It was Karl Marx who said, “The family… must itself be theoretically and practically destroyed.”


family-and-law

 

The Ruse of Children’s Rights

By Rosanne Lindsay

We are entering the era of mandates and government invasion, where up is down, privileges are rights, and children are the property of the State. In the land of liberty, all is illusion.

According to William Wagner, J.D., magistrate judge, “Today, a majority of the Supreme Court no longer treats the parents’ right to control and direct the upbringing of their child as a fundamental liberty.”

The denial of parents’ rights by State authorities has become more frequent over the last five decades as government has tested its reach under the color of law. Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. Case in point: A Medical Kidnap website documents thousands of cases around the country where hospitals have taken possession of children based on a medical diagnosis “in the best interest of the child,” with the court’s approval. Without being reported in the mainstream media, the general population is blind to these acts while unsuspecting families are targeted and picked off one at a time.  After years of market testing, State governments are now unveiling draconian laws without fanfare.

The Bill of Rights for Children and Youth In California

After the turmoil and confusion surrounding the 2015 passage of a mandatory vaccination law SB277 in California to ban children from attending private or public school without full compliance with the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, California proposes SB-18. The Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California (SB-18) seeks to usurp the natural rights of parents as caregivers. Taken together, these two laws set a dangerous precedent that not only spells the end of medical freedom but also the end of parental rights whenever a government official or agency declares it so.

When did an obligation to care for and raise children suddenly turn parents into potential child abusers under the law? Although tyranny seems to have reared its ugly head overnight, history shows we have all been living this ideology under a slow boil. It was Karl Marx who said, “The family… must itself be theoretically and practically destroyed.” He argued fiercely that government and its authority must be substituted for parental authority for the sake of Capitalism. What he didn’t say was his desire to maintain a materialistic, feudal society where people are commodities without consciousness. 

Marxism socializes people to think in a way that justifies inequality by teaching children to accept there will always be someone in authority who they must obey – the Master-Slave dynamic. Marxist philosophy redistributes the wealth to third world countries that have suffered under socialist/totalitarian policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes.

There is no other purpose for anti-social, socialist dictates other than to unravel the fabric of the family. As Confucius said, “The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.” As the family goes, so goes the nation. 

The strength of this nation has eroded from the inside due to a federal government without accountability, through policies that have: 1) drained the economy with never-ending war, 2) transferred wealth from Main Street to Wall Street, and 3) outsourced American jobs overseas, among other things. The stage has been set for the resurgence of a Marxist State, primed under the guise of liberalism, which pushes vaccine mandates for children while claiming to be the party of choice when it comes to abortion rights. Legislative and judicial overreach has resulted in a new social state where the citizenry, kept in the dark and powerless, are none the wiser.

When Rights Are Legalized

Inherent rights are natural and inborn, granted by the Creator. They come from our humanity under Natural Law, not from man-made laws. Rights granted and legalized by governments are not rights, but privileges that can be restricted and taken away by legislation or Executive Command. Legalese is the hidden language that redefines words as tools to expand the scope and power of the State.  Under statutes, a “person” is a legal fiction, not a human being with free will. At the same time, a “corporation” is defined as “a number of persons united in one body, so it can acquire wealth, expand, and enjoy other rights, even though a corporation is incapable of loyalty or love.

A government that gives itself power by its own authority is a rogue government and must be stopped because the trend is toward a One World Government homogenizing and standardizing all laws under International treaties. (e.g., Trans-Pacific-Partnership trade agreement). FYI: The United Nations (UN) hopes to “reduce inequality” by implementing new norms of global socialism and corporate fascism as part of their Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

Global Treaties Usurp National Law

In 2011, the US was the only country that had not ratified a UN International Treaty called the UN Rights of the Child (UNCRC). However, this treaty appears to be the foundation of several U.S. court decisions regarding child placement, as well as the new California law SB -18 the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California. Like so many laws that do the opposite of their intended purpose (i.e., Clean Skies Act), the Rights of the Child Act strips the child of any rights.

One provision of the UNCRC states that a child’s view should be taken into equal consideration along with the parents. This means anytime there is a conflict between parent and child, a government referee can decide what is in the best interest of the child.  The U.S. courts already control for the “best interests of a child” with a Guardian ad litem” (GAL) to investigate solutions in cases of divorce and parental responsibilities. However, author and Family Psychologist John Rosemond says, “This [Act] is a convention on the stripping of rights from American parents and parents all over the globe.”

In other countries that have adopted the Act’s provisions, like Sweden, home schooling is illegal, and carries the risk of criminal charges and children being removed from the home. In Belgium, doctors can terminate the lives of babies under one year old if the child is disabled. No parental consent is required. President Clinton approved this treaty during his term. The only thing that prevents implementation is a two-thirds approval by the Senate.

California is a testing ground in America. As California goes, so goes the nation. Yet even without formal U.S. ratification of the Act, U.S. federal courts are taking the lead from international law to advance the objectives of the UNCRC. States legislatures are lifting articles straight out of the UN treaty and passing them under new laws (i.e., Customary International Law), thereby making UN law the supreme law of the land. The Legislative and Judicial branches are already joined at the hip with Executive Branch approval. When Child Protective Services acts as child collection agencies then Social Services means the child belongs to the State.

Withdraw Consent

There is a difference between legal and lawful and that distinction is playing out in the American family.

Going forward we must resist playing the their game of claiming “Parental Rights” vs. “Children’s Rights” in a corrupt system that no longer recognizes Inherent Rights.

