Archive for January, 2013

Yahoo Finance
January 29, 2013

photo

Youngevity® Essential Life Sciences (www.youngevity.com, see their affiliate InfowarsHealth.com), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AL International, Inc. (OTC Pink: JCOF) (www.alintjcof.com), a fast growing, innovative, global direct marketer of healthy lifestyle and nutritional products and gourmet fortified coffee, announced today the exciting results of a series of clinical research studies performed by Clemson University – Institute of Nutraceutical Research (“INR”).

The INR is a national leader in nutritional research and one of the most highly regarded organizations in the field of phytonutrients, vitamins and minerals. The goals of the INR are to develop greater confidence in product quality, effectiveness, and enhance consumer demand for quality nutraceutical products.

[…] Youngevity® Clinical Research Study Highlights:

• Dietary supplement safety is the most highly regarded aspect of any of the Youngevity® various products and has become synonymous with the Youngevity® name and brand. Although Youngevity® only uses nutrients that are absolutely needed by the body and in forms that are highly bioavailable, Youngevity® felt it was important to show empirically the range and degree of safety through looking at (3) factors – Genotoxicity, Anti-Genotoxicity, and Anti-Mutagenicity. The results of the experiments showed that Beyond Tangy Tangerine® and Ultimate Classic® at various concentrations did not show any genotoxicity.

• When Beyond Tangy Tangerine® and Ultimate Classic® were administered to healthy human cell lines, they did not induce or create any inflammatory response in levels above and below the recommended dosage. Beyond Tangy Tangerine® and Ultimate Classic® showed inflammation protective properties and heightened the body’s protective responses to possible inflammation.

• When Beyond Tangy Tangerine® and Ultimate Classic® were administered to healthy human colon cells, there was no significant death of healthy human cells compared to cancerous colon cells. Ultimate Classic® killed 95% of cancerous colon cells, 65% of cancerous liver cells, 65% of cancerous stomach cells, and 30% of cancerous breast cells. Beyond Tangy Tangerine® killed 60% of cancerous colon cells, 65% of cancerous liver and stomach cells, and 30% of cancerous breast cells.

• Beyond Tangy Tangerine® and Ultimate Classic® both exhibited efficient inhibition on proliferation of cancerous cells at the recommended dosage levels. Both products showed there was inhibition of the growth of more cancerous cells, preventing further malignant multiplication and growth of unhealthy cells.

I Did It!The Clemson University studies have provided Youngevity® greater confidence in their products, scientists, formulators, and manufacturing processes and helped to understand some of the pathways the Youngevity® products may be working through in order to provide these benefits.

AL International CEO, Steve Wallach, adds, “At Youngevity® we have always sought to provide high quality and safe products, these studies have added to the assurance we have in all of the Youngevity® products.”

Read the full press release here.

Last week, Pharmacist Ben Fuchs, host of the GCN Radio Network’s The Bright Side, spoke to Alex about the dangers of using anti-depressant and SSRI drugs.

 

To purchase Youngevity’s line of natural health products – and also help support Infowars – visitInfowarsHealth.com.

Or please go to my personal site at Republicrising.My90forlife.com

Mike Adams
Natural News
Jan 28, 2013

In yet another huge blow to the rhetoric and narrative of the Obama administration and its desire to disarm the American public, a DHS bid has been uncovered (see documents below) showing that the Department of Homeland Security recently put out an offer to purchase 7,000 full-auto “assault weapons” to be used domestically, inside the USA.

Keep in mind that President Obama is on the record saying, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

But it seems he really means they don’t belong on the streets of our cities unless they are in the hands of homeland security enforcers, in which case they can be FULL-AUTO assault weapons.

The DHS bid for 7,000 full-auto assault weapons is found by clicking here. The original credit for discovering this goes, to my best knowledge, to Awr Hawkins at Breitbart.com.

In the hands of the government, they’re called “Personal Defense Weapons”

The juiciest part of this bid is the use of the phrase “Personal Defense Weapons” to describe the full-auto AR-15s being purchased by DHS.

HBC-Champion1Apparently, when YOU hold an AR-15, it’s an “assault rifle.” But magically, if you hand that same rifle to an armed government homeland security enforcer, it instantly transforms itself into a “personal defense weapon.”

