomy logical fallacy. You don’t have to vote for someone just because they have a (D) or (R) behind their name. As we know many politicians say what they want, when they want, to whatever audience they need to pander to. I for one am done with that.

I am a Conservative Libertarian. My general belief is that all people who are free should do as they wish so long as it doesn’t affect (aka harm) someone else. Likewise, a freeman’s government should respect other countries even if they are in disagreement. We aren’t in a Utopia and warring with people – domestic or foreign – isn’t going to get us that Utopia. The following list is something that I’ve attempted to compile in showing why I believe that Romney is not a Conservative and thus not a candidate that I can cast my vote for even though he is the acclaimed Republican nominee. In the interest of fairness, I tried to provide as many links as I could to provide evidence of my claims.

Why Mitt Romney is not a Conservative – not now, not as a President.

FOREIGN POLICY:
YES: Interfere and intervene with other countries policies and politics 1
NO: End the Afghanistan war, do not obtain a Constitutional Declaration of War 2, 34
YES: Support Israel unilaterally (even though they are Nuclear), including financial and weapon backing 3, 33
YES: Remain in the United Nations, although scale back 7
YES: Invade Iran. 5, 8
YES: Agenda 21 by United Nations 24, 25, 26
YES: Unilateral and unchecked foreign aid 37

I believe that a true Conservative believes in sovereignty, both domestic and foreign. To have a policy or belief that we need to fix, manipulate, or save other countries from their own political issues is simply Unamerican. America is who she is today because we threw off our own [British] chains – not because some country came and liberated us. If we are going to demand that they recognize and respect our sovereignty, laws, and freedoms than a Conservative should also recognize and respect other countries sovereignty, laws, and freedoms even if we don’t agree with them. Last but not least, we are able to act and retaliate for acts of aggression towards the United States and that is outlined in the Constitution via a Congressional Declaration of War (the President isn’t a dictator who takes us to war when he feels like it). I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that American government should actively interfere and police the world and does not believe in the CIA’s findings on blowback. Furthermore, he does not respect other country’s sovereignty while demanding they recognize ours.

ECONOMY:
YES: Subsidize farms 9, 11, 12
YES: Bailouts 13, 14
YES: TARP 27, 28, 29, 30
YES: Cap and trade 10, 31
YES: Managed trade (aka “fair trade”), not free trade. Supports CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, Fast Track TPA, and other “free-trade” agreements. 6, 32

I believe that a true Conservative believes in a free market (with very few regulations), both domestic and foreign. It is free trade that demands that we cooperate. If we don’t cooperate, then we can’t obtain or produce what we need. By supporting “fair trade” we create bureaucratic nonsense in dictating who gets what and how and what is right and wrong. The only thing a Conservative should believe is right is the law of capitalism – supply and demand. When you begin to regulate an economy you being to introduce corporatism which in turn stifles innovation and threatens property rights. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that government should heavily interfere with society and capitalism in an attempt to “create a better and more fair world.”

DOMESTIC:
YES: PATRIOT ACT 18
YES: TSA 22
YES: NDAA 18
YES: Gun control laws and bans – took no stand on the United Nations Gun Ban. GOA gave him a D- rating (lowest of all GOP candidates) and NRA did not endorse him until after the first debate (political move). 4, 19, 20, 21
YES: Continue the War on Drugs 22, 23
NO: Legalization of recreational or medical marijuana. 23

I believe that a true Conservative leads a laissez-faire attitude towards it’s people and their domestic doings. It is of no interest to the government to mandate and dictate how we carry our personal lives. And if it is, where is that right given to the federal government in the Constitution? To grope, spy on, and threaten people with the suspicion that they could be dangerous is an abomination. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, unreasonable search, or probable cause? Of course any American wants to be safe but as Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Conservatives should afford it’s people freedom to do as they wish in the privacy of their lives. Only fascists demand that they dictate society and it’s morality. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that government should treat all Americans with suspicion and disallow them to live their lives as they see fit, as freemen.

HEALTHCARE:
YES: Romneycare, will not repeal Obamacare 15, 16, 17
NO: Legalize medical marijuana 23, 35, 36

I believe that a true Conservative should have nearly no say in how a citizen treats their body. Let’s face the facts, Obamacare was based off of Romneycare. Romney cannot campaign against something he created. But even so, he’s doesn’t even want to repeal it… just “amend it.” With the Supreme Court ruling that it was a tax this is another point – Romney will campaign that he wants to lower taxes but if Obamacare is still in place… then he will still be taxing us. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that despite the scientific research showing the bad of some vaccines and the good of [illegal] drugs that he still believes that the government should dictate what we can and cannot put into our own bodies. Of all property that we have our body is the most sacred and enduring. To mandate our medicine through the FDA and doctor laws (i.e. they can only prescribe Rx, not “unproven” treatments such as Gerson Therapy) is essentially saying that we don’t have the right to our body. This is utmost unacceptable, especially of a Conservative.

