CNN: Opposition to Government, Bankers is Criminal

CNN’s Rick Sanchez and the tireless propaganda minister of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mark Potok, have teamed up to demonize the Sovereign Citizen movement. In the intro to the piece below, Sanchez displays an overt disgust for the growing movement.

The FBI and Ministry of Homeland Security consider the movement a form of domestic terrorism. “The agency has already outlined two separate domestic terror threats — eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists and lone offenders — and its latest addition is a discussion of the Sovereign Citizen Movement,” the Homeland Security Newswire reported in April. “Members of the Sovereign Citizen Movement are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from the United States. As a result, they believe they do not have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.”

Naturally, because they refuse to obey the government, these folks are terrorists and the government is eager to have citizens who reflexively obey the government — and buy into what Sanchez and Potok say about the movement — rat them out. “You can help,” says the FBI. “First, ‘be crime smart’: don’t fall for the bogus claims and scams of sovereign citizens. And second, if you have information on any suspicious activities or crimes, please contact us.”

In May, the corporate media had a field day with the sovereign citizen philosophy when Joseph Kane and his 16 year old son were gunned down by cops. According to police, Kane handed sovereign citizens paperwork to Arkansas police after he was pulled over. It is said Kane’s son then pulled out an AK 47 and killed two police officers. “West Memphis police recently finished training on how to identify the groups by peculiar license plates or bumper stickers. They were also taught how to best approach them during a traffic stop,” Fox News reported.



The Missouri Information Analysis Center document leaked to Alex Jones last year specifically instructs police to be on the look-out for patriot bump stickers. Dangerous terrorists, according to MIAC, include Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin supporters. The Department of Homeland Security produced a similar document at approximately the same time warning officialdom and police of the threat posed by constitutionalists, advocates of the Second Amendment and returning veterans.

In the above clip, Potok is so eager to demonize the movement he claims it began as the progeny of white supremacists. The FBI does not go that far, but instead creates its own fallacious mythology.

The “FBI lists this extremist movement as a domestic terrorist threat, saying some ‘sovereign citizens’ murder, threaten judges, use fake currency and engineer various mortgage fraud scams. Many don’t pay taxes,” reports the Memphis Fox affiliate.

A cursory Google search of the claim sovereign citizens murder judges produces zero results, but there are plenty of instances of sovereign citizens eschewing federal and state paperwork, not paying taxes, ignoring laws and even going up against banksters in foreclosure cases — all terrorism, of course, according to the state.

Bankster minion Timothy Geithner didn’t pay taxes either, so I guess he is also a terrorist who secretly desires to kill judges and squat expensive condos.

Sarcasm aside, the sovereign citizen movement is considered a direct and dangerous threat by the government because it rejects out of hand its authority. That’s way Sanchez and the propagandist Potok talked about the movement in such strident terms.


Source

4th Amendment Violating Mobile X-Ray Scanners Hit The Streets

As we warned at the beginning of the year, X-ray body scanners currently being used and abused in airports across the world are set to hit the streets as American Science & Engineering reveals that “more than 500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past neighboring vehicles to see their contents” have been sold to government agencies.

In January, we divulged how the ultimate end use of the body scanners would not be limited to airports, and that they were going to be rolled out on the streets as mobile units that would scan vehicles at checkpoints as well as individuals and crowds attending public events.

Dutch police announced that they were developing a mobile scanner that would “see through people’s clothing and look for concealed weapons” and that it would be used “as an alternative to random body searches in high risk areas”.

The device would also be used from a distance on groups of people “and mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches.”

The plans mirrored leaked documents out of the UK Home Office three years prior, which revealed that authorities in the UK were working on proposals to fit lamp posts with CCTV cameras that would X-ray scan passers-by and “undress them” in order to “trap terror suspects”.

Now, according to a Forbes report, backscatter x-ray vision devices mounted on trucks are already being deployed inside the United States to scan passing individuals and vehicles in complete violation of the Fourth Amendment.

American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica, Massachusetts, has sold many of the devices to U.S. law enforcement agencies, who are already using them on the streets for “security” purposes.

“Without a warrant, the government doesn’t have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause,” points out Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. “Even airport scans are typically used only as a secondary security measure. If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.”

Watch a video demonstration of the device below.

“The TSA’s official policy dictates that full-body scans must be viewed in a separate room from any guards dealing directly with subjects of the scans, and that the scanners won’t save any images,” states the report. “Just what sort of safeguards might be in place for AS&E’s scanning vans isn’t clear, given that the company won’t reveal just which law enforcement agencies, organizations within the DHS, or foreign governments have purchased the equipment.”

However, as we reported right from the start and as was confirmed earlier this month, federal authorities have been storing checkpoint body scan images all along, proving that their claim that no images could be stored or transmitted was an act of mass public deception in order to grease the skids for the rapid introduction of the devices after the botched and highly suspicious underwear bomber incident.

As we have constantly reiterated, everything that we see unfolding in the airports is eventually designed to be used on the streets. People who had a blasé attitude about the privacy-busting body scanners, behavioral interrogations, and intrusive pat-downs occurring in airports on the basis that they could avoid them by not flying face a rude awakening once all this is in their face on a daily basis.

Body and vehicle scanners are just one tool authorities plan to implement on a widespread basis as part of our deepening decline into a hi-tech militarized police state.

Homeland Security is already implementing technology to be enforced at “security events” which purportedly reads “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint. The video below explains how “Future Attribute Screening Technology” (FAST) checkpoints will conduct “physiological” and “behavioral” tests in order to weed out suspected terrorists and criminals.

