As a member of Warn the People, I have been apprised of some new information about the impending police state control grid. What is significant about this information is that, first of all, it comes from FEMA and, secondly, it is of a very timely nature.
The gist of it, which you can hear in its entirety in the two videos here, made by WTP members on the West coast, is that our corporate overlords are planning to "shut down all the banks" by August or September of this year - a scant five or six months from now - and there will be "roadblocks and checkpoints" installed on every major highway, freeway and interstate. The "rural areas" are to be left alone while the cities will become increasingly militarized.
My own analysis, based upon two years of research, shows this is consistent with what I've learned about the New World Order plan to take down the United States.
For example, there is the film Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, by Alex Jones, which, in the first few minutes of the film, mentions that we will be "herded into compact cities" and that the outlying rural areas will be left to decay, as part of the plan to "re-wild" the bulk of the North American continent, allowing it to return to nature. This "rewilding" has been hinted at in a recent History Channel documentary titled, Life After People, in which several commentators from various disciplines speculate on how the world would be after the "hypothetical" removal of all human life.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
How to Defend Your Rights
We hear a lot of talk, these days, about defending our rights, in particular, our Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of misinformation and deliberate disinformation being circulated about our rights and how to best protect them. Allow me to clear the air on this, because it is really quite simple.
In a nut shell, the way - the only way to defend our rights is first, by exercising them and not submitting to any authority that proclaims you can't, and secondly, by repealing all laws that abridge or deny our rights. The first part of this solution is easy enough for all to understand. You don't ask government's permission to exercise your fundamental rights; you just do it. If there are repercussions afterward, or if the state refuses to "allow" you to do so, then it is the state that is in the wrong, not you. They have violated your rights. I think that's fairly simple enough that a child could understand it, yet many brainwashed adults these days don't seem to comprehend their correct relationship to government. We are they masters, government is the servant. Or, at least, that's the way it's supposed to be.
The second half of the solution may not be as easy for most to comprehend, so I will spend the bulk of this piece explaining it.
The best illustration of this concept can be made by examining the Second Amendment and how it has been repeatedly violated by hundreds of laws for over seventy-five years, beginning with the original gun control law: the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Never mind the fact that, in 1934, there was record gun violence in America, chiefly from lawless gangsters using the then-favored and easily obtained Thompson submachine gun. The fact that the Thompson was readily obtainable meant that anyone, regardless of who they were, could have one and that included the average citizen - until the National Firearms Act of 1934 removed these weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the gangsters still armed with them (because, by definition, criminals don't obey the law), as well as the police and the military. For the first time in U.S. history, then, we had a situation in which the military, the police and the criminals were better armed than the average citizen. But I digress.
The point is, the National Firearms Act was illegal. It is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is the law of the land. The Constitution is supposed to be the yardstick by which all other laws are measured. If a law violates the Constitution, it is ruled "unconstitutional," meaning that it is not a legitimate law.
The Second Amendment is quite clear to anyone who can read (which entails the ability to not merely voice the words in your head, but to understand their meaning, as well), despite the recent propaganda to the contrary. Ignoring the disputed first clause, which mentions the militia, it is the second clause that makes the Second Amendment perfectly clear:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no debating the intent of that statement. It means what is says and it says what it means, which is that, no laws can be made that alter, abolish, curtail or modify our fundamental right to be armed. Period.
Now, some people these days have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to be armed. They don't see the relationship between being armed and the tyranny of a despotic government. Indeed, many fail to see that there is any relationship between the two at all. The relationship is an inverse one. In other words, the better armed we the people are, the less chance there is of a despotic government existing. The opposite is that, whenever and wherever the people have been disarmed, government has historically become despotic. The people who wrote the Second Amendment knew this all too well, having lived through it. That's why they reasoned, quite rightly, that we needed some constitutional guarantees that would protect our inalienable right to defend ourselves against all who would take our lives and property from us - including our own government.
Having said all that, it becomes clear (or it should to anyone over the age of, say ten, anyway) that the way to prevent rights from being violated is to never allow a situation to exist in which they can be violated, in the first place. To quote an old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
However, today, the damage has been long done. Our Second Amendment has been cleverly and deliberately violated so many times that no one really knows the actual number of laws in existence that, in some way, violate the Second Amendment.
