Tag Archives: Constitution

Friday’s UN Attack On America – 17 Global Goals To Seize America’s Wealth – Sustainable Development Agenda 21 Style

Posted on September 26, 2015 by Rick Wells in Agenda 21,


283 un massacre 940


To those unfamiliar with the UN’s global government attack on freedom, capitalism and the United States, the ambiguous term “sustainable development” doesn’t have much meaning. It’s deliberately vague and can mean pretty much anything anyone chooses. Under the UN it means a “Nanny World” of global Marxism and austerity, with every person on the planet living at the same level of destitution and minimized resource consumption. To the degree that it is achieved by lifting up the poor, it’s equally dependent upon a corresponding degradation of the living standards of the more affluent.

The people of the United States pay the nanny’s salary and all expenses, which are extremely hefty and burdensome. It is the opposite of the system we Americans have thrived under in the past and which the rest of the world, led by our own hijacked government, is now working feverishly to destroy.

On Friday the anti-American global government, the United Nations, formally adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which they depict as a positive set of bold new Global Goals. It all depends upon which side of the equality equation one resides. For America and the West, it is a recipe for disaster, a hemlock cocktail that we didn’t order but which is being delivered to our table nonetheless, courtesy of the management; the global government cabal.

In a ceremony at UN headquarters in New York City which opened the UN sustainable Development Summit, our chief protagonist, General Secretary Ban Ki-moon said, “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere. It is an agenda for people, to end poverty in all its forms – an agenda for the planet, our common home.” It’s an agenda for all nations to subordinate themselves to UN dictates, and to surrender their wealth for redistribution. Somehow those stark realities became lost in the midst of all the feel-good grand proclamations and naiveté, by design.

It’s important to bear in mind while many of these vague and idealistic goals may seem worthwhile; most are completely unachievable, such as the first one below, and all come with a hefty price tag that must be paid by someone. That someone is the American people and our fellow Westerners. We, our nation and our way of life are under attack by the United Nations and by our government. It is an attack which, if allowed to proceed to its unnatural conclusion will be the end of us. That fact cannot be overstated. This is a takeover of the United States, our resources, our society and our sovereignty. We still have the power to say no, we can evict these global parasites and reclaim our sovereignty. All it requires is leadership, recognition of the threat and a sincere desire to preserve the greatest country on earth.

If we fail to do so and they are successful in implementing this global agreement and enforcing it, America as we have known it will cease to exist. It’s that simple. The following seventeen goals are from the UN document, which can be viewed in its entirety here.

Please note the unrealistic nature of the grand proclamations and goals, all intended to pull at the humanitarian heart strings and vilify those who resist the takeover as callous, uncaring and selfish. Pay attention to the insertion of central control in the UN over every aspect of our lives as Agenda 21 continues to be implemented without our approval and without any debate. It’s just being done, unilaterally, by those who have hijacked our government. The goals below are each linked to their original page on the UN website along with a short and in many cases disturbing excerpt of the UN’s own justification for their objectives.

Also pay particular note to the objectives of economic development and equality. That money has to come from somewhere and as our standard of living is reduced we all become more equal. It’s also worth noting that climate change and “sustainable development” are prominently featured as a justification for everything, in spite of both terms having no real world relevance.


Economic growth must be inclusive to provide sustainable jobs and promote equality.


It is time to rethink how we grow, share and consume our food.

If done right, agriculture, forestry and fisheries can provide nutritious food for all and generate decent incomes, while supporting people-centered rural development and protecting the environment.

Right now, our soils, freshwater, oceans, forests and biodiversity are being rapidly degraded. Climate change is putting even more pressure on the resources we depend on, increasing risks associated with disasters such as droughts and floods.


Ensuring healthy lives and promoting the well-being for all at all ages is essential to sustainable development.


Obtaining a quality education is the foundation to improving people’s lives and sustainable development.


Providing women and girls with equal access to education, health care, decent work, and representation in political and economic decision-making processes will fuel sustainable economies and benefit societies and humanity at large.


There is sufficient fresh water on the planet to achieve this. But due to bad economics or poor infrastructure, every year millions of people, most of them children, die from diseases associated with inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene.


Energy is central to nearly every major challenge and opportunity the world faces today. Be it for jobs, security, climate change, food production or increasing incomes, access to energy for all is essential.

Sustainable energy is opportunity – it transforms lives, economies and the planet.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is leading a Sustainable Energy for All initiative to ensure universal access to modern energy services, improve efficiency and increase use of renewable sources.


A continued lack of decent work opportunities, insufficient investments and under-consumption lead to an erosion of the basic social contract underlying democratic societies: that all must share in progress.

Sustainable economic growth will require societies to create the conditions that allow people to have quality jobs that stimulate the economy while not harming the environment.


Investments in infrastructure – transport, irrigation, energy and information and communication technology – are crucial to achieving sustainable development and empowering communities in many countries.

Inclusive and sustainable industrial development is the primary source of income generation, allows for rapid and sustained increases in living standards for all people, [except Westerners] and provides the technological solutions to environmentally sound industrialization.


There is growing consensus that economic growth is not sufficient to reduce poverty if it is not inclusive and if it does not involve the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental.

To reduce inequality, policies should be universal in principle paying attention to the needs of disadvantaged and marginalized populations.


However, many challenges exist to maintaining cities in a way that continues to create jobs and prosperity while not straining land and resources.

The challenges cities face can be overcome in ways that allow them to continue to thrive and grow, while improving resource use and reducing pollution and poverty.


Sustainable consumption and production is about promoting resource and energy efficiency, sustainable infrastructure, and providing access to basic services, green and decent jobs and a better quality of life for all [Again, not the Americans or Westerners – We’re paying the bill but excluded from the investments]. Its implementation helps to achieve overall development plans, reduce future economic, environmental and social costs, strengthen economic competitiveness and reduce poverty.

Sustainable consumption and production aims at “doing more and better with less,” increasing net welfare gains from economic activities by reducing resource use.

It also requires a systemic approach and cooperation among actors operating in the supply chain… engaging consumers through awareness-raising and education on sustainable consumption and lifestyles, providing consumers with adequate information through standards and labels and engaging in sustainable public procurement.


Climate change is now affecting every country on every continent. It is disrupting national economies and affecting lives, costing people, communities and countries dearly today and even more tomorrow.

People are experiencing the significant impacts of climate change, which include changing weather patterns, rising sea level, and more extreme weather events. [More of the usual false alarmist claims are in the original text] The poorest and most vulnerable people are being affected the most.

[Here’s their “justification” for requiring worldwide participation by every nation and the ability to control every country.]But climate change is a global challenge that does not respect national borders. Emissions anywhere affect people everywhere. It is an issue that requires solutions that need to be coordinated at the international level and it requires international cooperation to help developing countries move toward a low-carbon economy. To address climate change, countries are working to adopt a global agreement in Paris this December.


Careful management of this essential global resource is a key feature of a sustainable future.


Deforestation and desertification – caused by human activities and climate change – pose major challenges to sustainable development and have affected the lives and livelihoods of millions of people in the fight against poverty.


…dedicated to the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, the provision of access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable institutions at all levels.


A successful sustainable development agenda requires partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society. [Money going in every direction from a web of sources makes it much harder to track and much more lucrative.]

Urgent action is needed to mobilize, redirect and unlock the transformative power of trillions of dollars of private resources to deliver on sustainable development objectives. Long-term investments, including foreign direct investment, are needed in critical sectors, especially in developing countries. [Where few see the fraud and those that do are often in on it]

It isn’t hard to figure out who will be left out of the benefits when all of this new inclusiveness and “sustainable” everything is being created. Just as the foreigners are now being given preference within the United States for everything soon foreign nations will be given the advantage. We can only imagine, since it hasn’t yet been revealed, just how much of this type of outrageous and destructive anti-Americanism is hidden in Obamatrade.

As hard as it was being pushed by the criminals in the executive branch and the legislature, in conjunction with foreign commissions, we can be certain that it is not a benefit to the American people. There is no good news in this declaration for the American people, just more of the same anti-Americanism, much of it at the hands of our own “leadership.”

I’m Rick Wells – a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. I’m not PC; I call it like I see it. – Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us & www.truthburgers


no jail for kim davis! “She has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate…"

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Jailed After Refusing to Issue Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples


Conviction of conscience is our right as U.S. Citizens in order to influence our Government into governing according to "our" beliefs, the beliefs of every American Citizen.  In this case, the issue is very divided among us. 

Although I believe in the right to marry for everyone, I also believe in living free and being able to assert "Freedom of Speech" and Religion in this Country.  As Americans we have the right to freedom of Religion, and religious liberty as well as "Freedom of Speech".  However, per wiki, "legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights."

So there you have it in a nutshell.  The law which would apply in Kim Davis’ dilemma to try to force her into something she does not believe in, even though it was a known fact that she did not believe in "Gay Marriage" when she was "elected" by "the people" of Rowan County Kentucky.   The voter’s of Rowan County elected her based upon her personal and political beliefs at the time of her election.

Davis served as Rowan County chief deputy clerk, reporting to her mother, Jean W. Bailey, for 24 years.  

As shown below she won the general election with 3,909 votes.  The population was 6,845 at the time of the 2010 U.S. census

Where were all the voter’s at?  Only half of them have spoken.

Evidently the people of Rowan County wanted her to be in office because 3,909 people elected Kim Davis and now the "people" are complaining about how she Is doing her job. 

Rowan County 100% Reporting

Rowan County, Kentucky County Clerk Democratic primary, 2014:

Kim Davis

Elwood Caudill, Jr.

Charlotte Combess

Rowan County, Kentucky County Clerk general election, 2014

Kim Davis

John C. Cox


At the time of her election, Davis told the Morehead News,

"My words can never express the appreciation but I promise to each and every one that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and follow the statutes of this office to the letter."

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said the move would set a bad precedent.

"I think it’s absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty,"

This case has attracted not only State and National but international news as well.  As an Activist, and after reviewing the Rowan County Kentucky issue surrounding the "Kim Davis" situation again,  in all conscience , I must take her side.  She was elected into the office at a time when gay marriage was illegal and still is according to the Kentucky Constitution.  She was elected in a conservative State in 2014. 

Decided on June 26, 2015 by a Federal case, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.  Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).

Per the Rowan County website Kim Davis

"As county clerk I am responsible for providing many services to the people of Rowan county. These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting election duties and tax duties."

Embedded image permalink

Prior to her arrest, Kim Davis said the following on Thursday,         

"God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties," Davis told the judge before she was taken away by a U.S. marshal. "You can’t be separated from something that’s in your heart and in your soul."

After Rowan County clerk Kim Davis was taken into federal custody Thursday for repeatedly refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, every deputy clerk but Davis’ son have said they would grant licenses.

Because she is an elected official, Davis, a Democrat, can’t be fired from the position for refusing to comply with the court order. If she is found guilty of misconduct, Davis could be imprisoned for up to a year, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. The state legislature can also vote to impeach her, the paper noted, though that seems unlikely since most Kentucky voters oppose same-sex marriage.

There has been an honest and compliable offer to append the situation.  Per ABC news,

"Kim Davis thinks she has a solution to her problem.

The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judge’s orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News. "

On September 3, the Anti-Defamation League commented:

No one should ques­tion or chal­lenge Ms. Davis’s                           reli­gious beliefs.

It is therefore my opinion that because she was elected in a time when same sex marriage was illegal in Kentucky and there was no reason for her to believe at the time that same sex marriage would be legal in Kentucky during her reign as County Clerk,

…the fact that she is an elected County Clerk which was put into office by the people of Rowan County,

…That EVERYONE should have a right to express their religious beliefs and right to "Free Speech",

…and that the no one should have to succumb to a Federal law which goes against their religious or free speech beliefs, or against their Constitutional rights as Citizens of this Country,

I believe that she should be freed immediately and her name REMOVED from the marriage license application in Rowan County Kentucky in order to preserve her personal rights as a Citizen.

As well this will ascertain the rights of the same sex couples to marry which is according to Federal law, yet also preserves HER right to believe otherwise.

As long as her name remains on the marriage licenses it is possible that those who have married under her name in Rowan County may not have a valid marriage license per the Federal Judge.

We need to protect our Constitutional rights as well as States rights, as well as conforming to Federal law.  This is how I agree that it can be accomplished without doing no harm to anyone involved.

It is interesting to note that the Kentucky Constitution defines Marriage as "one man" and "one woman" only.  

In the not so distant future, if we allow our State Constitutions to be preempted by Federal law, the State’s will loose all rights and become like "Counties" instead of "States".  Are we going to cave in to the Federal Government and let that happen?

Kentucky is one of only four "Commonwealth States".  This designation, which has no legal meaning, emphasizes that they have a "government based on the common consent of the people"

Is the Kentucky Commonwealth nothing more than a "nomenclature"?

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1[1] of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions.

The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.

The voter’s have spoken.



Conflicting Federal Laws beg to differ on Marijuana enforcement

It Is interesting to follow the news on Marijuana/Cannabis/Hemp these days.  It seems that the law enforcement agencies have a really hard time deciphering which laws they can enforce and which ones to “not” enforce.

The Federal Government has previously issued  “policy guidelines” to help “guide” the differing agencies through the process of elimination but they still seem to be confused.

To refresh their memory I am inserting the link to that information HERE. 

Prior to that the “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement” was issued on August 29, 2013 to help ease enforcement issues as well.  The link to that information is HERE as well.

It is documented fact that they did “raid” an Indian Reservation yesterday where the Federal Government seized 12,000 Marijuana Plants along with some Marijuana packaged for sale.


A surveillance photo taken June 19 from the northbound shoulder of Highway 395 in rural Modoc County shows part of a large marijuana manufacturing site on the XL Ranch, which is American Indian land belonging to the Pit River Tribe. The white pickup truck belongs to a private security firm contracted to guard the site.

“By Denny Walsh


Law enforcement officers from at least four agencies on Wednesday swooped onto American Indian land occupied by two tribes in Modoc County and seized at least 12,000 marijuana plants and more than 100 pounds of processed marijuana.

In a release announcing the raids, Benjamin Wagner, the U.S. attorney in the Sacramento-based Eastern District of California – which includes Modoc County – emphasized, “Other than contraband marijuana and items of evidentiary value, no tribal property was seized and no federal charges are pending.”

Warrants signed Tuesday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney authorized federal agents to search “two large-scale marijuana cultivation facilities located on federally recognized tribal lands at the Alturas Indian Rancheria and the XL Ranch in Modoc County.” The county forms the northeast corner of California, with Oregon on the north and Nevada on the east.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article26834551.html#storylink=cpy  “

While surfing the WWW for further information about this the following article was found regarding enforcement of “Federal Law”.  Published April 2, 2015 in a Press Release by Drug Policy Alliance (DPA),

“Press Release | 04/02/2015

U.S. Justice Department Says It Will Ignore Federal Law and Prosecute People for Medical Marijuana Despite Congressional Spending Ban

Congress Passed One-Year Amendment in December Prohibiting Justice Department from Undermining State Medical Marijuana Laws; Members of both Parties Sought to Stop Prosecutions and Let States Set Their Own Medical Marijuana Policies

Drug Policy Alliance Calls on President Obama to Rein in Out-of-Control Prosecutors

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) told the Los Angeles Times that a bi-partisan amendment passed by Congress last year prohibiting DOJ from spending any money to undermine state medical marijuana laws doesn’t prevent it from prosecuting people for medical marijuana or seizing their property. The statement comes as the agency continues to target people who are complying with their state medical marijuana law. This insubordination is occurring despite the fact that members of Congress in both parties were clear that their intent with the amendment was to protect medical marijuana patients and providers from federal prosecution and forfeiture.

Read more here:  http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2015/04/us-justice-department-says-it-will-ignore-federal-law-and-prosecute-people-medical-mari   ”

All of this only serves to prove the theory that the only way to “make marijuana lawful” for everyone to grow and consume is to fight for the REPEAL OF THE PROHIBITION LAWS which have enslaved us for so long.

Of note, I found this article: 


States are conducting bold experiments with marijuana law. Since 1996,

eighteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the drug for medical

purposes, and two of them have legalized it for recreational purposes as well.


These states have also promulgated a growing body of civil regulations to replace

prohibition. The regulations cover nearly every facet of the marijuana market.

Colorado, for example, has adopted more than s

eventy pages of regulations governing just the distribution of medical marijuana.”

The link to this journal article is HERE.

Moving right along, I am going to input an article written by JackieTreehorn on a Forum concerning repeal of the CSA because, well, I could not have written it better myself – so I am inserting his wisdom here:

Lawmakers, sign on now, to repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Without this authority, the ill-conceived War On Drugs (WOD) stops in its tracks. No one has talked about the War On Drugs for a long time. It has not gone away. We still squander scarce resources on the fight against ourselves, at a time when foreign enemies are at the gate. Enough is enough, too much is too much, and more of this futile war would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Do now, for the War On Drugs, what the 21st Amendment did for the 18th, and with it, alcohol prohibition. Stop throwing good money after bad.
We should have learned a lesson from alcohol prohibition, namely that it doesn’t work.

Isn’t there enough blood in the streets already, without continuing to shoot ourselves in the feet? Do we really need to ruin the lives of so many of our own children, perhaps on the theory it is for their own good?
The CSA is unconstitutional. The CSA never had a constitutional amendment to enable it, like the 18th amendment enabled alcohol prohibition. The drug warriors have, so far, gotten away with an end run, subverting the lack of constitutional authority.

An authority over Interstate Commerce provides a pretext of constitutionality. Any excuse is better than none. So, how is that interstate commerce going, these days? Why would a bankrupt treasury distain to derive revenue from its number one cash crop? The anti-capitalist policy inhibits small farmers from cultivating for a taxed market, and gifts a tax-free monopoly to outlaws, some of whom may be friends of our enemies. This is not what the founders had in mind when they authorized meddling in interstate commerce. Lets bring the underground economy into the taxed economy. The Supreme Court got it wrong in Gonzales V Raich. Good on Clarence Thomas for noticing that the so-called constitutionality of the law is a mockery.   www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

How did we get this CSA? Was there an informed debate on the floor? Did the substances ever get their day in court? What congressman then, or now, would admit to knowing a thing or two about LSD? The lawmakers have never wanted to know more than it is politically safe to be against it. Governments around the world ignore fact-checkers and even their own reports. Forgive them, Lord, they make it their business to know not what they do. Common sense tells us that personal experience deepens the understanding of issues. Personal experience is a good thing. But we herd the experienced to the hoosegow. We keep them out of jobs. The many who avoid detection must live double lives.

congressmen who passed the CSA probably don’t even get it that they deny freedom of religion to those who prefer a non-placebo as their sacrament of communion. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom, says the First Amendment. But they did.

Many of the prohibited substances provide access to unique mental states. You can’t say your piece, if you can’t think it up. You can’t think it up, if you are not in a receptive state of mind. Neither the Constitution, nor its amendments, enumerates a power of government to prevent access to specific states of mind. How and when did the government acquire this power, to restrict consciousness and thought? Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, says the First Amendment. But they did.

What would happen if the CSA was enforced one hundred percent? What if all the civil disobedient turned in notarized confessions tomorrow? That is a double digit demographic. Even after years of spending more on prisons than on schools, the prisons don’t have that kind of sleeping capacity. Converting taxpayers into wards of the state mathematically increases the tax burden on the remainder. Higher tax burdens are not what the doctor is ordering at this time.

None of these substances are alleged to be as harmful as prison is. Granny’s justice is a saner benchmark. A kid caught with cigarettes must keep on smoking them, right then and there, until he or she has wretched. Drugs are sometimes accused of causing paranoia, but it is prohibition’s threat of loss of liberty, employment, and estate, that introduces paranoia. Apparently it is true that some of these substances do cause insanity, but the insanity is only in the minds of those who have never tried them. There shall not be cruel and unusual punishment, says the Eighth Amendment. But here it is, in the CSA.

In the 1630’s, the pilgrims wrote home glowingly that the native hemp was superior to European varieties. Now, the government pretends it has a right to prohibit farmers from the husbandry of native hemp, but it so doesn’t. Could an offender get a plea-bargain, by rolling over on someone higher up in the organization? The farmer does nothing to nature’s seed that God Himself does not do when He provides it rain, sunlight, and decomposing earth. How can it be a crime to do as God does? Is the instigator to get off scot-free, while small users are selectively prosecuted? God confesses, in Genesis 11-12, it was He who created the seed-bearing plants, on the second day. Then, He saw they were good. There you have it, the perpetrator shows no remorse about creating cannabis or mushrooms. Neither has He apologized for endowing humans with sensitive internal receptor sites which activate seductive mental effects in the presence of the scheduled molecules. Book Him, Dano.

Common Law must hold that humans are the legal owners of their own bodies. Men may dispose of their property as they please. It is none of Government’s business which substances its citizens prefer to stimulate themselves with. Men have a right to get drunk in their own homes, be it folly or otherwise. The usual caveats, against injury to others, or their estates, remain in effect.
The Declaration of Independence gets right to the point. The Pursuit Of Happiness is a self-evident, God-given, inalienable, right of man. The War On Drugs is, in reality, a war on the pursuit of happiness. Too bad the Declaration of Independence is not worth much in court.

Notwithstanding the failure of the Supreme Court to overturn the CSA, lawmakers can and should repeal the act. Lawmakers, please get to it now, in each house, without undue delay. Wake up.
Who has the guts to put America first and not prolong the tragedy?

We don’t need the CSA. The citizenry already has legal recourse for various injuries to itself and its estate, without invoking any War On Drugs. We should stop committing resources to ruin the lives of peaceful people who never injured anyone. If someone screws up at work, fire him or her for the screw-up. The Books still have plenty of laws on them, without this one.
Without the CSA, the empty prisons could conceivably be used to house the homeless. Homeland security might be able to use the choppers that won’t be needed for eradication. Maybe the negative numbers that will have to be used to bottom-line our legacy to the next generation can be less ginormous.

Cannabis has a stronger claim to the blessing of the state than do the sanctioned tobacco and alcohol. Cannabis does not have the deadly lung cancer of tobacco, nor the puking, hangover, and liver cirrhosis of alcohol. To the contrary, cannabis shows promise as an anti-tumor agent. Nor is cannabis associated with social problems like fighting and crashing cars. Cannabis-intoxication is usually too mellow for fighting, and impaired drivers typically drive within the limits of their impairment. The roads will be safer, if slower, for every driver that switches from drink to smoke. Coffee drinkers cause more serious accidents by zipping in and out of traffic and tailgating. To assure public safety on the road, cops need a kit to assess driving competence and alertness objectively. Perhaps science can develop a virtual reality simulator. Hopefully it could also detect drowsy, Alzheimer’s, and perhaps road-raging, drivers.

John McCain should recuse himself on the CSA repeal issue, due to the conflict of interest of potential competition for his family beer franchise. Both candidates have promised to end ‘failed programs’, but neither has issued a timetable, or a roadmap, for standing down on the WOD.

The debate how a crippled USA can manage ‘the two wars’ is blind. Hello, there are three, not two, wars. The War On Drugs has not let up, after 38 years of failure. Its costs are in the ballpark of the foreign wars. There is no lower-hanging, riper, or higher yielding budgetary fruit than to stop this third war, cold turkey. We are making new enemies faster than we are killing the old ones. We are losing old friends. In this national crisis of global humiliation, we should cut a little slack to those who still love the United States of America, no matter what they may be smoking. Stave off national meltdown, by repeal of the CSA, this week, if possible. TIA.

Without the War On Drugs, Americans can come together as a people in ways that are not possible with so many of our best and brightest under threat of disenfranchisement.”

The LINK to the above “Forum post” is HERE.


In conclusion I must reiterate what I have said before that if we want to end the war on drugs we must start by “repealing” the statutes which gave the Government and law enforcement agencies the power to enforce an unconstitutional statute to begin with.







45th Annual Smoke-In July 4, 2015 Washington, CO

Originally posted on Deadheads United™:

Marijuana Activist Call To Action

45th Anniversary Smoke-In

Saturday July 4th, 2015, Washington DC

“Smoke-in Alumni Reunite!”


“This demonstration, held on the day that commemorates 45 consecutive years of Smoke-In history in Washington DC, is an opportune moment to acknowledge the era of change created by Marijuana Activists across these United States of America.”


Smoke-In Alumni Call To Action

We are asking all Smoke-In Alumni to return to to Washington DC on Saturday July 4th, 2015 for the 45th Anniversary Smoke-In and join our demonstration at our Rally, the “Peace Mile March” and Concert in the contingent of the year they attended their first Smoke-In. This will be the best time during this current presidential administration to let your voice be heard in front of the White House and to be acknowledged as an American Veteran Marijuana Activist, and POW of THC!


During the 45 year history…

View original 252 more words

800 Years of the Magna Carta: Traditions Retained in the U.S. Constitution

800 years ago in the fields of Runnymede, the most important political covenant in the history of the western world was made. At sword point, King John was forced by his barons to sign a document that imposed limitations upon his power. Provided that the restrictions were properly enforced, no longer would the king be able to rule simply by royal prerogative.

Several calamities led to the schism between King John and the barons: prolonged wars, conscription mandates, unlegislated taxation, indefinite detention of political rivals, and a disagreement over the selection of England’s top church official.

The first struggle between the king and the barons was the result of harsh taxation – John imposed the western world’s first income tax at a rate of 1/13th and enforced the edict vigorously. For this reason, the Magna Carta importantly emphasizes that Parliament holds sole power over taxation. In England’s constitutional tradition, the idea that taxes cannot be levied without the consent of the people’s representatives became a cherished maxim.

This tradition was retained in the United States Constitution, as Congress is the only body that can lay and collect taxes. In contrast to John’s taxes, the document specified that only certain “activities” could be taxed rather than an individual’s income. Article I, Section 8 also places other limitations on taxes, such as the requirement that indirect taxes must remain at a uniform rate throughout the states. Upon its inception, the United States Constitution did not allow for an income tax.

A secondary act of duplicity resulted from John’s decision to intervene in the religious will of the people. This occurred as John attempted to choose a candidate as Archduke of Canterbury, the most powerful religious figure in the kingdom, against the will of the barons. Upon the death of Hubert Walter in 1205, John sought to elect John de Gray to the position, a bishop who acted as a close advisor to the king and benefactor of governmental power. Clashing with both the barons and the Catholic Church over the selection, John’s action resulted in an excommunication by the Pope and a rebuke by the barons.

The candidate favored and eventually consecrated by Innocent was a man named Stephen Langton, who received the support of the barons. Even though England’s state religion was Catholicism, John’s attempt to dictate the election was seen as non-warranted government interference with England’s religious institution.

Assuredly, the guarantee of free exercise of religion codified in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was influenced by the will of the barons to obstruct and oppose John’s religious intervention. Moreover, this circumstance made the explicit rejection of state religion a favorable prospect.

During his reign, John made many indiscriminate strides to charge and jail political dissidents. In this society, there was no independent judiciary, the lone system of law being that of what was directed by the king’s discretion. The Magna Carta asserts: “No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised (robbed of property) of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.” This text is sometimes called “Chapter 39,” and it established western civilization’s foundation for due process rights.

Today we recognize the affirmation of due process rights in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution largely because of this passage. The Seventh Amendment is also influenced by this text – it necessitates a representative cross section of the community to serve as jurors in criminal cases where defendants are charged. Both of these boundaries serve as barriers against an arbitrary government that seeks to detain individuals indefinitely.

In the first years after it was sealed, the Magna Carta ultimately failed to accomplish what it was intended to do – impose limitations on King John’s rule. Instead, the king totally disregarded the confines intended by the document, and plunged England into a new war against the barons. Ultimately, he died while trying to cling to his authoritarian tendencies, stubbornly refusing to abide by the candid attempt to inhibit his power.

Since then, the Magna Carta’s importance has gradually increased because of its unique position in the history of liberty – the first example of forced restrictions against royal authority. The document’s worth was reinvigorated throughout much of the remainder of English history, especially as callous kings attempted to tread the same path as John. In the 17th century, Charles Stuart was beheaded and James II was forcibly removed from the throne. In both cases, transgressions against the Magna Carta were cited as justification.

The Magna Carta did not guarantee liberty to all free persons, but it did serve as a lasting forerunner to all constitutions since. I wrote in my book that the Magna Carta “represented the first clear denunciation of the idea that the king is entitled to govern by his own personal prerogative, and that the only limitations to his rule are those of his own choosing.”

The constraints the barons forced upon John, of course, are timeless. If there is one certainty related to humanity, it is the unchanging confirmation that there will always be petty tyrants like John who rule with an iron fist, using the same tricks to violate individual liberty. The text should stand today as a reminder that limited government is always superior to unlimited, arbitrary rule. The brilliance of the Magna Carta remains its applicability to all ages – there will always be a King John somewhere.


Know Your Constitution



When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or 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.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Full Text of the Declaration of Independence

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not Legal Advice


Land of the Unfree – Police and Prosecutors Fight Aggressively to Retain Barbaric Right of “Civil Asset Forfeiture”

Image result for infowars logo


Their effort, at least at the state level, appears to be working


Efforts to limit seizures of money, homes and other property from people who may never be convicted of a crime are stalling out amid a wave of pressure from prosecutors and police.

Their effort, at least at the state level, appears to be working. At least a dozen states considered bills restricting or even abolishing forfeiture that isn’t accompanied by a conviction or gives law enforcement less control over forfeited proceeds. But most measures failed to pass.

– From the Wall Street Journal article: Efforts to Curb Asset Seizures by Law Enforcement Hit Headwinds

In a nutshell, civil forfeiture is the practice of confiscating items from people, ranging from cash, cars, even homes based on no criminal conviction or charges, merely suspicion. This practice first became widespread for use against pirates, as a way to take possession of contraband goods despite the fact that the ships’ owners in many cases were located thousands of miles away and couldn’t easily be prosecuted. As is often the case, what starts out reasonable becomes a gigantic organized crime ring of criminality, particularly in a society where the rule of law no longer exists for the “elite,” yet anything goes when it comes to pillaging the average citizen.

One of the major reasons these programs have become so abused is that the police departments themselves are able to keep much of the confiscated money. So they actually have a perverse incentive to steal. As might be expected, a program that is often touted as being effective against going after major drug kingpins, actually targets the poor and disenfranchised more than anything else.

Civil asset forfeiture is state-sanctioned theft. There is no other way around it. The entire concept violates the spirit of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution. In case you have any doubt:

The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Civil asset forfeiture is a civil rights issue, and it should be seen as such by everyone. Just because it targets the entire population as opposed to a specific race, gender or sexual orientation doesn’t make it less important.

The problem with opposition in America today is that people aren’t seeing modern battle lines clearly. The greatest friction and abuse occurring in these United States today comes from the corporate-fascist state’s attack against average citizens. It doesn’t matter what color or gender you are. If you are weak, poor and vulnerable you are ripe for the picking. Until people see the battle lines clearly, it will be very difficult to achieve real change. Most people are divided and conquered along their superficial little tribal affiliations, and they completely miss the bigger picture to the peril of society. Which is why women will support Hillary just because she’s a woman, not caring in the least that she is a compromised, corrupt oligarch stooge.

In case you have any doubt about how little your opinion matters when it comes to the rights of police to rob you blind, read the following excerpts from the Wall Street Journal:

Efforts to limit seizures of money, homes and other property from people who may never be convicted of a crime are stalling out amid a wave of pressure from prosecutors and police.

Read that sentence over and over again until you get it. This is a free country?

Critics have taken aim at the confiscatory powers over concerns that authorities have too much latitude and often too strong a financial incentive when deciding whether to seize property suspected of being tied to criminal activity.

But after New Mexico passed a law this spring hailed by civil-liberties groups as a breakthrough in their effort to rein in states’ forfeiture programs, prosecutor and police associations stepped up their own lobbying campaign, warning legislators that passing such laws would deprive them of a potent crime-fighting tool and rip a hole in law-enforcement budgets.

Their effort, at least at the state level, appears to be working. At least a dozen states considered bills restricting or even abolishing forfeiture that isn’t accompanied by a conviction or gives law enforcement less control over forfeited proceeds. But most measures failed to pass.

“What happened in those states is a testament to the power of the law-enforcement lobby,” said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning advocacy group that has led a push for laws giving property owners more protections.

It seems the only people in America without a powerful lobby group are actual American citizens. See: Charting the American Oligarchy – How 0.01% of the Population Contributes 42% of All Campaign Cash

Prosecutors say forfeiture laws help ensure that drug traffickers, white-collar thieves and other wrongdoers can’t enjoy the fruits of their misdeeds and help curb crime by depriving criminals of the “tools” of their trade. Under federal law and in many states, a conviction isn’t required.