The clip shows individuals who attend “security events” being led into trailers before they are interrogated as to whether they are terrorists while lie detector-style computer programs analyze their physiological responses. The subjects are asked about their whereabouts, and if they are attempting to smuggle bombs or recording devices into the “expo,” proving that the technology is intended to be used at public events and not just airports. Individuals who do not satisfy the first lie detector-style test are then asked “additional questions”.



The use of such technology is not only a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, it also eviscerates the notion of innocent until proven guilty, and therefore totally undermines everything America stands for. Given the widespread abuse witnessed in the first eight months alone after the roll out of airport body scanners, Americans need to boycott the companies producing these systems and also resist their deployment at every turn.

Fourth Amendment lawsuits such as the one filed by EPIC against the naked body scanners should be used as a tool with which to ensure that such systems are never allowed to become commonplace, unless we wish to see supposedly free countries turned into high-tech prison grids ruled over by corrupt government enforcers who treat citizens as slaves.


Source

Megalomaniacs Push For Orwellian “Safe” City, Controlled Internet

Biometrics R&D firm Global Rainmakers Inc. recently unveiled a plan to place iris scanners and other tracking devices in what they toted as the “most secure” city in the world. Leon, Mexico was the city chosen to unleash the privacy-infringing technology upon. The city is creating a database of irises in order to create a colossal database that can be used to identify and track citizens. Ex-criminals will be specifically targeted. Those who have been charged with shoplifting will have trouble entering stores without being constantly observed, and others will not be allowed to board planes.

Biometrics Taken To A Whole New Level

The mandatory iris scanning in order to enter certain buildings is haunting enough, but the larger endgame of this technological grid is much more disturbing and protrusive. GRI went on to state their plan for an Orwellian future.

“In the future, whether it’s entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris,” said the company’s chief business developer an interview.

The megalomaniacs in charge of setting up this “safe” city are very similar to those who setup the biometric system here in the United States. In the same interview it is mentioned that the CIA uses similar tactics to spy on United States citizens. In order to play this off as another measure to keep us “safe”, the company’s representative insists that it is only done to capture members of Al-Qaeda.

“Voice biometrics are also huge. It’s how the CIA monitors communication across the globe. They sift through cell phones and create voice biometrics to find Al-Qaeda members, for instance, and hit them in their car later with a missile. That is not going away either.” he said.

Seizing The Internet

Coinciding with such a gloomy blueprint for civilization, Google’s CEO echoed similar statements in an article that appeared in the Telegraph. Not only does Schmidt say with certainty that in the future the current generation will have to change their names to escape their internet past, but he also goes on to say that Google will eventually become much more than a search engine. Schmidt says that people do not want Google to answer their questions, but that they want Google to “tell them what they should be doing next.”

Google is notorious for spying on its users, but Schmidt takes it to another level. Schmidt says that Google will know “roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are” in the near future. That is certainly taking Google to a whole new level of technological spying. Google is rather open about the fact that your information is being recorded, however. Last year Schmidt said that “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

Such sentiments from the CEO of a company that operates 2 of the top 5 sites in the world is quite troubling. Google has immense power over the direction of the internet in terms of trends and fads, and have been caught censoring oppositional terms such as “Google spies”.

Beta Testing

In reality, this “safe” city is simply a beta test before iris scanners and other outlandish tracking systems are installed in major U.S. cities. Technology is neither good or evil, but it can be used by good or evil people. The citizens of the United States and elsewhere will be told that these systems are only being put in place for increased convenience, and defense against terrorists.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

This is the same tired excuse that has brought upon body scanners that have been linked to cancer, and illegal searches of all kinds. Do not allow corrupt officials to bend the rules of the Constitution under the guide of convenience and false safety. Is the “safest” city really all that safe for the average person?


Source

Pre-Crime Technology To Be Used In Washington D.C.

Law enforcement agencies in Washington D.C. have begun to use technology that they say can predict when crimes will be committed and who will commit them, before they actually happen.

The Minority Report like pre-crime software has been developed by Richard Berk, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Previous incarnations of the software, already being used in Baltimore and Philadelphia were limited to predictions of murders by and among parolees and offenders on probation.

According to a report by ABC News, however, the latest version, to be implemented in Washington D.C., can predict other future crimes as well.

“When a person goes on probation or parole they are supervised by an officer. The question that officer has to answer is ‘what level of supervision do you provide?’” Berk told ABC News, intimating that the program could have a bearing on the length of sentences and/or bail amounts.

The technology sifts through a database of thousands of crimes and uses algorithms and different variables, such as geographical location, criminal records and ages of previous offenders, to come up with predictions of where, when, and how a crime could possibly be committed and by who.

The program operates without any direct evidence that a crime will be committed, it simply takes datasets and computes possibilities.

“People assume that if someone murdered then they will murder in the future,” Berk also states, “But what really matters is what that person did as a young individual. If they committed armed robbery at age 14 that’s a good predictor. If they committed the same crime at age 30, that doesn’t predict very much.”

Critics have urged that the program encourages categorizing individuals on a risk scale via computer mathematics, rather than on real life, and that monitoring those people based on such a premise is antithetic to a justice system founded on the premise of the presumption of innocence.

Other police departments and law agencies across the country have begun to look into and use similar predictive technologies. The Memphis Police Department, for example uses a program called Operation Blue CRUSH, which uses predictive analytics developed by IBM.