Even so, the remedy for this is quite simple and straightforward: the repeal of all laws that violate the Second Amendment. This is easy enough to understand. If you see that something wrong is being done, you take action to see to it that (1) whatever is being done is stopped and (2) you endeavor, if possible, to undo the damage done. In this case, both can be achieved in one fell swoop by the simple act of repealing all gun laws that are in existence and preventing any further from being created. Now, of course I realize that this has as much chance of happening as I do of winning the lottery. Actually, I think my odds of doing so are far greater, in fact. But, my point is that the solution is a simple one. There is nothing complex about it. The complexity resides in all the things that have to occur before it can be done, and therein lies the point I'm coming to.
For seventy-five years, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been "defending" the Second Amendment by backing law after law that violates the Second Amendment. It matters not that some of these laws seem to "lift restrictions" imposed by previous legislation. The fact is, these laws continue a systemic abridgement of the Second Amendment by deliberately skirting the central fact that all of these laws have to be removed before anyone's Second Amendment rights are truly restored. Piecemeal legislation that lifts some restrictions while allowing the greater bulk of restrictions to remain intact is not the solution to the problem and only adds to the widely held misperception that our rights are granted to us by government.
Whenever you hear some legislator say a law will "allow" you to do something you were denied doing before, this should raise a red flag in your mind. We don't have rights because government "allows" it. We have rights as a condition of our existence. The first and most fundamental of these is the right to life, which arises from the fact that we are alive. Because we are alive, we are entitled to continue living. No sane person would dispute that. Yet, there are many who dispute our right to defend our lives by use of force. Most libertarians will agree that they are against the use of force. It is a central tenet of the libertarian philosophy. However, most libertarians reserve the right of the individual to use force against force to protect one's life and property. After all, one cannot counteract forceful attempts on one's life by passive means. When our lives are in immediate danger of being snuffed out forever by some foe - whether it be a criminal or the government (I know; what's the difference?), there is no room for debating whether or not to use force to defend oneself. This is simple common sense, yet that is a commodity so sadly lacking in today's society.
Getting back to the remedy for this situation, if the answer is the repeal of all gun laws, then it should be immediately apparent to all that the people saying they are "protecting" the Second Amendment are either terribly ignorant of this simple, yet effective means of doing so - or they are lying. My observation is that it's the latter, not the former.
So-called "gun rights" organizations like the NRA have had four generations in which to get all gun laws repealed - yet they are not even demanding that this be done. Surely, the people running this organization are not so stupid as to fail to see this simple solution. They know very well what the problem is and they also know what the solution is. Yet, they will not act upon it. Why? This is a question every gun owner should be demanding the NRA to answer.
In light of this simple observation of the facts, it should be readily apparent to anyone with a mind that the NRA is not truly interested in protecting your Second Amendment rights - and never has been. To be fair, I am not singling out the NRA, here. There are other such organizations that are doing exactly the same thing. In fact, all of them are. They are all making the pretense of "defending the Second Amendment" while not doing anything to remove the mountain of laws that is the only impediment to the free exercise of the Second Amendment, in the first place. Again, why?
The answer is that all of these so-called "gun rights" organizations are simply another part of the false left-right paradigm. They are there to placate and misdirect the many people who, rightly, see the Second Amendment as an important protection of their freedoms. These organizations do so by appealing to their sense of patriotism, or to their fears about crime, and even by appealing to their fears of a despotic government - all while supporting the agenda of that same despotic government.
Some will say, "but the NRA has consistently backed concealed carry laws!" Yes, they have. But, what you have to do is examine, in detail, what these laws really do and what they really say. You also have to understand that you already have the right to carry a gun (or any other weapons) anywhere you want to, whether concealed or not. Your existing right to defend your life (which the Second Amendment was written to protect) is your "concealed carry permit." You don't require the permission of the government to carry any type of weapon anywhere, any time you want to. The only thing stopping you from doing so is your own fear of running afoul of the law. But the law, in this case, is illegitimate, in the first place, because it stands in direct violation of the Second Amendment.
