Tag Archives: civilians

It’s not just about Marijuana, anymore…We are in a war for the right to food and water


 

Above:  Old bottle of Paregoric. Circa 1940s. The large red X on the label indicates that it was classified as an “exempt narcotic”, sold without prescription even though it contains morphine. Until 1970, paregoric could be purchased in the United States at a pharmacy without a medical prescription, in accordance with federal law.  Credit: Wikipedia

 

While you are reading this article, listen to THIS VIDEO OF GATEWOOD GALBRAITH – It may change your life!

 

It’s not just about Marijuana, anymore…

Oddly enough, I never believed that it was.  I was filmed in an interview by a couple in Cincinnati in 2005 who asked me why I was in this ‘movement’.  My reply was that it was because I wanted to know the REAL truth about why Marijuana was illegal because it damn sure wasn’t because someone wanted to sell timber and Newspapers.  “This is just a very small part of a much bigger agenda”, I told her.  I wish I had a copy of that interview!

When the 2014 Farm Bill was passed many businesses started up because of the fact that Hemp was officially allowed to be grown and sold, under specific guidelines of course, but nonetheless grown and sold. 

When I first started out writing about Cannabis prohibition I wasn’t too overly concerned about Agenda 21 and the taking of our rights to farm, have and/or use any kind of plant, I thought they were just after the “narcotics”.  It didn’t take too long to figure out that this just wasn’t the case.  But there were very few people who understood the ramifications of Agenda 21 and it’s far reaching effects out there, and even fewer who wanted to hear about it because everyone was under the impression that the U.N. and our own Government was there to protect us and they “wouldn’t do something like that”.  I was a “conspiracy theorist”.

The public is kept pretty much in the dark about what is happening at the U.N., because there is so many branches, divisions, offices, lack of media news coverage and also just the fact that most people work and have kids and do not have the time to sit down and listen to the news everyday, and then research it out on the internet!  They are just now beginning to see the effects of what I believe was a “test case” when the U.N., effectively made it illegal to consume Cannabis.  A test case for what?  Their ability to be able to control and regulate every plant known to man, especially the ones that can be consumed by us for food and medicine, i.e., Cannabis and Hemp, and to watch what our reaction would be.  How hard was it going to be to regulate us and contain us?  Apparently, it wasn’t too hard.

First, a little background on the U.N. and Agenda 21 because that is where they have Cannabis/Marijuana (and the rest of our food and medicinal plants) wrapped up:

The “League of Nations“, founded in 1920, was the start of what would become the “United Nations” in 1941.  The U.N. is responsible for Agenda 21 (Agenda 2030).  The U.N. is also responsible for the UNODC (U.N. Office of Drug Control), and the DEA is an extension of that, used to enforce drug regulation and drug law in the U.S. 

Roosevelt suggested the name (United Nations) as an alternative to “Associated Powers”

The U.N. was set up as a guise and sold to the people as a way …

…to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands.

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 did not 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.

Are we fighting a war that we just cannot win?

March 19, 1991: Plant Breeders’ Rights Extended in Newly Revised UPOV Convention

Revisions to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants strengthen the intellectual property rights of seed developers. The convention was created in 1961 and is one of several international conventions and treaties that operate under the umbrella of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The convention’s governing body is the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). The newly revised UPOV agreement extends the term of plant breeders’ intellectual property protections for new varieties from 15 years to 20 years. It also prohibits farmers from saving seeds, though there is an optional clause that allows member countries to exempt farmers from this restriction under certain conditions. For example, the clause says the restrictions can be waived if member countries implement other mechanisms that provide equivalent protections for the “legitimate interests of the breeder.”

The top 10 seed companies account for $14,785 million – or two-thirds (67%) of the global proprietary seed market.  The world’s largest seed company, Monsanto, accounts for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market.  The top 3 companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta) together account for $10,282 million, or 47% of the worldwide proprietary seed market.

Obviously it is  not just about Cannabis, although that is the focus of the drug war because of its illegality causing so many hundreds of thousands or more innocent people to be hurt, imprisoned, even killed and executed over a “treaty” that the U.S. and other signatories used to start the biggest control scheme ever brought down on mainstream humanity, as a whole.  The war over the right to plants.

There is an interesting article about the “top ten” used to be legal drugs on a site called TOPTENZ.  But that is only the beginning of a long list of plants which have been controlled since the beginning of the 20th Century and especially after 1970.  Thank you, President Nixon!  The DEA is the enforcement agency for the UNODC. 

The Drug Enforcement Administration was created by President Richard Nixon through an Executive Order in July 1973 in order to establish a single unified command to combat “an all-out global war on the drug menace.”