Other forms of pre-crime technology in use or under development include surveillance cameras that can predict when a crime is about to occur and alert police, and even neurological brain scanners that can read people’s intentions before they act, thus

detecting whether or not a person has “hostile intent”.

It is not too far fetched to imagine all these forms of the technology being used together in the future by law enforcement bodies.

The British government has previously debated introducing pre-crime laws in the name of fighting terrorism. The idea was that suspects would be put on trial using MI5 or MI6 intelligence of an expected terror attack. This would be enough to convict if found to be true “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The government even has plans to collect lifelong records on all residents starting at the age of five, in order to screen for those who might be more likely to commit crimes in the future.

Another disturbing possibility for such technology comes in the form of a financial alliance of sorts between Internet search engine giant Google and the investment arm of the CIA and the wider U.S. intelligence network.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Google and In-Q-Tel have recently injected a sum of up to $10 million each into a company called Recorded Future, which uses analytics to scour Twitter accounts, blogs and websites for all sorts of information, which is used to “assemble actual real-time dossiers on people.”

The company describes its analytics as “the ultimate tool for open-source intelligence” and says it can also “predict the future”.

Recorded Future takes in vast amounts of personal information such as employment changes, personal education and family relations. Promotional material also shows categories covering pretty much everything else, including entertainment, music and movie releases, as well as other innocuous things like patent filings and product recalls.

Those detached from any kind of moral reality will say “If you’ve got nothing to hide then what is the problem with being scanned for pre-crime? If it keeps us all safe from murderers, rapists and terrorists I’m all for it”.

How far towards a literal technological big brother police state will we slip before people wake up to the fact?


Source

Ehrlich and Holdren: Death “Reasonable Price to Pay” for Well-being of Society

In a 1995 article written by Gretchen Daily and Ecoscience co-author Paul R. Ehrlich, the authors put forward the proposition that physicians should no longer concentrate on improving the health of their individual patients, or treat occurring infections in order to save the patients life, but rather look to the well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, say Daily and Ehrlich, “a small net increase in deaths” is “a reasonable price to pay”. Here’s the quote in its entirety (page 25):

“Physicians by instinct and training focus on the health of individuals; they must learn to pay more attention to the health of whole societies and to deal with the difficult conflicts of interest that often arise between the two. One physician, Jeffrey Fisher (1994), recommends that physicians be required to take periodic recertification exams in which they are tested on antibiotic knowledge. If antibiotics had been used more judiciously over the past few decades, there doubtless would have been more deaths from bacterial infections misdiagnosed as viral, and fewer deaths from allergic reactions to antibiotics. But a small net increase in deaths would probably have been a reasonable price to pay to avoid the present situation, which portends a return to the pre-antibiotic era and much higher death rates.”

The fact that humans reproduce, Daily and Ehrlich argue, means diseases have an opportunity to thrive and reek havoc amongst them. This is the snake biting its own tail. Less humans means less diseases. The logic is infallible. The same argument can of course be applied to car accidents, plane crashes and other calamities, sure to occur with those darned humans roaming about. In order to reduce the possibility of diseases occurring, the authors list some proposals, including:

“1. Redoubling efforts to halt the growth of the human population and eventually reduce it (Daily et al., 1994). This is a very basic step, because overpopulation makes substantial, diverse contributions to the degradation of the epidemiological environment, in addition to degrading other aspects of Earth’s carrying capacity (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).”

Another proposal reads as follows:

“7. Instituting worldwide campaigns to emphasize limiting the number of sexual partners, and to increase the use of condoms and spermicides. Such changes would both lower the incidence of STDs and encourage the evolution of reduced virulence in them (Ewald, 1994). Special attention should be paid to methods that can be adopted by women (e.g., Rosenberg and Gollub, 1992; Rosenberg et al., 1992, 1993), which would tie in neatly to related methods of improving the epidemiological environment by limiting human population growth (Ehrlich et al., 1995).

From Ehrlich we switch gears to John P. Holdren, who authored (also with Paul Ehrlich) an article called “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects” in the World Bank document Defining and Measuring Sustainability. In the article, the diabolical duo propose a stark reduction in the percentage of humans on earth:

“No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable; Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are sustainable; and at the sustainability limit, there will be a trade-off between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person.”

“This”, Holdren and Ehrlich continue, “is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth),and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person.”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

The most gruesome and interesting part of their elucidation is buried in the notes (page 15). In speaking about all kinds of intolerable “harms” that counteract sustainability, Holdren and Ehrlich are willing to make an exception for pollution, if it will cut some time of the average life expectancy:

“Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).”

In the horrible euphemistic way these proposals disguised as “possibilities” are usually being presented lies hidden a horrible truth. These head-hunters of the scientific dictatorship are not simply powerless psychopaths exchanging abstract ideas. They are powerful sociopaths rather, occupying key positions within the marble halls of academia and government. In the final equation, they are after you and your children.


Source

Constitution “Silly Stuff,” Says Illinois Congressman

Democratic Congressman Phil Hare, who caused outrage earlier this year when he told constituents who asked him about the legality of the health care bill, “I don’t worry about the constitution,” has sparked fresh consternation after he was caught on camera in an Illinois hotel labeling the founding document of America “silly stuff”.

Video confrontations with arrogant and dismissive Congress members uploaded to You Tube have come to represent the angst of the Tea Party movement, as elected representatives betray disdain and sometimes even open hostility to the rule of law that they are supposed to uphold on behalf of their constituents.