The same is true of all these other laws that "allow" you to have back some of the freedoms stolen from you by the very same government that robbed you of them to begin with - and then requires you to ask permission for them and to jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops to obtain them. That is not freedom. It is tyranny, and by supporting such laws, the NRA and everyone else who supports these laws is supporting the continuance of tyranny in America.
In a nut shell, the way - the only way to defend our rights is first, by exercising them and not submitting to any authority that proclaims you can't, and secondly, by repealing all laws that abridge or deny our rights. The first part of this solution is easy enough for all to understand. You don't ask government's permission to exercise your fundamental rights; you just do it. If there are repercussions afterward, or if the state refuses to "allow" you to do so, then it is the state that is in the wrong, not you. They have violated your rights. I think that's fairly simple enough that a child could understand it, yet many brainwashed adults these days don't seem to comprehend their correct relationship to government. We are they masters, government is the servant. Or, at least, that's the way it's supposed to be.
The second half of the solution may not be as easy for most to comprehend, so I will spend the bulk of this piece explaining it.
The best illustration of this concept can be made by examining the Second Amendment and how it has been repeatedly violated by hundreds of laws for over seventy-five years, beginning with the original gun control law: the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Never mind the fact that, in 1934, there was record gun violence in America, chiefly from lawless gangsters using the then-favored and easily obtained Thompson submachine gun. The fact that the Thompson was readily obtainable meant that anyone, regardless of who they were, could have one and that included the average citizen - until the National Firearms Act of 1934 removed these weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the gangsters still armed with them (because, by definition, criminals don't obey the law), as well as the police and the military. For the first time in U.S. history, then, we had a situation in which the military, the police and the criminals were better armed than the average citizen. But I digress.
The point is, the National Firearms Act was illegal. It is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is the law of the land. The Constitution is supposed to be the yardstick by which all other laws are measured. If a law violates the Constitution, it is ruled "unconstitutional," meaning that it is not a legitimate law.
The Second Amendment is quite clear to anyone who can read (which entails the ability to not merely voice the words in your head, but to understand their meaning, as well), despite the recent propaganda to the contrary. Ignoring the disputed first clause, which mentions the militia, it is the second clause that makes the Second Amendment perfectly clear:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no debating the intent of that statement. It means what is says and it says what it means, which is that, no laws can be made that alter, abolish, curtail or modify our fundamental right to be armed. Period.
Now, some people these days have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to be armed. They don't see the relationship between being armed and the tyranny of a despotic government. Indeed, many fail to see that there is any relationship between the two at all. The relationship is an inverse one. In other words, the better armed we the people are, the less chance there is of a despotic government existing. The opposite is that, whenever and wherever the people have been disarmed, government has historically become despotic. The people who wrote the Second Amendment knew this all too well, having lived through it. That's why they reasoned, quite rightly, that we needed some constitutional guarantees that would protect our inalienable right to defend ourselves against all who would take our lives and property from us - including our own government.
Having said all that, it becomes clear (or it should to anyone over the age of, say ten, anyway) that the way to prevent rights from being violated is to never allow a situation to exist in which they can be violated, in the first place. To quote an old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
However, today, the damage has been long done. Our Second Amendment has been cleverly and deliberately violated so many times that no one really knows the actual number of laws in existence that, in some way, violate the Second Amendment.
Even so, the remedy for this is quite simple and straightforward: the repeal of all laws that violate the Second Amendment. This is easy enough to understand. If you see that something wrong is being done, you take action to see to it that (1) whatever is being done is stopped and (2) you endeavor, if possible, to undo the damage done. In this case, both can be achieved in one fell swoop by the simple act of repealing all gun laws that are in existence and preventing any further from being created. Now, of course I realize that this has as much chance of happening as I do of winning the lottery. Actually, I think my odds of doing so are far greater, in fact. But, my point is that the solution is a simple one. There is nothing complex about it. The complexity resides in all the things that have to occur before it can be done, and therein lies the point I'm coming to.
For seventy-five years, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been "defending" the Second Amendment by backing law after law that violates the Second Amendment. It matters not that some of these laws seem to "lift restrictions" imposed by previous legislation. The fact is, these laws continue a systemic abridgement of the Second Amendment by deliberately skirting the central fact that all of these laws have to be removed before anyone's Second Amendment rights are truly restored. Piecemeal legislation that lifts some restrictions while allowing the greater bulk of restrictions to remain intact is not the solution to the problem and only adds to the widely held misperception that our rights are granted to us by government.