 

Instead, we must take back the language and determine who we are if we are to retain our Natural Rights and those of our children. Are we a person-corporation or a soul embodied? Do we have free-will or do we ask for permission from an outside authority? Do we consent to the dictates of a rogue government or do we withdraw consent? Do we own our bodies or does the State?  Do we recognize inalienable rights over privileges and act on them? Do we reclaim our sovereignty as free-will beings? It is time to redefine the words we live by to work in our favor.

In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it. – Tom Woods, Tenth Amendment Center

Rosanne Lindsay is a board certified Naturopathic doctor, Tribal healer under the Turtle Island Provider Network, Mother, Daughter, Earth Keeper, liberty-lover, writer, and author of the book The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet. Find her on Facebook at Natureofhealing and consult with her (long-distance consults available) at natureofhealing.org.

CONTINUE READING…

Alito: Obama besieged Constitution with ‘unprecedented challenges’


 

 

Image result for Justice Samuel Alito

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com

 

Alerting fellow Americans, United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Samuel Alito revealed that the nation’s constitutional structure has undergone “unprecedented challenges” in recent years under the Obama administration, warning that citizens’ religious freedom is in “greater danger” today than perhaps ever before.

While addressing conservative litigators for 45 minutes Thursday at the Federalist Society’s 2016 National Lawyers Convention, Alito stressed what a great impact the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had on the bench and America’s justice system.

U.S. Constitution under attack

His speech also highlighted the threats to constitutional rights that Americans face under the Obama administration – including attacks on their religious liberty and freedom of speech – noting how the constitutional principle of the separation of powers has been in jeopardy for years.

“When Nino [Scalia’s nickname] spoke to students, he would often ask them what is most important about the Constitution and – more times than not – the answer would refer to the Bill of Rights,” Alito pointed out, according to The Christian Post. “Nino would say, ‘Wrong. What is most important is the structure, the separation of powers at the federal level and the division of sovereignty between federal government and the states.’ Human rights guarantees are worthless without a governmental structure to protect them.”

The 66-year-old judicial expert impressed the fact that President Barack Obama has consistently bombarded the nation’s founding principles in order to impose his own agenda on America.

“In recent years, we have seen unprecedented challenges to our constitutional structure, [as] the executive has also claimed the power to make out-in-out changes in the laws enacted by Congress,” Alito impressed.

Bringing up the 2014 SCOTUS case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environment Protection Agency, Alito shared how the Obama administration used it to take unilateral actions so it could skirt around Congress, adding how the White House also refused to enforce specific laws enforced by the legislative body.

The outgoing president has used his allegiance to the green agenda’s so-called climate change policies to push his big government regulatory plans through.

“The case stems from Obama’s EPA disregarding of air pollution regulations established by Congress in the Clean Air Act and effectively creating its own stiffer pollutant regulations that also regulated greenhouse gas emissions,” The Christian Post reports.

Stating his case and point against the president, Alito talked about the dealings between the EPA and Congress.

“Congress wrote certain numbers into an environmental statute – numbers pertaining to pollutants,” said the justice, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006. “Now at the time, Congress had in mind conventional beliefs. It was only there that the Supreme Court held that pollutants under the Clean Air Act refer not just to the kind [of pollutants Congress had in mind] when enacting the statute, but also greenhouse gases. Now, if you apply those numbers to the conventional pollutants, they made perfect sense. But if you apply them to greenhouse gases, you get crazy results, as the EPA recognized.”

Alito went on to emphasize that the Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is an expert at manipulating variables to work to its advantage – an unlawful approach that was overlooked and approved by his colleagues on the bench.

“So, what does the EPA do?” he posed. “Well, the EPA had an eraser and had a pen. So, it took the statute and erased the numbers that Congress wrote and wrote in numbers that were more to its liking. Nino’s opinion for the court held that this was illegal, but four of our colleagues thought what the EPA did was just fine.”

Forgetting faith …

Moving onto the issue of religious liberties, Alito noted his regret about a recent post-Scalia determination SCOTUS made this year, when a majority of his fellow justices agreed not to review a case that involved serious implications to the way Americans can or cannot live out their faith.

“After the state of Washington enacted a law requiring all pharmacies to sell contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs – like Plan B – a Christian pharmacy owner sued the state and argued that selling the drug would violate his family’s religious convictions,” The Christian Post’s Samuel Smith recounted. “After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the pharmacy’s argument, they appealed to the Supreme Court.”

Alito filled the audience in that he and his fellow SCOTUS Justices reviewed local pharmacist associations’ amicus brief informing the bench that “the practice of referring customers to other pharmacies is standard because no pharmacy could possibly stock every single drug that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The conservative justice reaffirmed his disagreement with his colleagues decision not to review the case, pointing out some of the arguments he mentioned on his written dissent about SCOTUS passing the case up.

“In this case, there was strong evidence that the law was enacted to rid the state of those troublesome pharmacists who objected to these drugs on religious ground,” Alito asserted. “But, the Ninth Circuit sustained the law and the Supreme Court didn’t think that was a case that deserved to be reviewed.”

He then restated his belief that Americans of faith had better brace themselves because of the extreme progressive lean of the justice system that has drastically shifted Left under the Obama administration.

“Freedom of religion is in greater danger [today],” Alito alarmed the crowd. “I am reminded of a song by the latest recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature [Bob Dylan] –  ‘It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there.'”

Education … or Leftist indoctrination?