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

In 1970 the Controlled Substances Act served as the national implementing legislation for the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs   which was/is an international U.N. treaty  to prohibit production and supply of narcotic drugs and directs that they cannot be sold or used except under certain conditions as set forth by the U.N. for medical treatment .

Through this link CBD’s have officially been placed into Schedule I of the CSA, essentially meaning that as it stands right now, effective January 13, 2017, it is illegal to sell any CBD product as a cosmetic or health care product of any kind.  Final Rule : Establishment of a New Drug Code for Marihuana Extract (December 14, 2016)

There will be a battle over this because the people who have started businesses based on the 2014 Farm Bill were under the impression that they were a legal business.  And as far as I am concerned the DEA, up until this point let them believe that they were. The “Hoban Law Group”, a leading Law Firm in the industry of Cannabis has already promised to debate this in Court.

Hoban surmises, “The feeling is that this is an action beyond the DEA’s authority and we believe this is unlawful and we are taking a course of action for our clients. This Final Rule serves to threaten hundreds, if not thousands, of growing businesses, with massive economic and industry expansion opportunities, all of which conduct lawful business in reliance upon the Federal Government also acting pursuant to law, and as ordered by the Ninth Circuit in 2003 and 2004. We will see the Federal Government in court.”

Meanwhile, the DEA imposes a new rule and the CBD Manufacturers and Sales will have to  fight it out in court while the little people watch and wait and are scared to open the door to police because they have CBD products in the house.  They could be charged with a crime and sent thru Hell in a handbasket.  But this feeds the system too.  Through the police, jails, courts and lawyers and the medical system, which will feed everyone else from the construction people who will build the jails, hospitals and offices though to the sanitation workers who pick up their garbage and other refuse.  The flow of commerce and paper money, the “Law of Commerce”.  In fact, The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 was the U.S. attempt to control and regulate narcotics through taxation and the Law of Commerce, in accordance with the 1912 Convention.  The Hague International Opium Convention in 1912 was the beginning to the U.N. control of “drugs” – and plants.

Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens

Who is ultimately responsible for the loss of our Human Rights?  Are we not all guilty because it has happened on our own watch, and our parents, and grandparents watch, and we just weren’t paying enough attention?  My Father was an avid watcher of the nightly news, on all two stations.  I was the remote control that he used to switch back and forth between them so that he could catch all of it, because he knew, even in the 1960’s that the media was only telling you what they wanted us to hear.

What could we have done differently?  Our Parents and Grandparents spent most of their lives fighting in WWI and WWII.  By the time they made it home from Iwo Jima they were not able to fight a war against their own government over plants and medicines.  They did not even realize that they needed to!  

What can we do in the future, or FOR the future?  For a start, the power of REPEAL should be utilized, all the way back to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs  in 1961, if not before.  Timothy Leary was successful in getting the 1937 Tax Act on Cannabis Repealed.  However, this did not happen until 1969 and by early 1970’s the CSA was born. 

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the statute establishing federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances is regulated. It was passed by the 91st United States Congress as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon.[1] The Act also served as the national implementing legislation for the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.  The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a substance to be included in each. Two federal agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, determine which substances are added to or removed from the various schedules…

During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels.[18] 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.”

If things are to change around the world and in the U.S. on a peaceful basis, everyone is going to have to pay attention and get political!  I really do not know how to tell everyone to begin, especially those who work two jobs and still can’t afford a place to live for their families.  At the same time they are slaving to provide, they are going to have to pay attention and get political to change things. (?)  There is only 24 hours in a day, and that is what the U.N. is banking on.  That we just do not have enough time to figure the plan out and do anything about it, because we are all too tired from just trying to survive!  In a video by the late great Attorney Gatewood Galbraith (KY), he said;  “if you don’t get political, it will end up in the streets, and nobody wants to go there”…

The only other choice is just to ignore the “Law” around you and live as you can…until you get caught.  Then you end up property of the “correctional institute” of THEIR choice.

#GodBlessYouALL

Sk

 

 

For thought…

When chocolate was first discovered in the New World, the almighty Roman Catholic Church banned it as an addictive, mind- altering, sexually-stimulating drug. Well, it is. Now it is eaten by billions of people, even nuns and virgins, without people going rabid sexually.

If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were alive today, they would both be facing a Mandatory Minimum Sentence of 5-40 years in Federal Prison for growing more than 100 Cannabis plants at their homes; Ben Franklin would be in prison simply because he was an opium addict, as would most of our Founding Fathers of America who used opium and hemp, had home alcohol stills, and illegally smuggled rum and moonshine to avoid taxes.