The request for bid actually says:

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and / or when maximum concealment is required.

So there it is, right in black and white: DHS enforcers need full-auto AR-15s which are “suitable for personal defense in close quarters” and for “maximum concealment.”

But if you or I make the same claim, suddenly we are branded lunatics by the fringe left and all the gun grabbers across America who apparently have no clue that their own government is arming up like never before.

Senator Feinstein, the gun-grabbing Senator from California, says she wants to take all the guns from all Americans. “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” she says on the record. But while Mr. and Mrs. America are turning in their guns, ‘roid-head DHS goons are arming to the teeth with full-auto assault rifles.

This is all on top of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition the U.S. government has already stockpiled, as was discovered last year. What kind of government wants to domestically stockpile ammo and full-auto weapons, putting them in the hands of domestic agents who have nothing whatsoever to do with overseas wars? Well, the kind of government that plans to NEED 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and full-auto assault weapons, of course.

Read some language from the contract bid: Pistol grips, full-auto and more

Click here to see the bid.

Here’s some selected text from the bid:

ICE/Mission Support-DC
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Office of Acquisition Management
801 I Street NW, Suite 980
Washington DC 20536

Troy Teachey, troy.teachey@dhs.gov

Delivery Location Code: ICE/AS/NFTTU
ICE Natl Firearm Tactical Trng Unit
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th ST SW, Washington DC 20536

5.56X45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapon

During the base period and four option periods of this contract the maximum ceiling is $9,800,000.

Click here for the PDF document containing the following text:

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components.

The action shall be select-fire (capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire).

The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.

The receiver top shall be equipped with an integral MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail for mounting sights and other accessories.

The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic.

The pistol grip shall be a fixed, vertical pistol grip constructed of a durable material.

DHS admits AR-15 with 30-round magazine is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters”

This government document openly admits that AR-15s with 30-round magazines and capable of fully automatic fire are “suitable for personal defense” in close quarters (i.e. your home).

CNN, of course, doesn’t want you to ever hear that. Nor does Feinstein, Cuomo, Schumer, Obama, Eric Holder or any other gun grabbers. Even while their own government is arming up with 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and 7,000 full-auto “assault rifles” (plus lots more in other bids), they are trying to completely disarm the American citizenry through new gun registration and confiscation legislation.

The whole point of all this, of course, is to create firepower disparity between the government and the citizenry… To disarm the People while arming up the government agents who operate domestically. That way, the people can be forced at gunpoint into doing almost anything the oppressive government demands! (Taking vaccine shots, giving up private property, turning over farms and businesses, etc.)

What’s really hard-hitting about this is that the radical left keeps claiming things like “no one needs an assault rifle for personal defense.” Okay, if that true, then the Department of Homeland Security should abandon all such rifles first! Let’s see DHS turn in all its rifles and ammo, thereby setting an example of the “fact” that “nobody needs an assault rifle” for self defense.

In truth, a full-auto AR-15 is an outstanding weapon for self defense, which is exactly why DHS is buying thousands of them. Nothing stops bad guys faster than a barrage of high-velocity lead aimed in their direction. Again, that’s why DHS wants these rifles in the first place. One of these rifles in the hands of a citizen could have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting in seconds.

Pay attention to the word games (which are really mind games)

As you observe the highly manipulated gun control argument, pay special attention to the word games you’re being subjected to:

An AR-15 in the hands of a citizen is an “assault rifle.”
But an AR-15 in the hands of a DHS agent is a “Personal Defense Weapon.”

A full-auto-capable rifle in the hands of a citizen is called a “machine gun.”
A full-auto-capable rifle in the hands of a DHS agent is called a “select-fire rifle.”

According to the media, all government agents with assault rifles are presumed innocent and assumed to be stopping crime.

But all private citizens with assault rifles are presumed guilty and assumed to be causing crime.

When one citizen goes crazy and murders a bunch of people, the call goes out for ALL citizens to be stripped of their firearms.

But when one government agent goes crazy and murders a bunch of people, the calls goes out for MORE guns to be placed in the hands of MORE government agents!