When moving on to the condition of higher education in America, Alito condemned the intolerance demonstrated by students, faculties and administrators from college campuses from coast to coast.

“Consider this … Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote that ‘If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official – high or petty – can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism or religion,'” Alito quoted from behind the microphone. “But on college campuses – both public and private – a new orthodoxy rules.”

He then presented the crowd with a hypothetical.

“Suppose a student were to test Justice Jackson’s proposition today by wearing an article of attire supporting a political candidate who is unpopular among the students and the professors by proclaiming that the United States is a great and good country, and by expressing certain conditional religious beliefs,” Alito posed before introducing his follow-up question. “How would that go over?”

The conservative judge indirectly answered his own question by referring to recent injustices that took place on college campuses, where zero tolerance was afforded to those holding Right-leaning views and stances on the 2016 election and LGBT issues.

“Just ask one black student at Queensborough Community College in New York City, who was attacked for wearing a Donald Trump hat,” Alito advised. “Or ask the professor at Marquette University who was suspended and had his tenure revoked after he wrote a blog post that was critical of another professor who refused to let a student with traditional beliefs on gay marriage discuss his opinions in her class.”

CONTINUE READING…

My Grandson came over the other day


 
Jimmy D Lawson

1 hr ·

How Will You Answer?
By J. L. (Max) Brewster

My Grandson came over the other day
He’s grown up now and I’m old and gray
Asking Grandpa, why did you give my freedom away?
With a trembling voice, this is all I could say
I tried my hardest, I protested, I wrote
To my Congressman, Senators, and I did always vote
I learned about issues, the Constitution, and more
I thought of your brother and cousin, I’ll stop this I swore
I found like minded people but our numbers were few
We gathered together, got involved, we all knew
That our republic was dying the Constitution was dead
Put down by elitists and those who wore red
I did all I could and I’m sorry my son
Tears rolled down my face, I wish we had won
He gave me a hug, said I’m proud Grandpa to know
That you tried your hardest, wouldn’t let freedom go
I thought of his question I wished would have been
Grandpa what saved the republic? How did you win?
You had no money, connections or clout
How did this happen? What was it about?
I told him how corruption had swept over the land
People gathered together, they marched hand in hand
To the Capitol in Washington, then their state, then their town
Once involved and informed no one could keep them down
We chose principled leaders to take up the fight
Against power, corruption, and to do what was right
Things started to change rather quickly at first
Freedom flooding the land like a dam that had burst
Government shrunk smaller and smaller, it was amazing to see
Bureaucrats getting their pink slips instead of you and me
Businesses started to prosper and many came back
The reason? No magic, just much lower tax
I came back to reality my heart sank like a stone
Back to reality, no freedom, I’m chilled to the bone
The government runs everything they knock on my door
Inspecting my thermostat, my light bulbs and more
I still keep on thinking and remembering a time
When I was truly free and my property was mine
But my Grandson knows one thing that he is not free
No, not like I was and he is beginning to see
That maybe its possible to once more light that spark
Of freedom and liberty that will light up the dark
And maybe his generation will turn the spark to a flame
That went out under my watch, I still am to blame
So when your Grandson comes to you a generation from now
What will he say? Will he ask how
Did you lose my freedom? Why didn’t you fight?
Or will he say? I love you Grandpa, thank you for protecting my rights

WWII Veteran: 90% of Congress are Traitors to Our Country


World War II Veteran Warren Bodeker from Plains, Montana is no stranger to controversy. He was a war hero who was involved in the saving of 2,000 American prisoners from execution by the Japanese, only to return home to have the federal government intimidate him and threaten to take his home and land, which were fully paid for. Bodeker sat down with Cliven Bundy in 2014 to talk about government tyranny, but shortly before that, he took time to point out that much of our problems lie with those who are supposed to serve us.

According to Bodeker, ninety percent of Congress are traitors to our country.

That might seem like a harsh statement to many, but consider that their oath binds them to limited tasks, of which is to "uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

This oath is to the Constitution, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, not a party nor a political figure.

Bodeker took time to speak of his own oath and how Congress has failed miserably in upholding their own.

This man was a true treasure to America. Though he died in September 2015 at the age of 92, Bodeker had many words of wisdom, if only we would heed them. Take a listen.

CONTINUE THRU LINK TO VIDEO (WORTH WATCHING)!

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/wwii-veteran-90-of-congress-are-traitors-to-our-country/#mri4dD4ZTHmTAR02.99

Kentucky Bill Would Direct Legislature to Block Enforcement of Federal Gun Control


FRANKFORT, Ky. (Jan. 8, 2016) – A bill introduced in the Kentucky House would make it the express duty of the state legislature to prevent implementation of unconstitutional federal gun laws. Passage of the legislation would represent a small first step toward protecting the right to keep and bear arms in the Commonwealth.

A coalition of six Republican legislators filed House Bill 182 (HB182) on Jan. 6. The legislation declares that all federal acts, rules, regulations, laws and orders relating to firearms “that violate the Constitution of the United States and the Amendments thereto” are “invalid, null, void, not recognized, and of no effect” in Kentucky. The bill goes on to direct the state legislature to take all measure necessary to block enforcement of such laws.

“The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall adopt and enact all measures necessary to prevent enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations regarding firearms, past, present, or future, that violate the true meaning of the Constitution of the United States and the Amendments thereto as expressed by the founders of the United States and the ratifiers of the Constitution of the United States, specifically the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

HB182 rests on sound constitutional principles, and a statutory requirement directing the state to take action against unconstitutional federal gun laws would set the stage toward interposing protecting the right to keep and bear arms in Kentucky.