It would not stretch matters to say that the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-384, 34 Stat. 768), also known as the Wiley Act, stands as the most consequential regulatory statute in the history of the United States. The act not only gave unprecedented new regulatory powers to the federal government, it also empowered a bureau that evolved into today’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The legacy of the 1906 act includes federal regulatory authority over one-quarter of gross domestic product, and includes market gatekeeping power over human and animal drugs, foods and preservatives, medical devices, biologics and vaccines.

 

 

 

#Hastags:

#EndDEA #EndProhibition #ReformUN #EndDeathPenalty  #REPEALtheCSA   #PlantsRights #VeteransRights #ChildrensRights #PrisonersRights #USMJParty

 

 

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

 

https://usmarijuanaparty.net/history/

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-drugs-that-used-to-be-legal.php

https://www.dea.gov/about/history.shtml

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/10/26/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/

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

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2016/fr1214.htm

http://m.marketwired.com/press-release/dea-hurts-growing-industry-exceeds-its-authority-regarding-scheduling-controlled-substances-2183399.htm

http://www.votehemp.com/2014_farm_bill_section_7606.html

 https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/12/20/899140/0/en/Earth-Science-Tech-Announces-the-Development-of-3-New-Advanced-Formulated-Cannabis-CBD-Nutraceuticals-and-2-Cannabis-CBD-Based-Pharmaceutical-Drugs-under-its-Cannabis-CBD-Patent-IP.html

http://thelawdictionary.org/commerce/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leary_v._United_States

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

http://www.goodmedicinebadbehavior.org/explore/history_of_prescription_drugs.html

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

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/the-1912-hague-international-opium-convention.html

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5moSy-Ooouk

 

U.S. approves UN use of force to protect civilians in conflict


635985884163480459-United-Nations-Civil.jpg

 

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at 6:34 p.m. EDT May 11, 2016.

UNITED NATIONS — The United States has announced its support for a set of principles that give a green light for U.N. peacekeeping troops and police to use force to protect civilians in armed conflicts.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told a high-level U.N. meeting Wednesday focusing on the responsibility to protect civilians that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to join 28 other countries that have pledged to abide by the 18 pledges.

U.N. peacekeepers from these 29 countries are now required to act in cases where civilians are in danger.

CONTINUE READING…

 

UN use of force

FOLLOW LINK ABOVE TO VIEW VIDEO…

AND FINALLY, HERE IS A PDF LINK TO THE

CONCEPT NOTE

The Future of Civilian Protection in Peace Operations

Endorsing and Implementing the Kigali Principles

May 11th 2016, UNHQ NY

Chemerinsky: Hurt by a government official? SCOTUS is making it harder and harder to sue


Posted Jun 24, 2014 8:40 AM CDT
By Erwin Chemerinsky

In a series of cases this term, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to recover for civil rights violations. These decisions continue a pattern in recent years of the Supreme Court significantly expanding the immunity accorded to government officials sued for violating the Constitution.

Suing individual government officers is often the only way that an injured person can recover for constitutional violations. Yet suits against government entities are often difficult, if not impossible, to win. Both the federal and state governments are protected by sovereign immunity, which greatly limits suits against them for damages. Local governments may be held liable for civil rights violations only if there is a municipal policy or custom that led to the injury.

State and local government officials may be sued for constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1983, and federal officers may be sued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision, Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The Supreme Court, however, has said that all government officials sued for money damages may raise immunity as a defense. Some government officers have absolute immunity to suits for money damages: among them are judges performing judicial tasks, prosecutors performing prosecutorial tasks, legislators performing legislative tasks, police officers testifying as witness, and the president for acts taken in office.

All other government officers have qualified immunity. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held in 1982 that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

In the 30 years since Harlow, courts have struggled with how to determine if there is a clearly established law that the “reasonable person would have known.” Must there be a case on point to say that there is such clearly established law?

In Hope v. Pelzer, the court in 2002 seemingly resolved this and held that there need not be a prior decision on point for the plaintiff to show the existence of clearly established law. Rather, officers may be held liable so long as they had fair warning that their conduct was impermissible.

The case involved a prisoner who was tied to a hitching post and left in the hot sun. The federal court of appeals found that this was cruel and unusual punishment, but that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because there was no case on point holding that such use of the hitching post violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed and said that a case on point is sufficient to show clearly established law, but it is not necessary.

In the decade since Hope v. Pelzer, including three cases this term, the Supreme Court repeatedly has found qualified immunity based on the absence of a case on point. The court has not overruled Hope v. Pelzer or even distinguished it; the court has simply ignored it. In the process, the court has made it much harder for plaintiffs to overcome qualified immunity and hold government officers liable for constitutional violations.