The latest example was provided by Illinois Congressman Phil Hare, who was asked on camera about his previous response to a question about Obamacare during a meeting with constituents, in which he told the audience “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.”

The new clip shows a citizen asking Hare, “Where in the constitution does it say that you can force people to buy health care?” to which Hare responds, “Oh boy, we’re not going there again are we?”

Watch the clip below.

“I think it’s a legitimate question,” states the constituent, as Hare ignores him and talks to other citizens.

However, Hare is soon confronted again as another man asks him, “How come you’re a member of the Socialist Party?” Hare denies the charge, despite the fact that his name appears on a list of Democrats who are in the ranks of the Socialist Party of America, which was released by the Socialist Party itself last year.

Hare’s entourage then try to get in the face of the original questioner, before demanding he identify himself.

Hare continues to refuse to answer the question about the constitutionality of the health care bill, dismissing it as “silly stuff”.

Phil Hare has been constantly harassed and harangued by citizens for his support of Obamacare and other issues. Back in June, a clip was released showing Hare being confronted by residents who accuse him of being a draft-dodger. Hare embarrassingly attempts to joke with the people filming him, asking “which side is my best?” before being pulled away by a member of his entourage.

Watch the clip below.



Hare embarrassed himself during the aforementioned confrontation back in April when he was corrected after claiming that language concerning the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness appeared within the Constitution , when in fact it appears in the Declaration of Independence.

“Doesn’t matter to me,” Hare responded. “Either one.”

Hare was then quizzed “Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority…?”

“I don’t know.” Hare angrily interrupted, refusing to allow the constituent to even finish the question.

The attitude of Hare and his colleagues on Capitol Hill towards their constituents and their open disdain towards the Constitution is one of the primary reasons why Tea Party members are having so much success in ousting establishment candidates.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

After October, Hare won’t have to worry about what’s contained in the Constitution, nor will he have to be concerned about reading bills that are thousands of pages in length, because he will be kicked out of office. Polls show Hare trailing his opponent by a healthy and growing margin as his snobbish and arrogant behavior comes back to bite him where it hurts.


Source

We Got One That Can See: Former Obamanoid Reveals Truth on Fox News

It was a remarkable moment in the annals of corporate media television. During a Fox News segment on the staggering unemployment rate among the young, a former Obamanoid manages to sneak in the truth — there is no difference between Clinton, Bush and Obama, they are all puppets for elite bankers.

“Obama is an illusion of change,” said the former supporter. “He is a lot like Bush in many ways. It is a fallacy to believe he really cares about unemployment when he hired an economic team comprised of Volcker, Geithner… these men were in the last three administrations and they don’t really care for the poor and working class of this nation.”

Obama’s administration, of course, is packed like a sardine can with globalists from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group. Following Obama’s election win, he named 14 top cabinet selections and nine of them were affiliated with the Bilderberg group, ten were affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations and five hailed from the Trilateral Commission.

Geithner, in addition to working for the Federal Reserve, is associated with the CFR, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers. Ditto the former Fed boss Volcker.

Indeed, Obama, Geithner, Volcker, and the rest don’t care about the poor and working class. The CFR, Trilateralists, and members of the once secretive Bilderberg cabal are working stealthily toward a one-world government that will require a large serf class of impoverished slaves.

In 1980, Holly Sklar wrote in her book Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, that according to bankster David Rockefeller’s Trilateralists “the people, governments, and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations” and the “owners and managers of global corporations view the entire world as their factory, farm, supermarket, and playground. The Trilateral Commission is seeking to strengthen and rationalize the world economy in their interest,” not in the interest of the workers or anybody else.

“If you wish to establish national monopolies, you must control national governments,” writes Gary Allen. “If you wish to establish international monopolies or cartels, you must control a world government.”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Obama’s task was to sell the globalist snake oil under the misleading label “change.” Fortunately, the young lady above seems to understand this, at least on a rudimentary level. It is heartening that people — especially former Obamanoids — are coming around to the reality of the situation.


Source

Divide and Rule

Webster Tarpley, author, journalist, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy, appeared on the Alex Jones radio show today and discussed the wedge issues currently exploited in the “corporate media” to divide the American people in order for the Global Power Structure to maintain control. The concept of “divide and rule” as a means to control the people is not a new idea.

According to Wikipedia, “divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures”. It is said that the British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, taking control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War [3] (Dell’arte della guerra [4]), that a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.

Of course, Wikipedia’s descriptions focus primarily on the use of “divide and rule” by a sovereign ruler or nation. Today, we are facing a much more sinister oppressor in the form of Global Government; the long sought after establishment of a Global Scientific Dictatorship by a very few extremely powerful and wealthy families.

The use of “wedge issues” are frequently employed in order to gain a foothold politically which allows a political entity to implement otherwise unacceptable policies. A wedge issue is a social or political issue, often of a divisive or otherwise controversial nature, which splits apart or creates a “wedge” in the support base of one political group. Wedge issues can be advertised, publicly aired, and otherwise emphasized by an opposing political group, in an attempt to weaken the unity of the divided group, or to entice voters in the divided group to give their support to the opposing group. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics.

In a recent article, Wedge Issues Divide Politicians from Independents, Ed Hornick (CNN) reports:

The current ruckus over building an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero, calls to change the 14th Amendment and other so-called “wedge” issues are roiling up each party’s base, but they’re turning off independents, analysts say.