But the language of HB182 is not a complete solution in one fell swoop, since it does not provide any mechanism to determine whether a given federal act violates the true meaning of the Constitution. Before the legislature could even take action on a specific federal act under HB182, it would have have to issue an opinion of constitutionality. This is something that would have to be revisited in future legislation should the bill pass.

Alternatively, the bill could be amended to direct the legislature to refuse state cooperation with, and prohibit the use of state assets and personnel in the enforcement of, any current and/or future federal actions relating to firearms. This approach removes the need for a determination of constitutionality and would have immediate effect on any new gun control coming from Washington D.C. This also sets the foundation to reject and nullify any current federal gun control too.

Legislation introduced in Virginia for 2016 takes this approach (get model legislation here). By immediately banning state cooperation, state can nullify future federal gun control in practice and effect. The federal government depends heavily on state assistance to enforce its laws.

The Second Amendment Preservation Act also cuts through the legal arguments. The Second Amendment Preservation Act rests on the well-established anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government cannot force or compel states to provide assistance in the implementation or enforcement of federal acts or laws, whether constitutional or not. Taking an anti-commandeering approach removes the need for a determination of constitutionality.

NEXT STEPS

HB182 was referred to the House Judiciary committee where it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving on to the full House for further communication.

If you live in Kentucky: click HERE and follow the steps to help pass HB182

If you live in another state: click HERE and follow the steps to protect the right to keep and bear arms in your state.

CONTINUE READING…

HB182 (BR1061) – A. Wuchner, M. Rader, T. Couch, K. King, S. Miles, R. Webber
     AN ACT relating to preserving the right of Kentuckians to own and use firearms and declaring an emergency.
     Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237 to require the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent the enforcement of federal acts that violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; EMERGENCY.

     Jan 06, 2016 – introduced in House
     Jan 07, 2016 – to Judiciary (H)

Because the feds rely heavily on state and local law enforcement assistance to enforce federal measures, passing a state law banning such assistance will make federal gun control “nearly impossible to enforce.”


(Please follow the links below for information)…(each pic is a link as well)…

Andrew Napolitano: Federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce without state assistance

 

Nullify Gun Control

Virginia vs Feds

2nd Amendment Preservation Act

TAKE ACTION: Contact your state rep AND senator – and urge them to introduce this legislation for your state.

Find your legislators’ contact info at this link.

BILL TRACKINGat this link.

STEP 1: LINE IN THE SAND ON ANY NEW GUN CONTROL (pdf here)

All states (except Alaska, Idaho, and Tennessee) should pass this legislation.

STEP 2-3: Ban enforcement of specific current federal gun control, expanding to all in the future.

Idaho and Alaska should pursue these steps

LOCAL: City and County Resolution/Ordinance Banning Local Assistance to Federal Gun Control Measures (pdf here)

All local communities can begin this process immediately. With some sheriffs already announcing that they will not participate in the enforcement of new federal gun control, the time is now to get that on the books – so that a future sheriff (or police chief) can change course.

Tenth Amendment Center

SOURCES of Information:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/2nd-amendment-preservation-act/

http://shallnot.org/andrew_napolitano_federal_laws_nearly_impossible_to_enforce_without_state_assistance/

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/12/virginia-bill-would-effectively-nullify-future-federal-gun-control-in-the-state/

http://openstates.org/ky/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-moves-on-guns-with-executive-actions-that-circumvent-congress/2016/01/05/97f23336-b3bc-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-hands  (President speaks at 42 minutes into the video)

Obama moves to further regulate gun sales with executive actions that circumvent Congress

Employers tightening drug policies since marijuana legalization


"There is what I consider to be a significant number of employers that are saying they wouldn’t hire an employee that uses marijuana," said Evren Esen, SHRM’s director of survey programs.

 

Published: Dec 15, 2015, 11:37 am

By Bloomberg News

With marijuana legalization spreading state-by-state and the U.S. government backing away from aggressive enforcement of federal laws, employers have begun to reconsider their substance abuse policies. They’re making them tougher.

In a first-of-its-kind survey, the Society of Human Resource Management asked 623 HR managers in states where marijuana is legal about their drug policies.

Unsurprisingly, getting stoned at work is largely frowned upon, SHRM found, regardless of legality. It turns out a large chunk of workplaces also won’t hire employees who smoke on their own time.

Marijuana is legal for recreational use in the nation’s capital and four states, including Colorado. In almost 20 others, it’s allowed for medicinal purposes.

More than half of the HR managers surveyed said they have policies, or plan to implement them, restricting the employment of marijuana users. About 38 percent said they will flat-out reject users even if they claim medical reasons. Six percent said their policy will exclude only those who partake for fun.

“There is what I consider to be a significant number of employers that are saying they wouldn’t hire an employee that uses marijuana,” said Evren Esen, SHRM’s director of survey programs.

Companies can maintain stricter policies in states where pot is legal because federal law, which governs most workplace rules, still considers marijuana to be a controlled substance.

Over the summer, the Colorado Supreme Court said it was legal to fire an employee for legally smoking medicinal marijuana while not at work.

That said, what HR managers proclaim and what they do don’t always match up. Fewer employers are drug testing now than five years ago, SHRM numbers show. A 2011 survey of 632 HR professionals found that 55 percent were testing all potential employees.