Thank you, DHS, for admitting the truth

In summary, it looks like we actually need to thank the DHS for admitting the truth that Obama won’t: AR-15s are personal defense weapons, suitable for use in close quarters, especially when equipped with 30-round magazines.

That’s why I own one, and it’s why DHS wants thousands more (but theirs are full-auto, while mine is only semi-auto).

As a general rule, all freedom-loving Americans should want the same firepower their domestic government possesses. That’s the whole point behind the Second Amendment, and it represents the distribution of power in a free society.

But instead of firepower being equal in America today, DHS is using our taxpayer dollars to purchase thousands of full-auto weapons for their own agents. This is apparently being done under ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

This brings up the question for another entire article, and here’s the question: Why does immigration need 7,000 full-auto assault rifles? Is there a friggin’ Mexican invasion planned that nobody told me about? Is ICE going to invade Mexico and start a shooting war with the Mexican drug cartels?

Seriously: Why does ICE need 7,000 full-auto assault rifles? And why does DHS need 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?

Sources for this story include:
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/department-homeland-security-la…
http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifl…
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/14/Who-Needs-An-AR-15

Obama administration complicit in war crime?

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 28, 2013

Alleged hacked emails from defense contractor Britam reveal a plan “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime, fulfilling what the Obama administration has made clear is a “red line” that would mandate US military intervention.

The leaked emails, obtained by a hacker in Malaysia, feature an exchange (click here for screenshot) between Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding and the company’s founder Philip Doughty;

Phil

We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

Kind regards
David

The fact that the plan involves delivering a CW (chemical weapon) that is “similar to those Assad should have,” clearly suggests that the idea is to stage a false flag chemical weapons attack that could be blamed on Assad by Gulf states like Qatar and NATO powers.

If the claim that such as plot was “approved by Washington” can be verified, then the Obama administration is complicit in a war crime.

According to Cyber War News, which details the process of how the emails were hacked and includes screenshots of the leaked documents, the hack also uncovered, “extremely personal information,” including copies of passports of Britam employees, some of whom appeared to be mercenaries.

A full list of all the hacked documents can be found here.

Online business profiles confirm that both David Goulding and Philip Doughty work for Britam Defence.

Last year, reports began to circulate that that US-backed rebel fighters in Syria had been given gas masks and were willing to stage a chemical weapons attack which would then be blamed on the Assad regime to grease the skids for NATO military intervention.

Soon after in August, President Barack Obama warned that the use or even transportation of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would represent a “red line” that would precipitate military intervention. French President Francois Hollande followed suit, stating that the use of such weapons “Would be a legitimate reason for direct intervention.”

At around the same time, a source told Syrian news channel Addounia that a Saudi company had fitted 1400 ambulance vehicles with anti-gas & anti-chemical filtering systems at a cost of $97,000 dollars each, in preparation for a chemical weapons attack carried out by FSA rebels using mortar rounds. A further 400 vehicles were prepared as troop carriers.

The attack would be blamed on the Syrian Army and exploited as an excuse for a military assault. A March 2012 Brookings Institution report entitled Saving Syria: Assessing Options For Regime Change outlined this very scenario – where a manufactured humanitarian crisis would be cited as justification for an attack.

Yesterday, Israel’s vice premier Silvan Shalom told reporters that if Syrian rebels obtained chemical weapons from stockpiles belonging to the Assad regime, such a development would force Israel to resort to “preventive operations,” in other words – a military strike on Syria.

In December, a shocking video emerged of Syrian rebels testing what appeared to be a form of nerve gas on rabbits, bolstering claims that the rebels had already obtained chemical weapons.

As Tony Cartalucci also highlights, “Mention of acquiring chemical weapons from Libya is particularly troubling. Libya’s arsenal had fallen into the hands of sectarian extremists with NATO assistance in 2011 in the culmination of efforts to overthrow the North African nation . Since then, Libya’s militants led by commanders of Al Qaeda’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) have armed sectarian extremists across the Arab World, from as far West as Mali, to as far East as Syria.”

Last month, 29 different US-backed Syrian opposition groups pledged their allegiance to Al Nusra, an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group which, as the New York Times reported, “killed numerous American troops in Iraq.