The article goes on to report that Jacqueline Salit, president of independentvoting.org, a national strategy and organizing center for independents says

“I think there’s more and more of a steady recognition that these kind of wedge issues and political manipulation, sensationalism and opportunism is exactly what is degrading the American political process and our democracy.”

What we are witnessing in America today with the Ground Zero Mosque, Shirley Sherrod, Immigration, Same Sex Marriage, etc. is a deliberate modern day attempt by the Global Elites to, at minimum, divert attention away from the global economic crises and the criminal activities of Wall Street, the “Federal Reserve” and more specifically, the Central Banking Cartel.

Upon examining the financial backing for the Ground Zero Mosque, for example, we find the Council on Foreign Relations and Fox News as major contributors. (see Steve Watson’s recent article, Ground Zero Mosque Imam is Globalist Stooge and Today on the Alex Jones Show featuring Webster Tarpley)

The constant barrage of propaganda streaming out of the corporate media is nothing more than a veiled attempt to divide the people into factions while the “False Dichotomy” of the Republicans and Democrats offer “solutions” that only serve to inflame an already manic display of bigotry and hatred. Does the two-party system really offer the people a choice? No. They are currently controlled by the Global Elites who are financing their campaigns and directing their policies.

What has either party done in recent history to help the people of this country? Nothing….Absolutely Nothing! That is, nothing positive. They have managed to usher in a era of global economic collapse, racial, ethnic, and socio-economic division; and the destruction of civil liberties.

I would also argue that the deliberate division of the populace along the aforementioned lines, allows the advancement of the police state; with increased unrest, we are very likely to see riots and violence which will allow the Global Elites to fully implement military rule in America, thus leading us to the “perceived need” for Global Government.

We can only pray for their ultimate failure and demise while also refusing to contribute to the social, political, religious, and economic “unrest” which they seek to foment. Does this mean that you should do nothing? On the contrary, do more…examine the new slate of leaders who are presenting the truth about the “Establishment”, share the “truth” with your family, friends, and neighbors; Most importantly, educate yourself about the issues that matter.

It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the “Global Political Awakening”!


Source

Study Confirms Genetically Modified Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety

Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops
Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety

Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops

IMMEDIATE RELEASE (November 13, 2008)

(Los Angeles, CA.) - A long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.

Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.

In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.

The corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal toxin, as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.

A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning. Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.

The principle GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. GM sugar from sugar beets will also be introduced before year’s end.

Mr. Smith, who is also the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology says, “GM foods are likely responsible for several negative health trends in the US. The government must impose an immediate ban on these dangerous crops.” He says, “Consumers don’t need to wait for governmental action. They can download a free Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.HealthierEating.org.”

Monsanto press offices in the UK and USA were unable to provide a comment on the findings for journalists yesterday.

The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.

The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs and provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.

The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world about the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.


Source

The Internet Must Remain Free

The Internet is abuzz with news that a US Senate committee has approved a bill that apparently gives the President authority to shut down the Internet. According to TechWorld.com, “A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.”

The report continues by saying, “The bill, introduced earlier this month [by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thomas Carper, D-Delaware], would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electric grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web1

A PrisonPlanet.com report says this about the bill: “President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday [June 24] and now moves to the floor.

“The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

“Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.”

The report continued by saying, “Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic [communist] China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.

“‘Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,’ Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.

“While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web2

Of course, pro-family groups have long lobbied Washington lawmakers to pass regulations restricting objectionable material on the Internet. But Senator Lieberman’s bill does more than restrict content on the Internet; it gives the federal government the power to completely shut it down.

My friends, if you have any love for liberty left in your heart, one thing is critical: the Internet must remain free–absolutely, totally unrestricted and free.

I realize that many upstanding, well-intentioned people believe that the federal government should restrict the content of the Internet. But Lieberman’s bill should provide ample warning for anyone who believes that the federal government can be trusted with ANY authority it is granted beyond that which is rightly ascribed to it via the US Constitution. Plus, given the propensities of the federal government these days, how long before the definition of “objectionable content” includes your freedom of speech and mine? In plain language, the federal government has no business restricting anything that the Constitution does not permit it to. If we cede the authority to restrict and regulate the content of the Internet to the federal government, we are also ceding to it the power to completely shut down the Internet. And this is exactly what Lieberman’s bill does.

The fact is, the Internet is the last bastion of free and unfiltered news and information. And, yes, I understand that there is much misinformation on the Internet. But that is the price of freedom. The individual must be given the liberty to discern right from wrong for himself. As a Christian, I believe this is why God provided the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. And I for one do not need the federal government to try and replace either. And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for! Good grief! It is bad enough that the federal government has turned into Big Brother; are we going to allow it to become Big Momma and Big Daddy as well?

Ladies and gentlemen, it is essential that the free flow of information be allowed to continue over the Internet. The major news media is a finely filtered, tightly controlled medium that works harder at blocking news and information than it does at delivering it. Virtually every major television and radio network, along with the nation’s major newspapers, is an equal opportunity news-suppressor.

Just ask yourself, what would you have known regarding the MIAC report in Missouri had it not been for the Internet? What would you have known about the fiasco in Hardin, Montana, had it not been for the Internet? What would you know about the NAFTA superhighway without the Internet? If not for the Internet, would you ever have learned about the CFR’s plans for a North American Community? Where would the Tea Parties be today without the Internet? Where would Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 have been without the Internet? Virtually everything you’ve learned regarding the State sovereignty momentum that continues to build across this country you’ve learned from the Internet. Except for a few courageous independent radio talk show hosts, and newspaper and magazine publishers, the vast majority of extremely relevant and critical information relative to freedom is gleaned from the Internet–not to mention the speed with which news and information is able to travel, thanks to the Internet.