I have not included things such as taxes and the Federal Reserve because I’m not sure if those are really “Conservative” values. I do know that I agree strongly with many of the Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson when he states,  ”I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Nevertheless, the financial issues are a huge point to me as well. I truly don’t believe that Romney, despite all his business sense, has a clue about federal economies and/or federal debt management. His financial outline surely is less damaging than Obama’s but it still creates an increasing Federal deficit – we need someone that is eagerly aggressive to fix the debt issue. We can’t spend our way out of the problem like Obama wants to do and we can’t slow down spending like Romney wants to do and expect us to magically rebound. CUT spending aggressively.  It is that simple. And this isn’t even touching on the Federal Reserve abomination that needs to be cut (also, not an issue Romney even addresses).

Last but not least because of this I have long since chosen to support Ron Paul. However, because Ron Paul was not selected by the GOP, I am now endorsing the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Agenda 21: How Will It Affect You?

How will Agenda 21 affect you? Original found HERE.

While most Americans remain blissfully unaware, the United Nations “sustainable development” scheme known as Agenda 21 will affect virtually every area of life — and it is already here. A short new documentary about the UN plan, using the global organization’s own documents and other sources, explores the implications of this far-reaching agenda and what it means to you and your family.

The film emphasizes the obvious importance of protecting the environment — everybody wants clean air and clean water. However, as the documentary points out, when environmentalism came to a fork in the road, the agenda took one route while the rhetoric took another. For those concerned with freedom, the picture appears grim at first.

America, of course, was founded on the principles of individual liberty and God-given rights, which include the ownership of private property. “Private property and freedom are inseparable,” reads a quote from George Washington cited in the documentary. The Founding Fathers also understood the danger of big government, even waging a war for independence against what was then the most powerful big government on earth — the British Crown.

Beginning some three decades ago, however, the UN began its push to allegedly “save the environment” and achieve what it called “sustainable development.” The short documentary — entitled Agenda 21: How Will It Affect You? — introduces viewers to some of the key players in the scheme including socialist Gro Harlem Brundtland, one of the chief architects of the UN plan.

The film also goes through important milestones such as the 1992 “Earth Summit” in the global effort to impose “sustainability” on the people of the planet. At that crucial conference two decades ago, rulers from all over the world came together and created what came to be known as “Agenda 21.” It quickly became clear what the scheme was about.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing — are not sustainable,” noted Earth Summit Secretary-General Maurice Strong as he ushered in Agenda 21. In other words, the UN sustainability agenda eventually seeks to curtail people’s choices in terms of food, transportation, housing — even family size, as in Communist China.

The final document at the summit was signed by 178 world leaders including then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush as well as dozens of totalitarian despots. It was never ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution. Since then, however, presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have signed myriad executive orders and agreements advancing Agenda 21 in the United States, the film explains.

Meanwhile, with federal help, the UN scheme has already found its way into local communities all across the nation through Local Agenda 21 and a deeply controversial international organization known as ICLEI — formerly the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. More than 500 local governments in the United States are already involved with the group.

A significant segment of the film is devoted to exploring the true intentions of Agenda 21’s architects. It also explores in some detail what the scheme really means to Americans and the people of the world — and how it will affect the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Individuals who cherish freedom may find the information disturbing.

Much of the information, however, is drawn from the UN’s own documents, more than a few of which openly attack private property rights, population growth, the market system, cheap energy, and much more. The film offers a short review of some of the key points presented in important UN reports, giving viewers a brief but well-rounded view of the global agenda and its implications.

However, there is good news as well. The film also covers, albeit briefly, the fact that opposition to Agenda 21 is growing all across America. At the local level, for example, activists are securing countless victories in the battle to expel the UN and its “sustainable development” plan. Numerous communities have already ditched ICLEI while state legislatures across America get involved as well.

The powerful documentary was produced by The John Birch Society, a liberty-minded non-profit organization that has been working against UN scheming and all forms of totalitarianism for more than five decades. Its motto encapsulates the mission well: “Less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world.”