Whenever you hear some legislator say a law will "allow" you to do something you were denied doing before, this should raise a red flag in your mind. We don't have rights because government "allows" it. We have rights as a condition of our existence. The first and most fundamental of these is the right to life, which arises from the fact that we are alive. Because we are alive, we are entitled to continue living. No sane person would dispute that. Yet, there are many who dispute our right to defend our lives by use of force. Most libertarians will agree that they are against the use of force. It is a central tenet of the libertarian philosophy. However, most libertarians reserve the right of the individual to use force against force to protect one's life and property. After all, one cannot counteract forceful attempts on one's life by passive means. When our lives are in immediate danger of being snuffed out forever by some foe - whether it be a criminal or the government (I know; what's the difference?), there is no room for debating whether or not to use force to defend oneself. This is simple common sense, yet that is a commodity so sadly lacking in today's society.
Getting back to the remedy for this situation, if the answer is the repeal of all gun laws, then it should be immediately apparent to all that the people saying they are "protecting" the Second Amendment are either terribly ignorant of this simple, yet effective means of doing so - or they are lying. My observation is that it's the latter, not the former.
So-called "gun rights" organizations like the NRA have had four generations in which to get all gun laws repealed - yet they are not even demanding that this be done. Surely, the people running this organization are not so stupid as to fail to see this simple solution. They know very well what the problem is and they also know what the solution is. Yet, they will not act upon it. Why? This is a question every gun owner should be demanding the NRA to answer.
In light of this simple observation of the facts, it should be readily apparent to anyone with a mind that the NRA is not truly interested in protecting your Second Amendment rights - and never has been. To be fair, I am not singling out the NRA, here. There are other such organizations that are doing exactly the same thing. In fact, all of them are. They are all making the pretense of "defending the Second Amendment" while not doing anything to remove the mountain of laws that is the only impediment to the free exercise of the Second Amendment, in the first place. Again, why?
The answer is that all of these so-called "gun rights" organizations are simply another part of the false left-right paradigm. They are there to placate and misdirect the many people who, rightly, see the Second Amendment as an important protection of their freedoms. These organizations do so by appealing to their sense of patriotism, or to their fears about crime, and even by appealing to their fears of a despotic government - all while supporting the agenda of that same despotic government.
Some will say, "but the NRA has consistently backed concealed carry laws!" Yes, they have. But, what you have to do is examine, in detail, what these laws really do and what they really say. You also have to understand that you already have the right to carry a gun (or any other weapons) anywhere you want to, whether concealed or not. Your existing right to defend your life (which the Second Amendment was written to protect) is your "concealed carry permit." You don't require the permission of the government to carry any type of weapon anywhere, any time you want to. The only thing stopping you from doing so is your own fear of running afoul of the law. But the law, in this case, is illegitimate, in the first place, because it stands in direct violation of the Second Amendment.
The same is true of all these other laws that "allow" you to have back some of the freedoms stolen from you by the very same government that robbed you of them to begin with - and then requires you to ask permission for them and to jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops to obtain them. That is not freedom. It is tyranny, and by supporting such laws, the NRA and everyone else who supports these laws is supporting the continuance of tyranny in America.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Sovereignty Hypocrisy - Part III
In part I of this series, I exposed the several phony declarations of “state sovereignty” currently being announced in the media, lately, by pointing out the fact that several of these same states have also been concurrently passing new laws that further violate the Second Amendment, under the pretense of lifting Second Amendment restrictions and “protecting” gun owners from gun confiscations during martial law.
In part II, I went a step farther and pointed out the fact that all of the states “declaring sovereignty” also happen to have FEMA camp locations within their boundaries and that some of them have also played host to martial law training drills for soldiers, police, firefighters and other “first responders” to “emergency” situations like biological and nuclear attacks.
In this part of the series, I shall point out that some of the same states are also either complying with the federal government’s illegal mandate for Real ID, or are currently making preparations to do so.