It is no hyperbole to suggest that the Internet is the modern patriots’ version of the colonists’ Committees of Correspondence that sounded the clarion call for liberty and independence at the time of America’s founding. And now, power-mad elitists in Washington, D.C., are attempting to provide the federal government with the power and authority to shut it down at will.

What is even more disturbing is the way that private companies and special interest groups are willing to prostitute themselves before the federal government in order to get their own “piece of the pie.” Think of it: just about every freedom-grabbing, Big-Government action taken by these modern Machiavellians in Washington, D.C., is facilitated by willing CEOs from Big Business. They gladly assist Big Brother when he wants to spy on us, read our emails, listen to our phone calls, etc. They happily help Big Brother when he wants to eavesdrop inside our homes, examine our financial records, or snoop on our private lives. When Big Brother says, “Jump!” they ask, “How high?” Then–like these hypocrites in Washington, D.C.–they have the audacity to wave the flag on Independence Day and shout, “America: the land of the free!” As if they are blameless in freedom’s demise.

Mark it down: if the federal government ever shuts down the Internet, it will be business as usual for Washington, D.C., and its fellow travelers in Big Business; but We the People will be out of business, and so will freedom. Regardless of what side of any issue you and I may come from, it is critical that the Internet remains absolutely and totally free.


Source

48% See Government Today As A Threat to Individual Rights

(Ramussen)

Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults see the government today as a threat to rights. Thirty-seven percent (37%) hold the opposite view. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

Most Republicans (74%) and unaffiliateds (51%) consider the government to be a threat to individual rights. Most Democrats (64%) regard the government as a protector of rights.

Additionally, most Americans (52%) say it is more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth. Just 31% say promoting economic growth is more important. But again a sizable number (17%) of Adults aren’t sure which is more important.

This nationwide survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 18-19, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Men strongly believe it is more important for the government to protect individual rights, while women are almost evenly divided on the question.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of whites feel the emphasis should be on protecting individual rights. African-Americans are closely divided over which is more important.

There is little partisan disagreement when it comes to individual rights versus economic growth.

Data released earlier this week shows that 62% believe politicians want the government to have more power and money. At the same time, 58% think most voters want less power and money for the government.

This gap helps explain why just 21% believe that government today has the consent of the governed.

The Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted among men to protect certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Source

Gun Rights Must Be Honored by States, Cities, High Court Rules in 5-4 Vote

A divided U.S. Supreme Court said the constitutional right to bear arms binds states and cities, as well as the federal government, in a decision that raises questions about gun laws around the country.

The ruling, while not creating an unlimited right for individuals to carry weapons, restricts the power of cities and states to regulate firearms. A 5-4 majority said Chicago went too far by banning handguns even for self-defense in the home. The Chicago ordinance is now unenforceable, its mayor said, though the law stays in effect pending lower court proceedings.

The ruling said states and cities can ban possession by convicted felons and mentally ill people and enforce laws against bringing guns into schools or government buildings.

Chicago is the only major city with a blanket handgun ban, after a 2008 Supreme Court decision struck down a similar ban in Washington, D.C., a federal enclave. Jurisdictions with narrower weapons restrictions, including New York City, may now face new legal challenges.

The right to bear arms “is fully binding on the states and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

Right to Bear Arms

The justices said a constitutional amendment approved after the Civil War protects the right to bear arms as a key freedom, shielding it from state and local interference.

“It is clear that the framers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” Alito wrote.

Today’s ruling broadens the sweep of the court’s 2008 ruling interpreting the Constitution’s Second Amendment as protecting the rights of individuals, rather than just those of state-run militias. It’s a victory for the National Rifle Association, which joined a group of Chicago residents in challenging the city’s laws.

The ruling “is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending,” Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive vice president, said in a statement.

Gun Control Advocates

Gun control advocates said the ruling isn’t likely to lead to the widespread invalidation of gun laws.

“The gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said he was “disappointed but not surprised.” He said the ruling made his city’s 28-year- old ban “unenforceable.”

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement that the two high court rulings mean that “we can work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.” The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

Today’s decision, which came on the last day of the court’s nine-month term, divided the justices along lines that have become commonplace. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined Alito in the majority.

Breyer’s Dissent

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer faulted the majority for “transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the states to the federal government.”

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor also dissented.

The high court’s 2008 decision said the right to bear arms had limits. Alito wrote that today’s decision reaffirmed those limits, saying the ruling “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was originally aimed only at the federal government. The Supreme Court in the 19th century refused to apply the Second Amendment to the states.

More recently, the court has said that some, though not all, of the rights in the first eight amendments are so fundamental that they are “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, which binds the states.

‘Fundamental Rights’

“Given that other fundamental rights - the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and so on - limit both state and national governments, it would have been strange for the court to rule otherwise here,” said Rick Garnett, associate dean and constitutional law professor at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana.

In saying that the Second Amendment is incorporated as well, the court declined to usher in a major doctrinal shift, as some litigants had sought. Advocates across the ideological spectrum urged the justices to rely on the privileges-or- immunities clause, a long dormant provision in the 14th Amendment.

Such a step might have reinforced established constitutional rights including abortion and opened the door to broader protection of other guarantees, including property rights.