Numerous reports confirm that Al Nusra is the leading front line fighting force in Syria and is commanding other rebel groups. Given their prominent role, allied with the fact that the terror group has been responsible for numerous bloody attacks in Syria, the notion that the Obama administration would approve a plot that could see chemical weapons fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda terrorists could represent a foreign policy scandal even bigger than Benghazi-Gate.

In a related story, the Syrian Electronic Army, a separate hacktivist group, continues to release hacked files and emails from numerous sensitive foreign ministry and military websites belonging to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, including emails sent between these countries.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Jon Rappoport
Infowars.com
January 28, 2013

In analyzing network coverage of the Sandy Hook murders, I had no intention of doing a series of articles on television news, but the opportunity to deconstruct the overall grand illusion was compelling.

A number of articles later, I want to discuss yet another sleight-of-hand trick. The myth of “coverage.”

It’s familiar to every viewer. Scott Pelley, in seamless fashion, might say, “Our top story tonight, the widening conflict in Syria. For the latest on the Assad government crackdown, our coverage begins with Clarissa Ward in Damascus…” .

Clarissa Ward has entered the country secretly, posing as a tourist. She carries a small camera. In interviews with rebels, she discovers that a) there is a conflict, b) people are being arrested c) there is a funeral for a person who was killed by government soldiers, d) defiance among the citizenry is growing.

In other words, she tells us almost nothing.

But CBS is imparting the impression that her report is important. After all, it’s not just anchor Scott Pelley in the studio. It’s a journalist in the field, up close and personal. It’s coverage.

Here are a few of the many things we don’t learn from either Pelley or Ward. Who is behind the rebellion in Syria? What is their real goal? What covert role is the US playing? Why are there al Qaeda personnel there?

But who cares? We have coverage. A key hole view. It’s wonderful. It’s exciting for two minutes. If we’re already brainwashed.

Coverage in television means you have the money, crew, resources, and stand-up reporters you can send out into the field. That’s all it means. It has nothing to do with information.

CNN made its reputation by coverage, from one end of the planet to the other. Yet, what did we really learn in all those years? We learned that, by straining to the point of hernia, a cable network could present news non-stop, 24/7.

The trick of coverage is the smooth transition from anchor in the studio to reporter in the field. The reporter is standing in front of something that vaguely resembles or represents what we imagine the locale contains. A large squat government building, a tower, a marketplace, a river, a skyline.

At some point during the meaningless report, the screen splits and we see both the anchor and the reporter. This yields the impression of two concerned professionals discussing something significant.

Then we’re back to the reporter in the field filling up the whole screen.

The anchor closes with a question or two.

“Denise, have you seen any tanks in the area?”

“No Wolf, not in the last hour. But we have reports from last night of shelling in the village.”

Well, isn’t this marvelous. Wolf is in Atlanta and Denise is in Patagonia. And they’re talking to each other in real time. Therefore, they must be on top of what’s going on.

“Denise, we understand medical help arrived a short time ago.”

“Yes, Wolf. Out in the desert, in tents, surgeons are performing emergency operations on the wounded.”

Well, what else is there to know? They’ve covered it.

In a twist on this performance, Denise might say, “Government officials are cautiously optimistic about repelling the invading force.” We cut to an interview conducted by Denise, in a hotel room, a few hours earlier.

She’s sitting across from a man in a suit. He’s the minister of information for the ruling party.

Denise: Is it true, Dr. Oobladee, that rebels groups in the suburbs have taken over several branch offices of the central bank?

Dr. Oob: We don’t believe that’s accurate. Our soldiers have been providing security for families in the area.

Denise: And their fortifications are secure?

Dr. Oob: They’ve trained for this mission, yes.

Cut back to Denise standing where she was standing before.

“Wolf, as the night wears on, we hear sporadic gunfire from the civic center. It’s a repeat of the last three evenings. The rebels are determined to make a stand and not give up further ground, in this war that enters its sixth month…”

Cut back to the studio in Atlanta.

“Thank you, Denise. We’ll take a break and be back in a minute to discuss the upcoming controversial film, Cold War in a Hat, starring George Clooney.”

We went from Atlanta to a street corner in the capital of Patagonia and then to a hotel room in the city, and then back to the street corner, then to Atlanta, off to a commercial, and then back to the studio for teasers on a new film. The technology and the technique are indeed impressive. The knowledge imparted is hovering at absolute zero, but it doesn’t matter. They have coverage.