First, there is Nevada, which has has introduced legislation (SB52) that will bring Nevada into full compliance with Real ID standards. This bill has been introduced by the Nevada State Senate’s Finance Committee.
Then there is Arkansas, which has passed a similar bill (HB 1978), introduced in the Arkansas House of Representatives by Rep. John Edwards (D-Little Rock).
As for the state of Washington, also declaring its “sovereignty,” there seems to be some question as to whether or not its governor’s assurance it would not comply with Real ID are genuine, given the state’s previous apparent acceptance of Real ID.
The same sort of backsliding seems to be occurring in New Hampshire (the state whose motto is “Live free or die”), where there was first an “overwhelming” majority voting to reject Real ID, back in 2006, but in 2008, Governor John Lynch reportedly drafted a letter to ask Homeland Security to merely delay the enforcement of Real ID in New Hampshire. What a difference two years makes.
In Michigan, which also initially said it would reject Real ID, in 2007, the tune has also changed for the worse.
While Missouri has recently announced it will reject Real ID, after all, it had originally approved funding to put into place a “verification hub” to accommodate Real ID, in 2008. Can they be expected to reject Real ID, or will they flip-flop again and use those funds as planned earlier? Given that it is the Missouri Information Analysis Center (directed by the governor and the Missouri State Highway Patrol) that has recently released to police officers and highway patrolmen an “alert” branding all patriots - including supporters of third party candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr - as “militia members,” to be feared as enemies of law enforcement in Missouri, it seems probable.
Oklahoma - first to “declare sovereignty,” has also taken a less than certain stance on Real ID, first approving of it, then appearing to back away from that decision. But, as I pointed out in Part II, Okahoma has several FEMA detention centers, including the main federal inmate transfer center west of the Mississippi, right here in Oklahoma City. So, again, what are we to believe about the sincerity of Oklahoma legislators’ intentions?
California, another of the states alleging to declare its “sovereignty,” has apparently caved on Real ID, first passing a law complying with it in 2006, then passing an initiative that prepares for it in 2007.
Georgia, also pretending to declare state sovereignty, has never seemed to have a problem with the contradictory approval of Real ID for its unwitting citizens, even going so far as to deny its citizens access to the Hartsfield-Atlanta Airport if they did not comply.
Indiana, another state supposedly declaring its sovereignty from the federal government, was among the first states to eagerly adopt Real ID. So much for that “sovereignty.”
As of 2007, Kansas, yet another of the several states “declaring sovereignty,” said it had no problem with Real ID, either.
Alabama, another “early adopter” of Real ID, has since also appeared to (maybe) flip-flop on the issue, making the pretense, later, of rejecting it, but, being among those states that has FEMA detention facilities while “declaring its sovereignty,” what are we to believe is the truth?
Maine, after pretending to stand against Real ID, in 2007, has, as of 2008, caved in to it. Sovereignty? Yeah, right.
As for those “sovereignty movement” states that appear to be rejecting Real ID, as I pointed out in Parts I and II, there are other concerns which make it doubtful that they will, ultimately follow through with their rejection of Real ID.
As with the so-called “sovereignty movement,” the “rebellion” against Real ID appears to be all for show - a contrivance to lull Americans into a state of false security, believing their states will protect them from the fascist federal regime, while, at the same time, those same states are preparing for the implementation of martial law in America.
If you have any further doubts of this, look into each of the “sovereign” states’ recent legislative track records and ask yourself if the blizzard of laws they are all feverishly passing lately either rejects or supports the rise of a fascist police state. If you actually bother to read those laws, I think you will find more support for it than rejection.
Ultimately, when a government tells you it will voluntarily limit its own powers, you can be sure that’s a warning that the opposite is about to occur, for no government in history has ever willingly relinquished its power - and none, once they have it - ever will.
NOTE: You can find Sovereignty Hypocrisy and Sovereignty Hypocrisy - Part II at the Proud Political Junkie's Gazette.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Traitors Among Us (OpEd News Version)
For those who can't deal with the subject of the elite's depopulation agenda (which it was my original intent to expose and to link to Monsanto), here is the newly published OpEd News version of the article, which was a compromise that had to be made to get it published there. Frankly, I don't like it, as it turned my expose' of the depopulation agenda of Monsanto into a mere "graft and corruption" piece, palatable to the sheep who read mainstream news sources. But, you gotta do what you gotta do, right?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Traitors Among Us
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.” - Cicero, 42 B.C.