The case “is likely the last great incorporation battle,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. “In one sense, this is the last battle of the Civil War. The 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that all Americans enjoyed the same fundamental rights, including the right to bear arms. Now the Second Amendment applies to everyone.”

The Chicago ban was challenged by four residents, including Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old homeowner in the Morgan Park neighborhood on the city’s South Side.

McDonald, who says his home has been broken into at least three times, says he wants to keep a handgun by his bed for protection.

The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, 08-1521.


Source

Kagan: Pro-State Shill

As noted in the N.Y. Times piece Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror, the Supreme Court’s “conservatives,”

In a case pitting free speech against national security, … on Monday upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, even if the help takes the form of training for peacefully resolving conflicts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law’s prohibition of providing some types of intangible assistance to groups the State Department says engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment.

In dissent, Justice Breyer said the majority had drawn a false analogy between the two kinds of assistance.

“Money given for a charitable purpose might free up other money used to buy arms,” Justice Breyer said from the bench. But the same cannot be said, he continued, “where teaching human rights law is involved.”

But even though the decision is disturbing, even the conservative majority did not go as far as Solicitor General—and now Supreme Court nominee—Elena Kagan, wanted:

Chief Justice Roberts said the government had advanced a position that was too extreme and did not take adequate account of the free-speech interests at stake.

“The government is wrong,” the chief justice wrote, “that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct” and not speech protected by the First Amendment. But he went on to say that the government’s interest in combating terrorism was enough to overcome that protection.

In his written dissent, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Breyer said the majority had been too credulous in accepting the government’s argument that national security concerns required restrictions on the challengers’ speech and had “failed to insist upon specific evidence, rather than general assertion.”

The common assertion by democrats, and even by some libertarians who buy into the left-right paradigm, that liberals are better on civil liberties is obviously mistaken. (For more: see Liberals on Free Speech and Finance Campaign Laws; Slate Liberals: ‘Let’s see your scrotum if you want to get on an airplane,’ ha ha; Re: War and Civil Liberties Under Obama.)


Source

We are Change Plans End the Fed protest on Independence Day

We Are Change groups from MD, VA and DC have joined together to hold an End The Fed protest in Washington DC in honor of Independence Day. The event will be on Saturday, July 3rd and the permits are already in. We Are Change groups have been putting up banners in the local area for the coming event. It is important not to lose momentum and to continue the energy that has sprung up around the notion of abolishing the Federal Reserve. With more and more public awareness as to what the Federal Reserve Bank is and how it operates, common people from the left or right have been getting behind this revolutionary idea.

Please come and join We Are Change in Washington D.C. this July 3, 2010 to take a stand for liberty. If you cannot make it to D.C. and would like to organize your own Federal Reserve protest, contact your local End the Fed group in your area by going to http://endthefedusa.ning.com/ or your local Campaign for Liberty chapter at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Don’t let up, don’t back down, don’t allow the children of the future to wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered. If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. For more information visit http://www.wearechangedc.org/.

The Federal Reserve is a cartel of private banking corporations which lend money to the United States. It is touted as if it were a Government Agency. IT IS NOT. The Federal Reserve Bank, through its inflation of the money supply and the distortion of free markets resulting from its intervention, is responsible for the current financial and economic crisis. The current round of “bailouts” and federal government nationalization of large segments of the financial sector further inflates the US dollar and disrupts the proper functioning of the markets and will ultimately serve to plunge the nation into an even more severe crisis, quite possibly even into a serious depression. Our goal is to educate Americans so we can have a sound monetary system in this country, and not be held at gunpoint by a private banking cartel who pretends to be a government entity.

Donovan Hubbard WAC-VA
Heidi Humphrey WAC-MD


Source

Palin Goes Rogue Against Tea Party Candidates

Pop quiz: Which of the following Republican primary candidates is Sarah Palin most likely to endorse?

(A) A solid conservative with the backing of local Tea Party groups and a track record of supporting limited government and lower taxes;
(B) A pro-life woman;
(C) Anyone remotely connected to John McCain.

If you answered "A," you haven't been keeping up with Palin's recent rash of endorsements. Despite her image as the maverick queen of the Tea Party movement, Palin has passed on a number of conservative standard-bearers in favor of candidates with better connections to either McCain, the Republican Party or the Susan B. Anthony List.

Her willingness to choose individuals over issues hasn't gone unnoticed by the Tea Party faithful.

"The bloom's off the rose," said Shelby Blakely, a member of the national leadership council of Tea Party Patriots, the nation's largest such group. "She's a company girl. She's a Republican, and not in a good way."

The expectation among many Tea Partiers was that Palin would use her star power to ignite the campaigns of principled but lesser-known conservatives. Even after she endorsed John McCain in his contested primary bid against Tea Party favorite J.D. Hayworth, few were worried, given that she owed McCain for making her his vice-presidential pick in 2008.

Tougher to justify was her May 6 endorsement of Carly Fiorina in the California Republican Senate primary. The race has a proven conservative in state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who lacks money and name recognition but has the backing of local Tea Party organizations and Republican Sen. Jim DeMint.

Too bad. Fiorina has the credentials that matter to Palin: She's a pro-life woman and she served as an advisor to the McCain presidential campaign. Fiorina may have waffled in the past on whether she was a Republican, and did not have voted for most of her adult life, but she says she's a conservative now, and that's good enough for Palin. DeVore, meanwhile, spent years in the trenches doing battle with the Democratic legislative majority.