It’s on the order of a magician sawing a woman in a box in half, after which the box is opened and found to be empty.

Coverage can also be simultaneous. In the middle of the screen is the anchor, head and shoulders, talking about the latest shooting. In the upper left-hand corner is a little static scene of three police cars with flashing lights sitting near a strand of yellow tape across a front yard. At the bottom of the screen is a moving line of text recapping headlines of the hour. Coverage. Look at all that. They must know what they’re doing.

Then we have the bonanza of coverage, a story that deals cards to several reporters in the field at different locations. As always, the anchor retains control. He may have two or three reporters on screen at the same time after they individually file their thirty-second pieces.

There is a bit of crosstalk. The anchor mediates. The shipment of frozen food was tainted. Therefore, we have a reporter standing in front of FDA headquarters in Maryland, another reporter in front of the manufacturer’s home office in Indiana, and a third reporter outside a hospital emergency room in San Francisco, where a child is having his stomach pumped. There is also a three-second clip of a lab in which workers in white coats and masks are moving around, and a clip of a moving assembly line which presumably has something to do with the production of the tainted product.

The whole story, as the network tells it, could be compressed down to 20 seconds, total. But they want coverage.

On election night, a network could simply show three or four newsmen sitting around in shirtsleeves smoking cigars and talking about the Jets for a few hours, after which one of them says, “Obama just won.”

But instead, we get the circus. A half-dozen stand-ups from various campaign headquarters, a numbers guru with a high-tech map as big as a movie screen pulling up counties in the studio, an anchor “bringing it all together,” and pundits weighing in with sage estimates. Team coverage. The “best in the business.”

I love hearing Wolf Blitzer utter that line. It makes me think of a guy selling expired cheese. But after all, he has a right to promote his people. He’s not just in a studio, he’s in The Situation Room. Where there is coverage.

BTTThe height of absurdity is achieved during a violent storm. A reporter has to be standing out in the rain and vicious wind, water seeping into his shoes, holding an umbrella in one hand and a mic in the other, looking for all the world like the umbrella is going to take him up into the sky.

The storm could be shot from inside a store at ground level, and the reporter could be sitting in a chair next to the cash register peering out through the window, but that wouldn’t really be coverage.

If you were to compare the anchor/reporter-in-the-field relationship of 40 years ago to today, you’d see a stark difference. In days of yore, it was exceedingly clunky and clumsy. It was one anchor and one reporter, but at least the man in the field was expected to have something to say. Now it’s all flash and intercutting. Now it’s the technique. The facile blending. The rapid interchange of image. It’s nothing made into something.

Segueways and blends are far more important than content. The newspeople are there merely to illustrate smoothness and transition. Brian Williams (NBC) is the champion operator for this mode. He is the doctor who can impart to you a diagnosis of a disease that doesn’t exist, but you don’t care. He’s a fine waiter in an expensive restaurant who will deliver three small items in the center of a very large plate and make you feel honored. He’s a golfer with such a fine swing you don’t care how many strokes he takes to get to the green. When he shifts to his man or woman in the field, you feel he’s conferring knighthood. Brian knows coverage.

There is a phenomenon that ought to be called minus-coverage coverage. Sandy Hook gave us wall-to-wall everything without exposing a single fact behind a fact. We saw nothing but Sandy Hook for two days on end, with stand-ups from every hand on deck, and yet we learned almost zero after the first few hours.

In the second Gulf War, we were bombarded with studio and field reports, but we saw no engagement or conflict that exposed both sides in simultaneous action against each other. Embedded reporters had to pledge the life of their first-born they wouldn’t break a rule laid down for journalists by the Army command.

Modern network coverage does one important thing. It establishes a standard by which other news is measured. For most viewers, if the news can’t display full technique, full smoothness, full effortless transition, it must be lacking in some important, though undefined, way.

Coverage is almost synonymous with transition. How the news moves from anchor to reporter(s) and back is Value. This is highly significant because it mirrors what a good hypnotist is able to do. If he’s a real pro, he doesn’t just put someone in a trance and talk to him, he puts him under and then moves from one topic to another—without breaking the trance. This is a skill.