A little less than half of those surveyed in the new study said their organization does pre-employment drug testing for all candidates, which just about matches testing practices nationwide.

Denver-based Mountain States Employers Council reported that only one in five companies in Colorado planned to make drug-testing more stringent after marijuana legalization last year.

Employers are most likely to test current employees if there’s an accident or a reason to think they’re coming to work high, the survey found.

“Some companies have stated more clearly that they reserve the right to test, letting employees know that it’s not OK to come to work under the influence,” said Lara J. Makinen, an HR coordinator at the Denver-based Atkins, a design and engineering consulting firm.

In states where weed is legal for recreational use, 39 percent of those surveyed have policies that single out marijuana use.

Employers might make more drastic changes if pot use were to start interfering with work life.

So far, apart from one local news story, there haven’t been reports of hordes coming to work stoned. That jibes with SHRM’s findings. Only 21 percent of employers reported more than three incidents of employees violating policy regarding marijuana use over the last year.

“It doesn’t appear to be a really major problem,” Esen said. “It doesn’t seem like employees are going out there and rampantly using marijuana in greater numbers than before.”

This story was first published on DenverPost.com

Topics: drug testing, employers, employers drug testing policies, workplace, zero tolerance

CONTINUE READING…

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.” HOW THE UNITED NATIONS IS STEALING OUR “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” TO GROW FOOD AND MEDICINE THROUGH THE U.N. CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS AND AGENDA 21.


clip_image002

10/25/2015

Sheree Krider

Because of the nature of the Beasts which we are dealing with in regards to the “War on Drugs” in general, but additionally because the Beasts are taking control of plants, food, medications and plant medicines worldwide at will, I feel it is imperative that we confront this issue now.

WHILE READING THIS KEEP IN MIND THAT THE U.S. HAS HAD A PATENT ON MARIJUANA SINCE 2003: #6,630,507 October 7, 2003 Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.

This control is being achieved thru the United Nations which officially began on October 24, 1945, with the victors of World War II — China, the U.S.S.R., France, United Kingdom, and the United States — ratified the U.N. charter, creating the U.N. Security Council and establishing themselves as its five permanent members with the unique ability to veto resolutions. This ability keeps them in control of the U.N.

To date More than six in ten Americans have a favorable opinion of the U.N. as reported on the “Better World Campaign” website which is the funding source for the U.N.

The U.N. 1961 convention on narcotic drugs essentially set into motion the drug war as we know it today.

The United Nations Conference to consider amendments to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, met at the United Nations Office at Geneva Switzerland from 6 to 24 March 1972. 97 States were represented.

On November 7, 1972 President Richard Nixon was re-elected to office. It was on his watch that the amendments to the U.N. were enacted with an establishment of a “United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control.”

They readily admit that many of the drugs included have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

The term ”addict” means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug. Who will determine when a narcotic has become habitual? The “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 .

The Parties, recognizing the competence of the United Nations with respect to the international control of drugs, agree to entrust to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Economic and Social Council, and to the International Narcotics Control Board, the functions respectively assigned to them under this Convention.”

The “Parties shall maintain a Special administration for the purpose of applying the Provisions of this Convention.” in the U.S. this was the Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA.

Article 28 control of cannabis states that if a party permits cultivation that the system of control is the same as for opium poppy in article 23 which requires licensing by the “agency” which in the case of the U.S. would be the DEA. The number of acres planted and harvested must be recorded and “the agency must purchase and take physical possession of” it. The agency has exclusive rights to importing, exporting, and wholesale trading. It is also subject to limitations on production.

This is total control of the plant by the U.N. and effectively eliminates any chance of personal growing.

Natural growing plants which are included in Schedule 1 are marijuana, mescaline (peyote), psilocybin, and Khat. Other drugs are also included in this list.

More common opiates such as hydrocodone are included in Schedule II. These are regulated and handed out at the will of the government thru the medical industrial complex. How many people have been refused a prescription for Valium or Xanax in the past year because of a positive drug screening for Marijuana? How many people who do not consume Marijuana have been cut off as well because the DEA has, for all practical purposes, threatened the physician’s livelihood thru Statutes and “Bills” which have cut people off from their medications with no warning in the past year or two?

Title 21 states that the rules shall not apply to the cultivation of cannabis/hemp plant for industrial purposes only – however, it also does not say that hemp may be used for medicine without restriction.

Article 33 states that the parties shall not permit the possession of drugs without legal authority.

In the 1972 Protocol Amending The Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs 1961 Article 49 states that:

f) The use of Cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-five years from the coming into force of this Convention as provided in paragraph 1 of article 41.

1972 + 25 = 1997

Ironically enough the first medical cannabis law was enacted by California in 1996 – just in time to meet the 25 year deadline for ending all use of cannabis except for medical and scientific purposes…

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law allowing the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana’s lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

As I stated previously, in the U.S. the governing agency would be the DEA and on July 1, 1973 this agency officially came into existence in accordance with the U.N. Treaties which the U.S. government created and implemented. THE DEA HAS AN Annual Budget of $2.4 billion.

THE DEA Controlled Substances Act, TITLE 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS, CHAPTER 13 – DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL EFFECTIVE Oct. 27, 1970, SUBCHAPTER I – CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT,

States that:

“(1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.”

Meaning, it does not matter what the U.S. Citizens (or any other country for that matter) has to say about Cannabis or any other drug or plant on the list of U.N. control we are bound by the U.N. Treaty first and foremost, which was set into place by our own government.