The consequences of doing nothing and letting the UN’s Agenda 21 take a firmer hold in America would be disastrous. So, on that note, the video, which is also available on DVD, ends by encouraging citizens to get involved and by pointing activists to online JBS resources for the fight.

Watch the video below:

Is Bill Gates behind chemtrails?

And people thought we were crazy when we started talking about “chemtrails.” Now, we have the government that formally recognizes them and those doing it have admitted doing it in order to “curb global warming.” When are we going to get pissed off at people poisoning us? And secondly, is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that Bill Gates is funding this… who has also been accused of funding genocide, sterilization, and general population control?

Poison the blood (vaccines).
Poison the food (GMO).
Poison the air and water (chemtrails).
Poison the mind (mainstream media).

Orignal article found here.

Geo-engineers are finally coming out of the “chemtrail” closet, as reports are now emerging about deliberate plans in the works to dump untold tons of sulfate chemicals into the atmosphere for the purported purpose of fighting so-called “global warming.”

The U.K.’s Guardian and others are reporting that a multi-million dollar research fund, which just so happens to have been started and funded by Microsoft founder and vaccine enthusiast Bill Gates, is being used to fund the project. A large balloon hovering at 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico, will release the sulfates into the atmosphere within the next year.

The stated purpose for this massive release of toxic sulfate particles is that doing so will allegedly reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere, and thus cool the planet. But many environmental groups and advocates of common sense are decrying the idea as dangerous, and one that could result in permanent damage to ecosystems all across the globe.

“Impacts include the potential for further damage to the ozone layer, and disruption of rainfall, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, potentially threatening the food supplies of billions of people,” said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the ETC Group, a Canadian environmental protection group.

“It will do nothing to decrease levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or halt ocean acidification. And solar geo-engineering is likely to increase the risk of climate-related international conflict, given that the modeling to date shows it poses greater risks to the global south.”

But the Gates-backed cohort is persistent in its efforts to geo-graffiti the world, as its scientists insist that governments are not doing enough to fight back against the supposed environment impacts of global warming. If governments refuse to implement high enough carbon taxes to eliminate greenhouse gases, in other words, then Gates and Co. believes it has no choice but to “save the planet” by polluting it with sulfate particles.

Sulfate particles are toxic, though, and constitute the very same type of ambient particulate matter (PM) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers to be a noxious air pollutant. Deliberately spraying the skies with tiny particles composed of any material, for that matter, is hazardous both to respiratory health in humans and animals, as well as to water sources, soils, and other delicate environmental resources.

“Sulfate particles from acid rain can cause harm to the health of marine life in the rivers and lakes it contaminates, and can result in mortality,” says an online water pollution guide (http://www.water-pollution.org.uk/health.html). A University of Washington (UW) report also explains that sulfate particles “contribute to acid rain, cause lung irritation, and have been a main culprit in causing the haze that obscures a clear view of the Grand Canyon.”

Blocking the sun with reflective particles will also deprive humans of natural sunlight exposure, which is a primary source for naturally generating health-promoting vitamin D in the body. So once again, Bill Gates is at the helms of a project that seeks to control the climate in artificial ways using toxic chemicals, an endeavor that is sure to create all sorts of potentially irreversible problems for humanity and the planet.

Federal government backs off Joe Arpaio

The Executive branch likes to play games. In this case, a game of “Hispanics should vote Democrat because Arizona, Arpaio, and the Republican Party hate people of color.” To draw attention to the straw-man argument the Attorney opened an investigation against Sheriff Arpaio in hopes of finding wrongdoing. They are seemingly leaving without that evidence.

Now it is time for Americans to realize that ironically the very reason they are after Arpaio is because the Federal Government refuses to do one of it’s Constitutional duties – protect the borders. Instead, the states are having to protect and enforce the borders. If the federal government did it’s job then Arpaio probably would have this badass image that he has or do what he does.

Original found here.

The federal government has closed a criminal probe of alleged financial misconduct by Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio, who styles himself as “America’s toughest sheriff,” saying no charges would be filed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said.

A separate federal investigation relating to allegations of civil rights abuses by Arpaio’s office is continuing.

The announcement on Friday marked the end of an investigation that began in November 2010 at the behest of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to examine alleged financial improprieties by the county sheriff and his deputies.

A federal criminal inquiry into several of those matters was concluded last summer with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona declining to initiate criminal charges.

Maricopa County authorities were informed on Friday that federal prosecutors likewise had declined to bring charges in connection with allegations that the sheriff’s office had misused county credit cards or misspent money from jail facilities excise taxes.