Checking into the considerable power and influence of Monsanto, which is run by a gang of criminals who seem intent upon reaping huge profits from the mass murder of humanity, I have uncovered the following list of traitors to our country who should all be arrested, tried for treason against the United States of America and, if found guilty, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for their collusion with this rapacious and evil corporation:
In our House of Representatives, there are the following traitors:
Brad Ellsworth, Indiana, who has accepted $2,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Jim Costa, California, who has accepted $500 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Leonard Boswell, Iowa, who has accepted $4,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, who has accepted $3,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Sam Graves, Missouri, who has accepted $5,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Steve King, Iowa, who has accepted $4,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri, who has accepted $1,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Adrian Smith, Nebraska, who has accepted $1,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
In the Senate, there are the following traitors:
Tom Harkin, Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who has accepted $6,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia, who has accepted $14,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Patrick Leahy, Vermont, who has accepted $1,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Max Baucus, Montana, who has accepted $5,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, who has accepted $5,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas, who has accepted $3,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Pat Roberts, Kansas, who has accepted $3,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Mike Johanns, Nebraska, who has accepted $2,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Ben Nelson, Nebraska, who has accepted $1,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania, who has accepted $500 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota, who has accepted $1,000 in campaign contributions from Monsanto.
Make no mistake about it, this list of rogues and scoundrels consists of nothing less than a pack of traitors who would gladly sell out their own country in exchange for money and power. The evidence of this is right here before your very eyes. All of those listed above sit on the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. All wield the voting power to make laws that endanger your food supply.
For decades, now, we have been allowing criminals to exist in our Congress - men and women who have, beyond accepting bribes on a routine basis, also come and gone through the revolving door that connects big business to government, holding board member positions in large multinational corporations like Monsanto, as well as many others. We have allowed them to come and go from business and industry and government as they please, completely oblivious to the fact that this is illegal and unethical, to say the least. As Italian dictator Benito Mussolini once said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of corporate and state power.” It is this melding of government with corporate interests that constitutes fascism, in other words.
When it is probable that Monsanto shares in a hidden agenda to depopulate the earth, how can we sit idly by and allow it to pursue that agenda with the aid and collusion of those whom we have elected to represent our interests, not the interests of large multinational corporations?
For the relatively small sum of $186,250 Monsanto has bought and paid for nineteen representatives and senators who are supposed to be serving their constituents, not the interests of Monsanto. Their complicity with Monsanto’s goals has now been assured by their own lust for money and power.
If we truly wish to stop this murder and enslavement of humanity, we must act now to immediately call for the arrest and prosecution of those responsible - whoever they may be. To do anything less is to allow them to succeed in their agenda. What good is it to write to your congressman if your congressman is a traitor working against you?
Fight The Monsanto Monstrosity with Hydroponics
While it is essential to our future food supply - and thus, our survival - to defeat the Monsanto juggernaut in our midst, I’d like to introduce a ray of hope that may contain at least a partial solution to safeguarding our food supply from unwanted infiltration by Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” GMO seeds.
That solution comes in the form of an ancient farming technique known as hydroponics. While Nebuchadnezzar II built the hanging gardens of Babylon as early as 600 B.C., the science of hydroponic farming and gardening has, since the 1970s, become increasingly sophisticated and today, most of the world’s fruits and vegetables are grown in highly controlled hydroponic greenhouses.
Hydroponics is the practice of growing plants without soil by supplying them with all the necessary nutrients they require, directly at the root system, which is suspended in tanks of temperature-controlled water. This method of growing produce is actually superior in many ways to traditional soil-based farming, in that, it removes the possibility of soil-borne pests and diseases that can damage crops, it allows far greater yields because more can be grown in a smaller space than can be in a field, it is perfectly suited to organic gardening, it is better for food safety, and the resulting produce usually tastes better and is superior in nutritional value to its field-grown counterpart.