In fact, the hypnotist’s transitions are a vital aspect of the process itself. The patient feels the guidance as the scene changes before his eyes. The hypnotist (or news anchor) is presenting scene after scene and extending time without causing a jarring ripple in the still lake of consciousness.

Coverage.

Whatever a person learns in a trance state, while, for example, watching the news, functions somewhat differently from what he learns while he is awake. Trance learning tends to settle in as a lens, as a way of thereafter viewing the world. It doesn’t add content or knowledge so much as it produces a viewpoint that generates an attitude toward reality.

As in: THESE are the parameters of reality, but THOSE aren’t. I care THIS much, I don’t care THAT much. I care in THIS way, not in THAT way. I’m at THIS distance from what is happening, not at THAT distance.

To enhance this level of teaching, the major networks utilize technology and personnel in the direction of making each edition of the national news, every night, one seamless ribbon of flowing river, with straightaways, corners, turns, adjustments; never breaking, never ceasing until the last breath of the anchor and the closing music fadeout.

That’s coverage.

And the next challenge for them is the integration of commercials, so the viewer truly doesn’t register a shift of consciousness during those moments.

Some day, people will look back on the news of today and say, “How could they have altered the mood during commercials? That was ridiculous. They were really primitive, weren’t they? What were they they thinking? The whole idea is to have one uninterrupted experience.”

The blue hues in the news studio set will match up perfectly with the blues in the commercials. The sound and tone of the anchor’s voice will be mirrored by the narrator of the commercial. The pace of the commercial will match the pace of the news.

In fact, it’s already starting to happen. If you watch shows via a DVR, you might notice that fast-forwarding through commercials is a different experience these days. It used to be a cinch to stop the fast-forward when the show began again, because the colors and shapes of the commercials were so different from those of the show. But now, not so much. The commercials are tuned more closely to the programs.

Some day, the meaning of network coverage will include commercials. The one unending stream will sustain the light trance of the viewer.

Major corporate advertisers will realize they don’t want to jolt the viewer out of the show; they want to leave him in the trance. In other words, corporations won’t be so concerned about competing against other corporations. With these companies coming, more and more, under centralized ownership, under the control of big banks, the whole idea will be to tune the attitude of the viewer toward “corporate buying” in general.

Every huge corporation, allied with big government, will aim to condition the viewing audience to the State Oligarchy.

Coverage in the Matrix.

Editor’s note: Alex Jones goes on record with his thoughts and analysis of the Sandy Hook shooting. He highlights some red flags, and shows the CNN track record of faking news reports and working with Military Intelligence.

Infowars.com
January 27, 2013

The following op-ed run on CBS’s 60 Minutes takes a backwards interpretation of the Constitution, perverting the document that enshrines and protects our civil rights by arguing that it allows people to control their own lives.

Breitbart.com has posted yet another scholar who advocates destroying a centuries-long battle to uphold protections for the individual and discourage despots. Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor from Georgetown University, shamelessly calls for tearing off the chains on government, joining a chorus of individuals ready to undo the country’s foundations in the wake of tragedy.

Shockingly, he advocates throwing the baby out with the bathwater all while trying to pacify the audience into believing that “giving up on the Constitution” is NOT a radical thing. Seidman argues that if President Obama wasn’t born in the country, it shouldn’t matter, and further claims that if people want to debate, or adopt, gun control, it should be within their rights to do so.

And yet Seidman has shown his disdain for individual rights by advocating the removal of those protections over our nation.

After a good workout, replenish your body with Rebound

After a good workout, replenish your body with Rebound

He is clearly not interested in weighing responsible revisions to create better government, but to disarm critics clinging to the Constitution, and that clear, pesky “shall not infringe” clause under the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Seidman states, in part, “Talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion.” The danger of taking his position in the name of keeping a cool demeanor holds an obvious danger.

Seidman’s real agenda is revealed by regurgitated talking points that have showed up over the years in the post-9/11 world to justify eviscerating protections for individuals from government. By de-legitimizing the argument to hold to the Constitution, this law professor is ushering in arbitrary law and a public opinion that could shift with the wind rather than uphold a principle, a key buffer set up by imperfect founders to try to stave off tyranny through a separation of power.