In her announcement, Palin added another caveat: She called Fiorina the "conservative who has the potential to beat California's liberal senator Barbara Boxer in November." The implication was that Fiorina, with her millions, has a better shot than DeVore of winning the general election against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. And it's probably true--but that's the sort of calculation that matters to the professional election-watchers of National Republican Senatorial Committee, not the political rogues who make up the Tea Party.

Palin veered back into the Tea Party's corner with her backing of Rand Paul in the Kentucky Republican Senate primary over GOP establishment candidate Trey Grayson. She threw her support behind Nikki Haley, a Tea Party pick who's also one of Palin's pro-life "mama grizzlies," in the South Carolina Republican gubernatorial contest. She's backing former Washington Redskin and Tea Partisan Clint Didier in the Washington Senate primary, although her endorsement came before GOP favorite Dino Rossi entered the race.

But she found herself at odds with Idaho Tea Partiers when she endorsed Vaughn Ward, the GOP establishment pick, over Raul Labrador in the 1st Congressional District primary. A state legislator with a staunchly conservative voting record, Labrador had the backing of Tea Party Boise--but Ward was Nevada state director of the McCain 2008 campaign. Again, Palin's debt to McCain trumped all other considerations. Labrador went on to defeat Ward in the May 25 primary.

In some ways, Palin remains a political maverick, only now it's because nobody can predict which candidate she'll endorse next. The more she strays from her base, however, the less valuable her support becomes.

As Blakely puts it, "If you keep endorsing the wrong people, after a while nobody's going to pay attention."


Source

U.S. government panel now pushing "vaccinations for all!" No exceptions

(NaturalNews) An advisory panel to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that every person be vaccinated for the seasonal flu yearly, except in a few cases where the vaccine is known to be unsafe.

"Now no one should say 'Should I or shouldn't I?'" said CDC flu specialist Anthony Fiore.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 11-0 with one abstention to recommend yearly flu vaccination for everyone except for children under the age of six months, whose immune systems have not yet developed enough for vaccination to be safe, and people with egg allergies or other health conditions that are known to make flu vaccines hazardous. If accepted by the CDC, this recommendation will then be publicized to doctors and other health workers.

The CDC nearly always accepts the advisory committee's recommendations.

Current CDC recommendations call for the yearly vaccination of all children over the age of six months, all adults over the age of 49, health care workers, people with chronic health problems and anyone who cares for a person in one of these groups. These recommendations cover 85 percent of the US population.

Excluded are adults between the ages of 19 and 49 who do not come into close contact with people in high-risk groups. The new recommendation, if adopted, would close that gap, bringing an end to a 10-year campaign by supporters of universal vaccination. In the past, the advisory committee has been reluctant to recommend universal vaccination for fear that it might produce vaccine shortages that place members of higher risk groups in danger. Yet even with current recommendations, only 33 percent of the public gets vaccinated every year, leaving millions of doses to be disposed of.

The H1N1 swine flu scare of the past year played a major role in the committee's about face, both because the disease killed many people falling outside the current recommended vaccine demographic and because it raised public awareness of and demand for vaccines.


Source

FDA Proposes Dangerous Vaccine Rule Change 6-21-2010

Surveillance Cameras Installed at the Georgia Guidestones

When I stopped by the Georgia Guidestones on Monday June 7th 2010 I noticed signs and surveillance cameras had been installed at the Georgia Guidestones. This is probably due to numerous acts of vandalism on the Guidestones. Americans don’t like the fact there’s a big stone monument on American soil that promotes eugenics, one world religion and language, and an overall reduction of humanity down to 500,000,000.


In this photo facing the south you can see one to the southwest with a warning sign.



you can see the stones do promote killing off over 80% of the human population. This photo is just my response to the Ted Turner style eugenics these stones promote.



In this photo facing the south you can see one to the southwest with a warning sign.





To learn more about the elites plan to kill off over 80% check out: http://www.endgamethemovie.com/


Source

What’s More Important: Liberty Or The Entity That Protects It?

Let me ask readers a question. What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both freedom and the purpose of government.

Thomas Jefferson–and the rest of America’s founders–believed that freedom was the principal possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift. Listen to Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” (Declaration of Independence)

Jefferson could not be clearer: America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom’s protection was the object.

Again, listen to Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, government is not the end; it is the means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the rest of America’s founders) express the sentiment that government, itself, was the objective. Listen to Jefferson once more:

“That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration) (Emphasis added.)

Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.

To America’s founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government!

Today’s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I’m talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!

When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a “destructive” power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.

Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?

Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the “system.” Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the “powers that be” makes us “good” Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging. The “system” is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself on our liberties!

Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a President, or being loyal to a political party, or anything of the sort.

Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost always means our government), “right or wrong”? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on both the right and the left) use this phrase often to try to stifle opposition by making people who would fight for smaller government appear “unpatriotic.”

The cliché, “My country, right or wrong,” comes from a short address delivered on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and having his patriotism questioned because of it (what’s new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said, “The senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country–and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)

Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in original.)

Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that our country be RIGHT, as our nation’s policies and practices reflect the values and principles of its citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a nation without regard to sacred principle or constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a willing participant in tyranny.

As to loyalty to a President merely because he is President, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”

Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these propagandists on network television to distort the meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.

Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand that government has only one legitimate function: to protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM of government that becomes destructive to these ends. And it means that we will never allow government to steal liberty from our hearts.

As I asked at the beginning of this column, What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however, and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.

On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.

As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including the current one!


Source