But, the main thing about hydroponic farming and gardening is that it can not only be carried out almost anywhere (including apartments, where small gardens can be grown indoors in very little floor space, supplementing one’s grocery shopping), but, since it is usually done in climate-controlled greenhouses, commercially, it avoids the possibility of contamination by wind-blown GMO seeds.
The big question, though, is will hydroponic gardens be outlawed? At present, there is a move on to do just that to regular soil-based home gardens, both here in America and in Europe, as well. Police helicopters equipped with thermal imaging equipment are increasingly being used to locate private homes and apartments in which people are using grow lights to nourish their hydroponic produce. Unfortunately, these grow lights are also used by marijuana growers, so the police are attempting to shut down hydroponic gardens by raiding and arresting hydroponic gardeners under the pretense of fighting the “drug war.” There are some tricks for avoiding this scenario, though. One of these is the use of LED grow lights, which have a lower temperature than conventional Metal Halide or halogen lights, as well as a longer life span (up to 18 hours a day for 7 ½ years) and lower operating costs.
Neverthless, hydroponics presents a way for many people to ensure their survival in the event of famine, whatever may cause it.
Some Hydroponics resources:
Monday, March 9, 2009
Next Free Zone Podcast - March 13th
In the next Free Zone podcast (available at the Free Zone website and at the Proud Political Junkie's Gazette) which is posted every Friday night (or the wee hours of Saturday morning, when I'm running late), I will be covering the topic of the so-called "Terminator Gene."
What is the Terminator Gene, you ask? Basically, it is a bio-engineered gene developed by Monsanto (the same wonderful folks who brought you all sorts of chemicals, including Roundup, and who are patenting genetically engineered seeds that are fast replacing our food supply). The purpose and function of this gene is to literally terminate the regeneration of Monsanto's patented plants - which just so happen to include the corn and other grains and vegetables your family is eating, probably without even knowing it.
Why would Monsanto want to terminate its own plants? Simple. They don't want farmers to be able to continue harvesting new crops without having to buy new "Roundup Ready" seeds from Monsanto.
But, the reasons for the Terminator Gene go far beyond Monsanto's greed - and have a far more sinister effect: the termination of our food supply and, quite possibly, the end of all life on earth.
For more on this, listen to the Free Zone podcast this Friday night (March 13th).
What is the Terminator Gene, you ask? Basically, it is a bio-engineered gene developed by Monsanto (the same wonderful folks who brought you all sorts of chemicals, including Roundup, and who are patenting genetically engineered seeds that are fast replacing our food supply). The purpose and function of this gene is to literally terminate the regeneration of Monsanto's patented plants - which just so happen to include the corn and other grains and vegetables your family is eating, probably without even knowing it.
Why would Monsanto want to terminate its own plants? Simple. They don't want farmers to be able to continue harvesting new crops without having to buy new "Roundup Ready" seeds from Monsanto.
But, the reasons for the Terminator Gene go far beyond Monsanto's greed - and have a far more sinister effect: the termination of our food supply and, quite possibly, the end of all life on earth.
For more on this, listen to the Free Zone podcast this Friday night (March 13th).
Welcome to the Free Zone!
For those who are not already familiar with my main website, The Free Zone, this will be the blog counterpart to that site. Here, I will publish my articles on various topics having to do with the New World Order. If you are familiar with the Free Zone website and my weekly Free Zone podcasts, you already know what those topics are.
In addition to the Free Zone website and the Free Zone podcast, I have been writing, as a contributor, for the Proud Political Junkie's Gazette for a while, now, and you can read my earlier articles there, as well hear my podcasts. Henceforth, my articles will appear both here and on PPJG. My objective in that is to increase the circulation for my anti-NWO message.
Having said that, you can expect the same sort of hard-hitting, no-nonsense reportage and commentary that those who are familiar with my website, podcasts and PPJ articles have come to know.
In addition to the Free Zone website and the Free Zone podcast, I have been writing, as a contributor, for the Proud Political Junkie's Gazette for a while, now, and you can read my earlier articles there, as well hear my podcasts. Henceforth, my articles will appear both here and on PPJG. My objective in that is to increase the circulation for my anti-NWO message.
Having said that, you can expect the same sort of hard-hitting, no-nonsense reportage and commentary that those who are familiar with my website, podcasts and PPJ articles have come to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