In Lane v. Franks, issued June 19, the court unanimously held that a government employee’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was fired for truthful testimony he gave pursuant to a subpoena. This result seems so obvious: of course it is wrong to fire a person for testifying honestly in a criminal trial, especially when the individual had no choice but to testify because of a subpoena.

Nonetheless, the court found that the defendant responsible for the firing was protected from liability by qualified immunity. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, said that “[t]he relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is this: Could Franks reasonably have believed, at the time he fired Lane, that a government employer could fire an employee on account of testimony the employee gave, under oath and outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities?” The court reviewed precedents, especially from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which earlier ruled on the case, and found that none had clearly held that this violates the First Amendment. But Hope v. Pelzer said that a case on point is not necessary: Shouldn’t every government officer know that it is wrong to fire a person for truthfully testifying in court?

In Plumhoff v. Rickard, decided on May 27, the court again found that government officials were protected by qualified immunity. Police officers pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Accord, and Kelly Allen was in the passenger seat. The officer asked Rickard if he had been drinking, and Rickard responded that he had not. Because Rickard failed to produce his driver’s license upon request and appeared nervous, the officer asked Rickard to step out of the car. Rather than comply with the officer’s request, Rickard sped away.

A high-speed chase then occurred that lasted five minutes and reached speeds greater than 100 mph. At one point, the officers appeared to have Rickard’s car pinned. But when the car pulled away, officers fired three shots into the car. As the car attempted to speed away, another 12 shots were fired by the police. Both the driver and the passenger were killed. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the police used excess force and violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, ruling in favor of the police. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court and held that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court said that the driver’s conduct posed a “grave public safety risk” and that the police were justified in shooting at the car to stop it. The court said “it stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.” Moreover, the court said that even if there were a Fourth Amendment violation, the officers were protected by qualified immunity, in that the law had not clearly established that the conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

This is a disturbing holding. The Supreme Court now has said that whenever there is a high-speed chase that the officers perceive could injure others–and that would seem to be true of virtually all high speed chases–the police can shoot at the vehicle and keep shooting until it stops. The car was stopped for having only one working headlight. If the driver refused to stop, why not just let the car go and then track the driver down later? Why should death be the punishment for making the extremely poor choice to begin a high-speed chase?

Finally, in Wood v. Moss, also decided on May 27, the court found that Secret Service agents were protected by qualified immunity when they engaged in viewpoint discrimination with regard to speakers. President George W. Bush was in Oregon and the Secret Service agents allowed supporters of President Bush to be closer and pushed the opponents further away. The law is clear that the government cannot discriminate among speakers based on their views unless strict scrutiny is met.

Nonetheless, the court, in a unanimous decision with the majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that the Secret Service agents were protected by qualified immunity because there were no cases on point concerning when Secret Service agents may violate the First Amendment. But why do there need to be specific cases since the law is clearly established that viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment?

All of these cases were unanimous. All found qualified immunity because of the absence of a case on point. Together they show a court that is very protective of government officials who are sued and that has made it very difficult for victims of constitutional violations to recover.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, is one of the nation’s top experts in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He is the author of seven books, the latest being The Conservative Assault on the Constitution (Simon & Schuster, 2010). His casebook, Constitutional Law, is one of the most widely read law textbooks in the country. Chemerinsky has also written nearly 200 law review articles in journals such as the Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Yale Law Journal. He frequently argues appellate cases, including matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeal, and regularly serves as a commentator on legal issues for national and local media. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a B.S. from Northwestern University.

Obama’s Memo on Killing Americans Twists ‘Imminent Threat’ Like Bush


Justice Department Memo on Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans

 

The confidential document provides the most thorough account yet of why the president thinks extrajudicial drone strikes on citizens are okay.

If you’ve gone ahead and read it, you know the basics. As Charlie Savage and Scott Shane explain, Obama Administration lawyers say killing an American would be lawful if an “informed, high-level official” determined three things:

  1. That the target is a ranking Al-Qaeda figure.
  2. That he or she poses “an imminent threat of violent attack” against America.
  3. That capture is not “feasible.”

That raises a lot of questions. What threshold of evidence, if any, must a high-ranking official meet to determine that someone is Al Qaeda? The burden is apparently less onerous than two witnesses testifying in open court, which the Constitution requires for a treason conviction. But the memo specifies neither an evidential threshold nor a protocol for meeting it. That is troubling.

PLEASE CONTINUE READING THRU LINKS.  THE TOP LINK IS THE DOC ITSELF….

THE LINK BELOW IS TO A COLUMBIA LAW  STUDY ON DRONES AND ITS IMPACT ON CIVILIANS.

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/The%20Civilian%20Impact%20of%20Drones.pdf