“In 1986, the Reagan Administration began recommending a drug testing program for employers as part of the War on Drugs program. In 1988, Drug Free Workplace regulations required that any company with a contract over $25,000 with the Federal government provide a Drug-Free Workplace. This program must include drug testing.”

Manfred Donike, in 1966, the German biochemist demonstrated that an Agilent (then Hewlett-Packard) gas chromatograph could be used to detect anabolic steroids and other prohibited substances in athletes’ urine samples. Donike began the first full-scale testing of athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, using eight HP gas chromatographs linked to an HP computer.

YEP, HP IS HEWLETT PACKARD…His method reduced the screening process from 15 steps to three, and was considered so scientifically accurate that no outside challenges to his findings were allowed.

HP has laboratories around the globe in three major locations, one of which happens to be in Israel. Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel “America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East”, when explaining why the United States viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the United States grants Israel every year.

Most everybody thinks that the Cannabis issue is a U.S. issue and an issue unto itself, not encompassed within the issue of control of the masses, and at least as far as our own laws/statutes are concerned. “ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET OUR STATE TO LEGALIZE IT”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

We are all rolled up into the UN by virtue of our own Country which used this as a means to control worldwide, the people, without ever having to answer for or take responsibility for it again. Why? Because it is now a UN issue. And WE ARE BOUND by the UN treaties, as one of 5 founding members, who now rule the world.

Welcome to “THE NEW WORLD ORDER”. Yep, it’s been around a long time, we just didn’t notice it in time. Our men had just gone through a horrific war (WWII) and were too beat down and TOO sick to fight again and most likely didn’t even notice or worse yet thought the U.N. was a good thing that would prevent another WWII….. WELL, WELCOME TO WWIII AKA THE “DRUG WAR”.

I don’t care which State you reside in it is NOT legal to possess or use Marijuana in any form or fashion. You are living in an “Illusion.

As long as the U.N. has control over all narcotics in any form, we as a people will not legally be able to grow cannabis or any other plant that they categorize as narcotic.

What they will do for us is to use us like Guinea pigs in a testing environment to accumulate enough information whereby cannabis can be deemed a potentially useful drug from a pharmacological standpoint and then they can turn it over to the pharmaceutical companies to sell to us through commerce as a prescription. This is happening as we speak.

The drug war was created for us, and the prison industrial complex which they set up for control of us is the holding center for the Guinea pigs which are “us”.

They make sure enough of it gets out there that we can continue to use it illegally and they can study it at the same time they are locking us up for doing just that — using and studying marijuana. This in effect creates a double paycheck for them as they are keeping the prisons full and instituting private prisons for commerce and at the same time they are collecting information about the beneficial uses of cannabis thru drug testing patients. As well, those who seek employment or who are already employed with are targeted by random testing, and they collect our medical records for research at the same time the physicians are tagging us as cannabis abusers for reference via the ICD-10 codes used on medical claim forms submitted to the Insurance companies by our doctors’ offices. Essentially anyone who is a marijuana user is rounded up by the legal and medical system. If you use marijuana you cannot hide the fact unless you are part of the drug cartel itself and do not seek employment or medical care anywhere in the U.S. The marijuana cartel remains intact because they are “self-employed”.

Additionally, HIPPA states that In the course of conducting research, researchers may obtain, create, use, and/or disclose individually identifiable health information. Under the (HIPPA) Privacy Rule, covered entities are permitted to use and disclose protected health information for research with individual authorization, or without individual authorization under limited circumstances set forth in the Privacy Rule.

As far as Pharma Drugs are concerned, I must quote from Ms. Cris Ericson of the Vermont Marijuana Party, who stated, “People can no longer afford the pharmaceutical industry. The U.S. Congress votes to give research money to the pharmaceutical companies who invent new prescription drugs by synthesizing natural herbs, and then the pharmaceutical companies claim ownership of the new Rx patent, but it was the taxpayers who paid for the research. The taxpayers, under the patent law which states that “work made for hire, should own 50% of the patent” should rightfully be paid. The pharmaceutical companies not only profit wrongfully, by taking ownership of the patent that the taxpayers paid the research for, but then they take their huge profits and donate millions of dollars to PAC’s political action committees and Super PAC’s and then the PAC’s donate money to the U.S. Congress, so your taxpayer dollars have come full circle, and that looks just like money laundering, because millions of your taxpayer dollars end up in the campaign war chests of the elected officials.”

To that I must add that even if you obtain your medications for a $0 copay, you have paid for them already via taxation of the general public. Even those persons on disability or other government subsidy pay tax every time they make a purchase.

The U.N. Convention and the CSA both state that, “No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and they are not readily available for clinical use. NOTE: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, marijuana) is still considered a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, even though some U.S. states have legalized marijuana for personal, recreational use or for medical use. May 4, 2014”

This issue gains even more momentum when you understand that it is not just about cannabis/hemp/marijuana. It also involves all food and plants which are coming under their jurisdiction.

It is entirely possible that just as they can use drug testing to determine what drugs you put into your body they could develop testing to determine what foods you are eating. Imagine being “food tested” to see if you ingested beef or broccoli that was illegal to be in possession of! It seems an exaggeration but entirely within the realm of possibility.

HENCEFORTH, AGENDA 21…

The national focal point in the United States is the Division Chief for Sustainable Development and Multilateral Affairs, Office of Environmental Policy, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn’t have enough information to form an opinion.

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent and not a treaty, the United States Senate was not required to hold a formal debate or vote on it. It is therefore not considered to be law under Article Six of the United States Constitution. President George H. W. Bush was one of the 178 heads of government who signed the final text of the agreement at the Earth Summit in 1992, and in the same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of United States House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States. In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world.

During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels. The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.” Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21. Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21. Many other states, including Arizona, are drafting, and close to passing legislation to ban Agenda 21.

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) was established in 1974 as an intergovernmental body to serve as a forum in the United Nations System for review and follow-up of policies concerning world food security including production and physical and economic access to food. The CFS Bureau and Advisory Group-The Bureau is the executive arm of the CFS . It is made up of a Chairperson and twelve member countries. The Advisory group is made up of representatives from the 5 different categories of CFS Participants. These are: 1 UN agencies and other UN bodies; 2 Civil society and non-governmental organizations particularly organizations representing smallholder family farmers, fisherfolks, herders, landless, urban poor, agricultural and food workers, women, youth, consumers and indigenous people; 3 International agricultural research institutions; 4 International and regional financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, regional development banks and the World Trade Organization; 5 Private sector associations and philanthropic foundations.

FREEDOM ADVOCATES OPPOSITION TO AGENDA 21:

“Even the term “sustainable” must be defined, since on the surface it appears to be inherently positive. In reality, Sustainable Development has become a “buzz” term that refers to a political agenda, rather than an objectively sustainable form of development. Specifically, it refers to an initiative of the United Nations (U.N.) called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 is a comprehensive statement of a political ideology that is being progressively infused into every level of government in America.”

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as “not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights” and inalienable as “cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another.”

The Declaration of Independence reads:

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law. Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. In these situations no violation has occurred by way of the application of inalienable rights – a mere change in the law changes the nature of the right. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights the right to the use and enjoyment of private property cannot be abridged (other than under the doctrine of “nuisance” including pollution of the public water or air or property of another). The policies behind Sustainable Development work to obliterate the recognition of unalienable rights. For instance, Article 29 subsection 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights applies the “inalienable rights” concept of human rights:

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Read that phrase again, carefully! “Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

It suffices to say that the “war on drugs” is a war on us as a people. It is entwined with the United Nations and agenda 21. It is control of the masses through the illusion of a better world and offers peace and harmony to all people. It sounds really good on the surface until you start analyzing the issues at hand. The problem is that its intent is ultimately to control everything and everybody.

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the united nation”…there you have it in one sentence, straight out of the horse’s mouth. The new world order is now. If we continue down this path, sooner rather than later we will be told that we can no longer grow our own food, or meat, eggs, cheese, etc. It must be purchased through a reputable source – the grocery stores and the pharmacy so it can be “regulated”.

Our rights to the cannabis/marijuana plant has all but been lost at this point and if we do not do something immediately to regain it and continue passing illegal statutes (by virtue of the U.N.) state to state is not going to hold up in the long run because, first of all, federally it remains illegal and they can squash those legalization antics at any time, and most of all the U.N. owns it. And who owns the U.N.? The United States and five other countries which are china, Russia, France and the U.K.

It seems to me that the placing of these plants (including marijuana, and peyote) into a “U.N. Convention of Narcotic Drugs” was just the first step in their taking total control of all people throughout the world through their access to food and medication, and was and still is a test case to see if it would work in their favor. So far it seems it is working in their favor because we are losing the ability to fight back on a political basis and their guns are bigger than ours.

The fact that for years we have blamed the eradication of marijuana on Harry Anslinger even though the LaGuardia commission refuted his findings and Harry Anslinger himself later admitted his testimony wasn’t true and in fact marijuana was relatively harmless, only proves that the rhetoric remained in place for ulterior motives.

When the 1937 tax act was repealed in 1969 in Timothy Leary v. United States, the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 picked up and took over keeping the plant from us yet again. To this day it remains illegal although individual states within the U.S. are attempting to change that, the fact still remains that legally it is still a schedule 1 at the federal level and since federal law trumps state law we are getting next to nowhere.

The only thing that state legalization does do, is keep the state authorities from prosecuting except within the realm of the individual state statutes. At least we are fighting back and gaining momentum in that we are letting them know how we feel about it! Other than that at any time everything gained could be lost at the whim of the federal government.

If we do not focus on regaining the freedom of cannabis from the U.N. now, not only will it be forever lost to pharma, all of our food, medicines and plants are going right along with it and we will not ever be able to get them back. And if you think the prison industrial complex is a monstrosity now just wait till we are being locked up for growing a tomato or hiding a laying hen in our closet just to have access to an egg. Yes, I believe that it will get that bad in the not so far future.

So if you are not worried about it because you do not smoke marijuana, you might ought to worry about it because your grandkids will still need to eat whether or not they have cannabis as a medication through the pharmaceutical industrial complex. And to top it all off, what happens when you “break the law” by planting food and they find out and take away your right to obtain food much the same way they have taken away our rights to obtain scheduled medications because you tested positive for marijuana? (Don’t worry too much I am sure they will let you “something” to eat!)

We must have access to our own gardens and herbal plants because virtually every “drug” made comes from a plant and both prescription drugs and over the counter medications are at risk and could disappear rapidly. Remember over-the-counter pseudoephedrine? Every time they want to take something out of our hands they make it illegal and claim it is for the greater good. You may very well need to grow your own medicine too because if you do not meet their requirements they won’t let you have any of theirs.