In addition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute two former officials of the county attorney’s office who were accused of wrongfully prosecuting a local judge.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel said in a statement that her office “is closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct by current and former members of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.”

Arpaio, 80, who is seeking re-election in November to a sixth term, has been under a separate federal inquiry since 2008 over allegations that he and his deputies engaged in an extensive pattern of civil rights abuses.

Arpaio has denied any wrongdoing.

Lisa Allen, a spokeswoman for his office, said the sheriff was flying back to Phoenix from the Republican National Convention in Florida, and was not immediately available for comment.

The Justice Department’s long-running civil rights probe of Arpaio led to a lawsuit in May accusing the sheriff and his office of racial profiling and unlawful arrests of Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigration.

The civil suit also accused Arpaio’s office of routinely violating the constitutional free-speech rights of political opponents by retaliating against them through unsubstantiated legal action, including unlawful arrests.

The War on Drugs: Because Prohibition Worked So Well

If we are free, why can’t we even decide what we put in our bodies? Full article here.

Forty years ago, the United States locked up fewer than 200 of every 100,000 Americans. Then President Nixon declared war on drugs. Now we lock up more of our people than any other country — more even than the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China.

 A war on drugs — on people, that is — is unworthy of a country that claims to be free.

Unfortunately, this outrage probably won’t be discussed in Tampa or Charlotte.

The media (including Fox News) run frightening stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs. Few of my colleagues stop to think that this is a consequence of the war, that decriminalization would end the violence. There are no wine “cartels” or beer “gangs.” No one “smuggles” liquor. Liquor dealers are called “businesses,” not gangs, and they “ship” products instead of “smuggling” them. They settle disputes with lawyers rather than guns.

Everything can be abused, but that doesn’t mean government can stop it. Government runs amok when it tries to protect us from ourselves.

Drug-related crime occurs because the drugs are available only through the artificially expensive black market. Drug users steal not because drugs drive them to steal. Our government says heroin and nicotine are similarly addictive, but no one robs convenience stores to get Marlboros. (That could change with confiscatory tobacco taxes.)

Are defenders of the drug war aware of the consequences? I don’t think so.

John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, indicts the drug war for “destroying black America.” McWhorter, by the way, is black.

McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families. “Enduring prison time is seen as a badge of strength. It’s regarded (with some justification) as an unjust punishment for selling people something they want. The ex-con is a hero rather than someone who went the wrong way.”

He enumerates the positive results from ending prohibition. “No more gang wars over turf, no more kids shooting each other. … Men get jobs, as they did in the old days, even in the worst ghettos, because they have to.”

Would cheaper and freely available drugs bring their own catastrophe? “Our discomfort with the idea of heroin available at drugstores is similar to that of a Prohibitionist shuddering at the thought of bourbon at the corner store. We’ll get over it.”

The media tell us that some drugs are so powerful that one “hit” or “snort” will hook the user forever. But the government’s own statistics disprove that. The National Institutes of Health found that 36 million Americans have tried crack. But only 12 percent have used it in the previous year, and fewer than 6 percent have used it in the previous month. If crack is so addictive, how did 88 percent of the users quit?

If drugs were legal, I suppose that at first more people would try them. But most would give them up. Eventually, drug use would diminish, as it has in Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs, and the Netherlands, which allows legal marijuana. More young men would find real jobs; police could focus on real crime.

When the public is this divided about an issue, it’s best left to voluntary social pressure instead of legal enforcement. That’s how most Americans decide whether to drink alcohol or go to church every week. Private voluntary social networks have their own ways of punishing bad behavior and send more nuanced messages about what’s unacceptable. Government’s one-size-fits-all rules don’t improve on that.

“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness,” economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, “why not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays … ? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious … than that done by narcotic drugs.”

If we adults own our own bodies, we ought to get to control what we put in them. It’s legitimate for government to protect me from reckless drivers and drunken airline pilots — but not to protect me from myself.

The government is buying whole lot of ammo – why?

Add another government agency that is buying ammunition in bulk.

Department of Homeland Security: 1.2 billion .40-caliber JHP
National Weather Service: 46,000 .40-caliber JHP
Social Security Administration: 174,000 .357 JHP

Remember jacketed hollow points (JHP) are a type of bullet that is intended to inflict the most damage to flesh of any bullet type. We are being told by these agencies that these bullets are “for training.” However, anyone who knows anything about training will tell you that you train with ball ammo. The military trains with ball ammo. The police train with ball ammo. The government agencies train with ball ammo.

Am the only one that really finds this frightening?

Department of Homeland Security

Weather Service

Social Security