“White-collar thieves,” they say. Yet I haven’t seen a single bank executive’s assets confiscated. Rather, they received taxpayer bailout funds with which to pay themselves record bonuses after wrecking the global economy. Don’t forget:

The U.S. Department of Justice Handles Banker Criminals Like Juvenile Offenders…Literally

In Texas, lawmakers introduced more than a dozen bills addressing forfeiture during this year’s legislative session, which ended Monday. Some would either force the government to meet a higher burden of proof or subject forfeiture programs to more stringent financial disclosure rules and audits.

But only one bill, which law-enforcement officials didn’t object to, ultimately passed. It requires the state attorney general to publish an annual report of forfeited funds based on data submitted by local authorities. That information, at the moment, is only accessible through freedom-of-information requests.

This is what a corporate-statist oligarchy looks like.

Shannon Edmonds, a lobbyist for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said local enforcement officers and prosecutors “educated their legislators about how asset forfeiture really works in Texas.”

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan last month vetoed a bill that would, among other things, prohibit the state from turning over seized property to the federal government unless the owner has been charged with a federal crime or gives consent.

Remember, the terrorists hate us for our freedom.

Prosecutors said the Tenaha episode was an isolated breakdown in the system. “Everybody knows there are bad eggs out there,” Karen Morris, who supervises the Harris County district attorney’s forfeiture unit, told Texas lawmakers at a hearing this spring. “But we don’t stop prosecuting people for murder just because some district attorneys have made mistakes.”

When police aren’t out there stealing your hard earned assets without a trial or charges, they can often be found pounding on citizens for kicks. I came across the following three headlines this morning alone as I was the scanning news.

Cop Exonerated After Being Caught on Video Brutally Beating A Tourist Who Asked For A Tampon

Kids in Police-Run Youth Camp Allegedly Beaten, Threatened By Cops

Florida Cop Charged With On-Duty Child Abuse; Suspended With Pay

This is not what freedom looks like.

For related articles, see:

The DEA Strikes Again – Agents Seize Man’s Life Savings Under Civil Asset Forfeiture Without Charges

Asset Forfeiture – How Cops Continue to Steal Americans’ Hard Earned Cash with Zero Repercussions

Quote of the Day – An Incredible Statement from the City Attorney of Las Cruces, New Mexico

“Common People Do Not Carry This Much U.S. Currency…” – This is How Police Justify Stealing American Citizens’ Money


Vermont Bill would Legalize Marijuana, Effectively Nullify Federal Prohibition

A bill introduced in Vermont would authorize marijuana to be taxed and regulated similar to alcohol, legalizing the plant, and effectively nullifying the federal prohibition on the same.

Senate Bill 95 (S.95) was introduced on Feb. 18 by State Sen. David Zuckerman (D-Chittenden). If this bill is successful, Vermont would become the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes through the legislature rather than the popular vote.

SB95 would allow “a person who is 21 years of age or older to possess limited amounts of marijuana for personal use, while retaining civil and criminal penalties for possession above the limits and for unauthorized dispensing or sale of marijuana” and would create “civil penalties for a person who is under 21 years of age who possesses marijuana or attempts to procure marijuana from a registered marijuana establishment.”

Under the bill, Vermont residents would be authorized to possess “two mature marijuana plants; seven immature marijuana plants; one ounce of marijuana; and any additional marijuana produced by the person’s marijuana plants, provided that any amount of marijuana in excess of one ounce of marijuana must be possessed in the same secure indoor facility where the plants were cultivated.” Nonresidents would be allowed to possess a quarter ounce of marijuana.

Dispensaries and retail marijuana shops would be allowed under SB95 if they pay the necessary fees and follow appropriate licensing procedures outlined in the bill. Marijuana distribution centers must be 1000 feet from schools and child-care facilities. Marijuana possession and distribution conducted in ways not authorized by SB95 would be punishable by a civil infraction, and then possibly jail time.

Bills like SB95 are sweeping the nation, and for good reason. Reforms like these can affect federal policy while circumventing the Washington D.C. power structure completely. The best thing about measures such as SB95 is that they are completely lawful and Constitutional, and there is little if anything the feds can do to stop them!


Congress and the president claim the constitutional authority to ban marijuana. The Supreme Court concurs. However, nearly two-dozen states have taken steps to put the well-being of their citizens above the so-called federal supremacy by legalizing marijuana to varying degrees anyway.

“The rapidly growing and wildly successful state-level movement to legalize marijuana, either completely, or for medical use, proves that states can successfully effectively reject unconstitutional federal acts. The feds can claim the authority to prohibit pot all they want, but it clearly has done nothing to deter states from moving forward with plans to allow it, pushed by the will of the people,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said.

The momentum is on our side, but Vermont cannot legalize it without your help. This effort needs your support to achieve victory. SB95 is currently in Senate Committee on Judiciary where it will need to successfully pass through before it can receive a full vote in the state senate.


If you live in Vermont, support this bill by following all the action steps at THIS LINK.

All Other States, take action to push back against the federal drug war at this link.