It is a fact that cannabis/hemp is a food and a medicine. By withholding it from us they have effectively made many of us weaker through endocanabinoid deficiency and people are becoming sicker in general from the foods that we ingest as well as the ones that we do not have access to. Our ability to stand up to an enemy of any kind on a physical scale has been dramatically affected by both nutrition and the chemicals we are exposed to in our food and in our air and water as well as required inoculations against various diseases. Our children are having the worse reactions to all this which can be seen by the rise in not only autism but other birth defects as well.

The most important thing to note is that cannabis, food and medicine is something that everyone needs to have access to in various forms for various reasons. If it is only available thru a controlled environment then we will be subjected to probable malnutrition and genocide. Our health has become bad enough already due to corporate food and medicine. We certainly do not need it to get any worse. Is this going to be total population control via food and medicine? I am afraid so.

“People who don’t get enough food often experience and over the long term this can lead to malnutrition. But someone can become malnourished for reasons that have nothing to do with hunger. Even people who have plenty to eat may be malnourished if they don’t eat foods that provide the right nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.”

NOW THAT THE BEAST HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE?

Probably the best thing we can do right is to demand cannabis sativa and any naturally growing plant removed from United Nations control and the Controlled Substance Act in the U.S.

Additionally, Agenda 21 needs to be eliminated as it stands now. No entity should be allowed total control over plants and food, especially those grown in our own garden.

However, it is a fact that any type of food or medicine created and/or sold by a corporate entity has to be governed. Their entire purpose is to make money and they will do anything to accomplish that including selling us pink slime for meat. That is what should be governed.

It seems to me that the FDA is not doing its job correctly. Protect the people, not the corporations. The fact that a corporation has its own “personhood” is just totally ridiculous and must end.

The United Nations itself could be modified into an agency that protects the unalienable rights of the people throughout the world. It cannot police the world however. And it cannot rule the people as a government does. For this reason any policing agencies that are international such as Interpol must be eliminated. This would throw the policing back to the people’s own respective countries and the people of those countries will have to police their own governments to ensure that they keep the will of their people as top priority while governing.

Will this mean that war will continue to be a fixture in our world? Yes, of course it does. War always has been and always will be. It is the next closest thing to “God” that exists in that aspect. But if each country’s government has jurisdiction over its own people then the citizens can decide who will be ‘in charge’. If they need help during a crisis then other countries can step in to help where needed at the time and as they choose to do so. If the whole world comes under the rule of one governing body then we would have no control anymore at all. And this is what it seems to be leading up to – one governing body ruling virtually the entire planet with the ‘head’ of that governing body being the five original victors of WWII: the United States, Russia (U.S.S.R), France, China and the U.K.

World War II never really ended, it just changed it course. We have to put an end to this global war against all God’s people and the time is now! If you do not believe in god then you can say we have to put an end to the war against world humanity. It means basically the same thing – at least to me.

Just say no!

clip_image003

NOTES & REFERENCE LINKS:

Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary’s conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by repealing the Marihuana Tax Act and passing the Controlled Substances Act to continue the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.

“By 2020, 30 billion connected devices will generate unprecedented amounts of data. The infrastructure required to collect, process, store, and analyze this data requires transformational changes in the foundations of computing. Bottom line: current systems can’t handle where we are headed and we need a new solution. HP has that solution in The Machine. ”

Ban Ki-moon (Hangul: ???; hanja: ???; born 13 June 1944) is a South Korean statesman and politician who is the eighth and current Secretary-General of the United Nations. Before becoming Secretary-General, Ban was a career diplomat in South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the United Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime

http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/feeding/hunger.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/types.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/autism-rates-rise/6957815/

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/

http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/25_12/NEL251204R02_Russo_.pdf

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

http://hemp.org/news/book/export/html/626

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/understanding-unalienable-rights-2/

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_World_Food_Security

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

https://www.worldwewant2015.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations

http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/systems-research/themachine/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Labs#Labs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Donike

http://www.globalsources.com/manufacturers/Drug-Test-Kit.html?keywords=_inurl%3A%2Fmanufacturers%2F&matchtype=b&device=c&WT.mc_id=1001007&WT.srch=1&gclid=Cj0KEQjw2KyxBRCi2rK11NCDw6UBEiQAO-tljUJHHVLsYxnVYIjclmlCiwuLEH2akAa-iTolJ2zN6-8aAjtm8P8HAQ

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/2108cfrt.htm

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title21/chapter13&edition=prelim

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title21/chapter13&edition=prelim

http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm#cntlsbc

http://www.medicinehunter.com/plant-medicines

http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/united-nations/advocating-us-funding-un.html

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/index.html

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2767

Titles II and III Of The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act Of 1970 (Pub-Lic Law 91–513) https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/91-513.pdf

Lawmakers, sign on now, to repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA).


JackieTreehorn

Joined: Sep 2005

USA TX, USA

Posted: 10/20/2008 3:04:42 PM EDT

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.
The 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.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/773950_Call_for_Repeal_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act_of_1970.html

INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS FM 3-39.40


PLEASE BE AWARE OF THIS INFORMATION

WHICH IS AVAILABLE VIA THE INTERNET.  “PUBLIC INTELLIGENCE” PDF EXPLAINS IN DETAIL WHAT THE ACCOMPANYING VIDEO SEEKS TO INFORM US ABOUT.  THE PDF IS A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC CHANCE.

 

https://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zzQ0q5f5l8