TRANSCRIPT FROM Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:

I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

Monday, January 28, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) On the face of it, there is absolutely no sense to the idea that one million New York gun owners should be declared “guilty” because one crazy man went nuts in Connecticut and committed mass murder. Yet that’s the argument Gov. Cuomo used to rush through gun registration and confiscation legislation that’s now law in the state of New York.

The law was forced through the state legislature with such speed that it instantly turned all of New York’s police officers into felony criminals because they were carrying more than the allowed seven rounds of ammo per magazine. Retroactive changes to the law had to be hurriedly made to exclude law enforcement from imminent arrest and prosecution by the “mafia” Cuomo administration. Cuomo meant for his unconstitutional attack to target so-called “civilians,” not law enforcement!

But now, those citizens are increasingly saying “F&%# YOU, CUOMO” (literally, see below) and announcing they are not going to register their guns under Cuomo’s tyrannical, illegitimate and blatantly illegal regime.

“Mass resistance” plans underway

Gun owners are “going Gandhi” in New York and planning mass civil disobedience to protest the actions of the criminal mafia known as the Cuomo administration.

pollen-burst-berry-burst“Gun owners and even some lawmakers are planning what has been dubbed potentially the largest act of civil disobedience in state history,” reports The New American. “Preparations are already being made for mass resistance.”

What form will that resistance take? It may start as an info war, and then escalate into protests. But if Cuomo does not relent and repeal his unconstitutional, illegal and immoral mandate against law-abiding gun owners, there is a good chance this conflict may “go hot” and lead will start flying.

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

It is every New Yorker’s duty to resist tyranny

Let me state on the record that it is not merely a right to resist unlawful tyranny, but it is your DUTY to resist it and fight back via morally-justifiable means to restore constitutional law and the Bill of Rights in America. Anything less is a betrayal to the principles of America.

Any state government which would attempt to oppress the constitutional rights of its citizens and disarm them, making them absolutely defenseless against criminals and runaway government tyranny, is an illegitimate, unlawful government being run by criminals. That government must be thrown out of power and replaced with a legitimate, law-abiding government that honors the rights of citizens (and the limits of power placed on government).

On this issue, New Yorkers have declared their line in the sand. One million New Yorkers own firearms, and relatively few of them plan to comply with Cuomo’s gun registration plans, knowing full well that registration is just the first step to forced confiscation.

After all, why would the state of New York need to know who owns all the guns if it wasn’t planning to do something with that list? Throughout world history, gun registration lists have almost always become gun confiscation lists where governments go door to door with armed troops, demanding at gunpoint that people turn in the firearms they previously registered.

(Seriously, you’d have to be a complete idiot to comply with Cuomo’s gun-grabbing scheme. Do you really want Cuomo’s mafia goon squads to know exactly what guns you own and where you keep them?)

From The New American:

“They’re saying, ‘F— the governor! F— Cuomo! We’re not going to register our guns,’ and I think they’re serious. People are not going to do it. People are going to resist,” explained State Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King

Gandhi believed in armed defense against tyranny

Gandhi is perhaps best known as a pacifist who helped stage mass civil disobedience in the face of the imperial occupation of his nation by enemy forces (the British). But what is not well known is that Gandhi was only a pacifist because his people had been disarmed by the occupying British military. Had Gandhi’s countrymen possessed arms, they would have fought back against the British empire’s illegal and imperial occupation many years earlier.

“I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,” Gandhi wrote in his famous work, Doctrine of the Sword.

He goes on to say:

I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038843_New_York_gun_owners_civil_disobedience.html#ixzz2JIJXxXAB

Saturday, 26 January 2013 17:36

The Daily Sheeple

This article was originally published at The Daily Sheeple

Kyle Bass, who knows a thing or two about economics and finance, recently spoke to a senior member of the Obama administration about their planned solutions for fixing the U.S. economy and trade deficit.

The answer shouldn’t surprise you.

When I asked a senior member of the Obama administration last week, ‘How are we going to grow exports if we won’t allow nominal wage deflation?’

He says, ‘we’re just going to kill the dollar.’

That worried me.

So, that the only answer.

It’s a dead answer.

But, that’s where we’re headed.

Video via Before It’s News: