53 Colorado Sheriffs Sue State Over Gun Control Laws

In a deliberate move to catch gun control activists off guard, an organization representing Colorado sheriffs in a lawsuit over a series of recently passed gun control laws abruptly announced the filing of the suit in federal court today.

“We did that deliberately,” David Kopel, an attorney with the Independence Institute, which is handling the case, said. “We wanted to catch our opponents who support gun control off guard.”

As recently as Wednesday, the Independence Institute was suggesting the filing was still a few weeks off. Appearing at a rally against another bill, Amy Oliver Cooke, wife of Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, said they were planning to file the suit in the next couple of weeks.
The suit, which was filed in federal district court, lists 54 out of the state’s 64 sheriffs as plaintiffs in the case.

Kopel says what is significant to note is that while not all sheriffs are party to the suit, not a single sheriff has come out in opposition to it.

Cooke had harsh words for critics in the media and others who questioned whether a government official should sue another government official.

“Some in the media … asked me if I think it’s a good idea or if it’s appropriate for [a] government official to sue another government official. My response is unequivocally yes. It is our duty and responsibility as sheriffs to protect the people who elected us and whom we serve.”

At a recent event in Fort Collins by the Independence Institute providing updates on the case, Cooke said he was proud that gun control supporters are nervous over the lawsuit.
“When we announced our opposition to these gun control laws, the Greeley Tribune ran a story titled, ’48 Sheriffs going Rogue on Guns,’” Cooke said. “They should be fearing us. What right does the state have dictating how many rounds of ammunition [a woman] can have to defend herself?”

The lawsuit isn’t just limited to law enforcement officials, but lists a variety of organizations including the Colorado Farm Bureau, which has expressed concerns about rural farmers and ranchers having to deal with predators, Women for Concealed Carry, and the Colorado Outfitters Association.

“We have a diverse number of plaintiffs in this case. We are celebrating diversity,” Kopel said. “The difference is we actually believe in genuine diversity.”
Cooke noted that the lawsuit was not a partisan issue, with Republican and Democratic sheriffs both taking part in the lawsuit.

“This is not about urban versus rural as the governor likes to portray it,” Cooke said. “We have rural and urban plaintiffs in this case. It is about the Constitution. It is about the 2nd and 14th amendments. The suit is about our way of life, our freedoms, our rights, our liberties which transcend political affiliation and place of residence.”

Within minutes following the announcement of the filing of the suit, Republican Atty. Gen. John Suthers, who will be defending the state in the lawsuit, finally issued a statement providing guidance to law enforcement on how they are supposed to enforce the new laws.

Under the existing laws, any magazine that holds greater than 15 rounds, or can be modified to hold greater than 15 rounds, is now illegal to purchase in the state. The problem is nearly all magazines are designed with features that make them readily expandable to hold more than 15 rounds. The law’s wording effectively bans all magazines in Colorado.

Suthers said in the guidelines that magazines “must be judged objectively” and that a magazine holding 15 rounds or fewer cannot be defined as “large capacity” just because it can be modified to hold more.

While those currently possessing magazines greater than 15 rounds, the law prevents the transfer of any of these magazines. The wording states the grandfather clause only applies as long as the holder “maintains continuous possession” of it. Cooke and other sheriffs have pointed out that based on this wording, anyone who gives their magazine to a gunsmith or asks for help on a shooting range with a jammed magazine is now violating the law.

Suthers said “an owner should not be considered to have transferred a large capacity magazine or lost continuous possession of it simply by handing it to a gunsmith, hunting partner, or an acquaintance at a shooting range.”

However, the problem is Suther’s statement is just what it says, guidance, and it does not hold the force of law. Any officer can choose to disregard Suther’s recommendations anytime he chooses in favor of the plain text of the law.

The lawsuit also claims the gun control measures violate the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as individual civil rights.

Dylan Harrell, one of the disabled plaintiffs in the case, said his disability, which confines him to a wheelchair often makes it more difficult for him to defend himself or his family. He also noted that as an outdoorsman, when exiting his vehicle he needs help.

“I often request the assistance for the safe handling of my firearms anytime I am transferring from a wheelchair to an ATV or another vehicle,” Harrell explained. “It is now against the law for me to even seek assistance anytime I am transferring my firearms for my wheelchair to another vehicle. I am filing this lawsuit on the half of all Coloradans with disabilities such as my own.”
The suit noted that disabled citizens often find it difficult to change magazines quickly, which could be a serious threat to their life if their weapon is needed for self-defense.

Colorado’s far left government this year is controlled by Democrats in the governor’s office, in the House and the Senate. They rammed through a number of gun restrictions and limits – at the behest of the White House.

During debate over the gun control measures, the vast majority of citizens testifying before the legislature were opposed to any new gun control laws. However, frequently their testimony was dismissed and treated with disdain by Democratic lawmakers who seemed to have already made up their minds about passing the laws.

State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, scolded a witness opposing one of the gun restrictions.

Amanda Collins, 27, of Reno, Nev., was telling her story of being assaulted and explained that had she been carrying a concealed weapon, the incident might have ended differently.
“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun,” Hudak scolded. “And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

Hudak continued, speaking over the committee witness, “The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that every one woman who used a handgun in self-defense, 83 here are killed by them.”
Finally able to resume her testimony, Collins said, “Senator, you weren’t there. I know without a doubt [the outcome would have been different with a gun].
“He already had a weapon,” she told the meeting of the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. “He didn’t need mine.”

A similar attitude was displayed by state Rep. Joe Salazar.
He said that a woman who feels threatened by rape on a college campus doesn’t need to be armed because she can use a call box to get help.

Salazar’s statement came in a debate over a proposal to ban citizens possessing a concealed-carry permit from being armed on university campuses.

“It’s why we have call boxes,” said Salazar, “It’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.

“And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

Perhaps the most surprising statement came from U.S. Rep. Diane DeGette, a Denver Democrat who displayed her perspective on gun magazines.

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them; so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot, and there won’t be any more available,” she said.

The Denver Post said DeGette didn’t appear to understand that a firearm magazine can be reloaded with more bullets.

State officials admitted they were doing the bidding of the White House. In February, Vice President Joe Biden flew to the state to strong-arm Democratic lawmakers who were feeling pressure from their constituents to vote against the bills.

“He (Biden) said it would send a strong message to the rest of the country that a Western state had passed gun-control bills,” Tony Exhum, a Democratic lawmaker from Colorado Springs, told the Denver Post.

House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino, an open homosexual who also pursued a “civil unions” agenda this year, admitted the gun-control bills introduced by fellow Democrats had national implications.

“I was shocked that he called. He said he thought the bills could help them on a national level,” Ferrandino said.

When Is It OK To Kill?

Is it okay to kill? I don’t mean a bug in your house, a snake in your garage, or a deer in the woods

Deer tastes good; you may not know if that snake in your garage is poisonous; and bugs are home invaders.
I mean is it okay to kill a man, a human being, a person? Again, I don’t mean someone trying to kill you, rob your business, rape your wife, harm your children, or break into your house. Killing someone might be perfectly justified in those circumstances if it involves defense against aggression.

Specifically, is it okay to kill someone who has not threatened or committed violence or aggression against you, your family, your friends, your neighborhood, anyone you know, or any American you don’t know?
No? Then –

• What if he is not an American?
• What if he lives thousands of miles away from America?
• What if he adheres to a religion that is different from that of most Americans?
• What if he is a darker color than most Americans?
• What if he speaks a language that most Americans don’t understand?
• What if he has habits that seem peculiar to most Americans?
• What if he holds to a political ideology that doesn’t resemble America’s?
• What if he smells different than most Americans?

Does someone having one or more of these characteristics alone mean it is okay to kill him?
Another no? Then –

• What if the U.S. government says he is a terrorist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is an insurgent?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a communist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is an extremist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a potential threat?
• What if the U.S. government says he hates our freedoms?
• What if the U.S. government says he is the enemy?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a bad guy?

Does the U.S. government merely saying any of these things make it okay to kill him?
No again? Then –

• What if the U.S. government says it is a matter of national security?
• What if the U.S. government says it is in the national interest?
• What if the U.S. government says it is of strategic concern?
• What if the U.S. government says it has secret information that makes it necessary?
• What if the U.S. government says it is part of the president’s grand strategic vision?
• What if the U.S. government says it is essential to maintaining hegemony?
• What if the U.S. government says it is just a part of fighting terrorism?
• What if the U.S. government says it is important to foreign policy objectives?

Does the U.S. government merely saying any of these things make it okay to kill him?
Still no? Then –

• What if the U.S. military gives you a nice uniform?
• What if the U.S. military gives you a gun and ammunition?
• What if the U.S. military pays for your college education?
• What if the U.S. military provides you with free medical and dental care?
• What if the U.S. military offers you citizenship in exchange for service?
• What if the U.S. military gives you an enlistment bonus?
• What if the U.S. military gives you generous combat pay?
• What if the U.S. military assists you with repaying your student loans?
• What if the U.S. military offers you liberal retirement benefits?

Does the U.S. military doing any of these things make it okay to kill him?
Of course not? Then –

• Why are some so quick to make apologies for U.S. military personnel who kill for the state in unjust wars?
• Why are some so quick to excuse U.S. military personnel who kill while not defending the United States?
• Why are some so quick to justify U.S. military personnel who kill people thousands of miles away that are no threat to the United States?
• Why are some so quick to defend U.S. military personnel who kill people that resent and resist being invaded, bombed, occupied, or "liberated"?
• Why are some so quick to blame the government, the politicians, and the defense contractors and exempt the U.S. military personnel who do the actual killing?

For years now I have heard the excuses. But what are these apologists, excusers, justifiers, defenders, and exempters really saying?

• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you can’t find a job.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you can’t make it in college.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are economically disadvantaged.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if your father was in the military.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are patriotic.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are ignorant.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are poor.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are uneducated.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you have no resources available.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are doing the right thing.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you were raised to never question the military.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you were never taught otherwise.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are just obeying orders.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are avenging 9/11?
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are defending our freedoms.

I have been given every one of these excuses at least ten times. The first part of the excuse is generally omitted, but why should it be? Is not this exactly what people are saying?

None of this means that the despicable creatures in the U.S. government who send American boys to war, and the equally loathsome creatures outside of the U.S. government who cheer them on, are not to be condemned as well. But those aren’t the people that are applauded in airports, called heroes, and thanked for their service.

But why is it that these excuses only seem to be valid for American soldiers? Why is it that soldiers from other countries aren’t lauded as heroes for killing Americans if they offer up one of the excuses that are commonly used to justify killings carried out by American soldiers? 

Some agree with everything I have said thus far, but think that if soldiers are draftees then it changes everything. I know this is the case because they write and tell me. I have written about the culpability of drafted soldiers in my article "Murder Is Still Murder." But again, why is it that it is only drafted American soldiers who can kill with impunity? I don’t think that apologists for draftees realize what they are saying. To excuse the actions of soldiers because they were drafted is to say that the state can somehow sanctify murder. 

Although the U.S. military is looking for a few good men to unjustly kill for the state, it is not okay to kill, even if the military advertises itself as a global force for good.

US Justice Dept Claims No Homeschooling Rights

Individual liberty is being burned at the stake, as governments set fire to people natural rights. This time it has everything to do with homeschooling.

It all started in Germany. Uwe and Hannelore Romeike were raising their five children in the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg, when they decided to remove their children from the public education system. In 2006, the Romeike's illegally withdrew their children from the German public schools system and began homeschooling. Believing that the public education system was undermining their Christian faith, the Romeike's began breaking the law and teaching their kids at home. By exercising their natural rights, the Romeikes were fined over $10,000 by the German government and at one point their children were forcefully removed from their home. In 2010, after getting their children back, they chose to flee Germany and move to the United States.

Finding freedom in the US, only to be challenged again, this time by the US

Upon arrival in Tennessee, the Romeikes were granted asylum. A federal judge rebuked the German policy and ruled that the Romeike's had a reasonable fear of persecution for their personal beliefs if they returned to Germany.

Nothing much was said about the issue until the Obama's Administration's Department of Justice got involved.

Attorney General, Eric Holder came out and opposed the federal court ruling, siding with the German government. He pleaded that the Romeike's be denied their asylum. Holder believes that governments may legitimately use force and authority to make parents comply with government-sanctioned schools.

With statements like these, the United States, once a beacon for liberty, is now endorsing force and mandates in regard to education. The right to homeschool and teach one's own children is a fundamental human right is now at stake. It doesn't matter what beliefs each family has. It's liberty that matters. According to Holder, that liberty should be supervised by the federal government.

Government supervised education

The German policy that's currently in place says that the upbringing of a child is a parent's natural right but the government's duty is to watch over them in the performance of this duty. The law also states that: "The entire school system shall be under the supervision of the state."

The policy in the United States is currently one of freedom. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution secures homeschooling as a fundamental liberty. The Constitution enables each individual state to regulate homeschooling in its own way. Is this idea under attack?

Very much so. The Attorney General currently seeks to deport the Romeike's. Their right to home school their children their own way doesn't matter to the Department of Justice. The government is more concerned with compliance: Everyone giving away their liberty and free will, and absorbing the education laid out by federal law.

From the failed No Child Left Behind Act to the new federally implemented Common Core program, the government is socializing the public school system. The new Common Core program is based on a one-size-fits-all approach that school Board President Michael Faccinetto condemns, saying:

"All we care about are these high-stakes tests and numbers and data instead of the kids." Faccinetto continues, "Standardized tests don't define the success of a child."

Homeschooling typically allows for a broader, more creative, and more self-disciplined approach to learning

Will federal compliance be the way forward for education in the United States, or are people catching on and learning that the freedom of homeschooling allows for the exploration of alternative ideas, engaging children more effectively with their society and themselves?

Indeed, homeschooling in the US is on the rise. Since 1999, the number of homeschooled children has increased by 75 percent.

Typically, a parent-involved education lays the groundwork for a set of core values that helps children become more productive and principled later in life.

More times than not, homeschooling is not a close-minded, antisocial way of educating. It's actually a more integrative, creative approach, with opportunities outside the classroom.

Homeschooling isn't anything to be ashamed of, and there should be nothing criminal about it. It is a parent's natural right to teach their children what they want as long as they are not harming another. A family that flees a county's educational control to find liberty in the United States is a testimony of freedom and the Attorney General should be ashamed for wanting to strip the family of asylum and deport them back into the hands of the controlling German government.

Mosquito Drone

Aldous Huxley Quote

What Conspiracy?

Sequester Cuts From Poor Gives To War Efforts

Locked and Loaded in Indiana?

Do You Do What's Right?

Agenda 21 Mind Control and Smart Growth

Do you cherish your God-given constitutional right to own property? So do I! UN Agenda 21′s Smart Growth is in full bloom across our nation. In East Tennessee the five county local “Regional ” program is called Plan East Tennessee, (Regional Plan for Livable Communities), a plan which will eliminate private property rights in these five counties. Link<br><br>

  It is a plan for Smart Growth. Rosa Koire, author of, “Behind the Green Mask,” defines Smart Growth on her website, as “Human habitation as it is referred to now is restricted to lands within the Urban Growth Boundaries of the city. Only certain building designs are permitted. Rural property is more and more restricted on what uses can be on it.”<br><br>


In my recent article, Taxed Enough Already, I explained how our former Knoxville City Mayor, Bill Haslam (now Tennessee’s Governor) hired his Democratic opponent, Madeline Rogero to work in his Republican Mayoral administration since the election was very close. He wanted a second term without her running against him. Rogero is now the new Knoxville City Mayor. While she was in Haslam’s administration, she apparently received permission and applied for a federal grant from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. In fact, Governor Haslam has refused to even sign a resolution against Agenda 21 even though a Resolution has absolutely no power of law. <br><br>


These grants, part of the Obama administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities, bring together HUD, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Two types of grants were awarded — those to update existing plans, and those to develop sustainability plans from scratch. Knoxville’s Plan ET is from scratch and Knoxville received $4.32 million from the HUD grant. Another $2.5 million came from a Consortium of partners which includes non-profits.
 <br><br>

Knoxville is also a dues paying member of ICLEI since 2007. From Tom DeWeese’s article, Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson, ” ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Additional groups include American Planning Association, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. The Foundation and government grants drive the process.” <br><br>


Community Forums and The Delphi Technique

From the Plan ET website, “Over the three-year PlanET process, three phases will lead to a targeted, meaningful outcome. Phase One (August 2011 – July 2012) will bring East Tennesseans together to establish a shared identity and vision (alleged data gathering). Phase Two (April 2012 – March 2013) will take that vision, and while educating and engaging the public, will develop a shared direction.(framework) Phase Three (January 2013 – December 2013) will produce and report the final product and focus on implementation activities.” (Action plan for Smart Growth) <br><br>


Series II of Plan ET held a week of six forums in every one of the five “regional” counties (Blount, Knox, (2) Anderson, Loudon and Union) asking for “community input.” Yet, Plan ET’s definition of “community input” seems to be neutralization of any expressed opposition to their plans of eliminating private property ownership under the guise of Smart Growth. Their “community consensus” is scripted for their pre-determined outcome via their use of the evil Rand Corporation’s mind-control Delphi Technique. RAND developed the Delphi method in the 1950s for the U.S. Department of Defense. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war. <br><br>



These forums are headed by trained Delphi Technique facilitators at small table groups of 6 to 8 people. The facilitators or change agents are always likeable people who will smile and agree with your comments. The discussion consists of issues previously decided upon by the leadership of these forums. The facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints. <br><br>

Rarely does anyone ever challenge the process, thinking they were probably in the minority with their answers. Actually, the conclusions were established in the back room long before the meeting ever took place. The general public believes this program was theirs, but in fact, the outcomes had all been decided long before the meetings ever took place. The Delphi Technique is being used again and again to change our representative republic, given to us by our Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy.” <br><br>



Who Are The Facilitators?

Wallace, Roberts, and Todd (WRT) architectural firm, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the Plan ET partner chosen to head the forums. They are paid $1.7 million to accomplish the pre-determined outcome of these forums through facilitation of the Delphi Technique. WRT was established in 1963 by David Wallace and they are expert “regional planners” with the firm’s origins rooted in “sustainability.” The American Planning Association (APA) has continually recognized this firm and their principal leaders for their contributions to sustainability and Smart Growth. The APA even has a “Policy Guide on Smart Growth.” In Tom DeWeese’s article, Lies and Doublespeak of the APA, these APA Sustainablists are teaching their planners to lie through their teeth to the opposition of their UN Agenda 21 Smart Growth policies. <br><br>


The American Planning Association and their allies are countering the anti-Agenda 21 movement with these lies, double speak and stealth. Why? Aren’t they proud of their policies? I guess Seattle planner J. Gary Lawrence said it best when he admitted several years ago that “participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many…who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” Now, even those words have caught up with their secret agenda. So now they’re having to invent more new words. <br><br>



All of the following leaders from WRT are members of the American Planning Association.
The leading facilitator and principal from WRT is John Fernsler. John’s bio states, “John is particularly adept at creating consensus among competing interests and in communicating Smart Growth planning concepts to diverse audiences.” It also states he is adept at helping communities “striving to contain sprawl.” Yes, they don’t want you living in the rural areas, and they hate the suburbs. Plan ET’s website contains pictures of downtown Knoxville, nothing of the rural community, suburbs, or Smoky Mountains.<br><br>

 Fernsler has been the driving force from WRT since the very first Plan ET meeting in Knoxville last summer. I met him there and spent an hour talking with him. He said WRT had just “finished” Austin, Texas. He also said to me, “Maybe you’d understand a bit better if we called what we’re doing, “stewardship.” Now I see on their website they are using God’s Word for “care of the earth” as a euphemistic term for their total control of our lives and property through Smart Growth. <br><br>


Another facilitator and Senior Associate from WRT is Rob Kern. Rob’s area of expertise is Transit design (they want us out of our cars and using public transportation, bicycles, or our feet). He is also adept, as they all are with Smart Growth planners, in urban design. (Once again, forget suburbia and rural communities). <br><br>


Another WRT principal is David Rouse. His bio states, “David has a special interest in planning and design for sustainability, community engagement in the planning process, and capacity-building for implementation.” (Capacity building is the stack-em and pack-em mega multi-family high rises built in the urban landscape after you’ve been moved off your suburban or rural property.) <br><br>


From WRT’s website, “Principal David Rouse is one of 11 members of the American Planning Association’s Sustaining Places Task Force, established earlier this year to address the use of the comprehensive plan as the leading policy document and tool to help communities of all sizes achieve sustainability.<br><br>

 The Task Force is part of the Sustaining Places Initiative, announced in March 2010 by APA President Bruce Knight and Chief Executive Officer Paul Farmer at the United Nation’s Fifth World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Sustaining Places is a multi-year, multi-faceted program to define the role of planning in addressing all human settlement issues relating to sustainability.” <br><br>

David Rouse, UN Smart Growth architect of Wallace, Roberts and Todd stated in the Times Free Press newspaper last fall that he is “committed to an open process, and that property rights won’t be impacted without the public’s consent.” (Note: He said “without the public’s consent, not the property owner’s.) <br><br>

Knoxville’s Metropolitan Planning Commission

Mark Donaldson, the MPC Executive Director has been at every single forum meeting and is trained as a Delphi facilitator. At one of the first meetings in Series I, he did not present himself as Executive Director of MPC, but said he was Mark from Minnesota. Other members of MPC were also at many of the Plan ET meetings as well as countless members of Knoxville’s Energy and Sustainability Task Force. Also present at all the Series II forums was Knoxville’s “Regional” Transportation Planning Coordinator, Jeff Welch who, like Mark Donaldson is trained as a Delphi facilitator. <br><br>

Invitees and Paid Attendees
Here’s the real rub with this whole “community input” nonsense this UN Agenda 21 Smart Growth bunch is pulling. At the majority of meetings, there were18 to 23 Plan ET members present who are Delphi facilitators, along with WRT and MPC staff. Then there were 20 to 25 invitees from local governments including local government Planning Committees, Community Development, Oak Ridge National Labs, University of Tennessee, etc. All of these invitees are employed by government and have a vested interest in this Plan ET coming to full fruition. I have attended nearly all of the Plan ET forums, and at every table, the “shills” who were invited answered all the questions with the pre-determined and ordained outcomes the Smart Growth facilitators desired. <br><br>

 Then there are another 18 to 25 people who know what Agenda 21 really is all about. The majority of meetings have approximately 40 to 45 people, not counting the facilitators, but if those of us against UN Agenda 21 did not attend, the only people giving “community input” would be the invited government shills who have a vested interest in Smart Growth and should not be voting at these Delphi meetings as it is a conflict of interest! At one meeting, one of the invitees admitted she was a paid participant. By the way, these attendance numbers were also given by the Plan ET staff present at all the forums. <br><br>

At the Plan ET South Doyle Middle School forum on Wednesday, April 25th, I sat across the table from a woman named Linda. She works for Knoxville County Mayor Burchett’s administration. Her boss, Grant Rosenberg, Community Development Director, was the invitee, but couldn’t attend, so he sent Linda. I made a comment about UN Agenda 21 at this table and Linda adamantly stated that she loved everything about UN Agenda 21.<br><br>

 What a shocker to hear one of these planted shills actually speak the truth. Most of them tell you they never heard of Smart Growth or UN Agenda 21. I asked her if she agreed with the 85% population reduction of Agenda 21 and she answered that was a total lie. How about limiting our usage of water to 28 gallons a day? She said that was a lie too. She should have gone to see one of my friends across the room who had the UN Agenda 21 book with him and he could have shown her the truth. <br><br>

At the 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Plan ET forum at the Loudon County Technical Center on Thursday, April 26th, the leaders of the forum were in a hurry to usher us out of the building. One of our participants called the Tech Center the next day and asked if there was a time limit on how long we could be there chatting after the meeting. The person she spoke with told her there was no rush to close the building, but the Plan ET people had been there since 8 a.m. They had actually been taking the leading children in this Technical Center School and putting them through the Delphi Technique all day long! <br><br>

 These are minor children. Then she called Public Affairs of Knox County Schools and found out children in other high schools in these counties were being Delphied as well. When she asked if the parents had given permission, she was told the school board had okayed the forums.
Finally, at the last meeting on Saturday morning, April 28th, at Union County High School in Maynardville, Tennessee, (video) there were only six invited local government employees and about 10 or 12 of us. <br><br>

 At one table, one of our people was tossed out of the forum for asking too many questions. Then his daughter was tossed out. When I began to scream that this was a community forum and we were allowed to ask questions, I was threatened with being thrown out. Another woman was asking questions as well, and Jack Rhyne, the City Manager of Maynardville, kept pointing at her and telling her to get out. She kept saying, “No, I want to hear what the gentleman is asking.” Rhyne actually took her elbow in an effort to grab her and escort her out of the building when facilitator Rob Kern of WRT stepped in to move her to another table. As an aside, this woman is a survivor of 9/11 at the Pentagon. <br><br>

Conclusion

At the Board of Mayors meeting, which was the kickoff of Plan ET’s Series II, several of us in the audience stood to ask questions of WRT’s Rob Kern and the Mayor of Anderson County after the initial presentation. There must have been 10 or 15 people asking questions and raising hands and stating they wanted to hear answers. Both the Mayor and Rob Kern said, “We’ll answer questions outside.” We didn’t want the questions outside in the foyer, we wanted them in the main room. Needless to say, these two men ended up running out of the room. At other meetings they would allow questions after the meeting in a corner with no microphone, but then we forced open mic questions and there were plenty. <br><br>

Our property rights and God-given constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are being lost at exponential rates today. The 20 year anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio occurs next month, June 2012. The planners intend to make UN Agenda 21 into hard law. This plan has existed for decades and was written about by six Russians in a book entitled, The Ideal Communist City. It was translated into English in the 60s. It is all about Smart Growth. I would urge you to buy Rosa Koire’s book, Behind the Green Mask. It is available on Amazon.com, and from the Post Sustainability Institute and clearly and succinctly tells the whole story of the damnable UN Agenda 21.

Effects of Digital Milennium Copyright Act on Blogs

 Greetings

The following "take down" notice and action was taken on an article that I republished in its entirety, but someone claimed that I had plagiarized the article.  The article that I posted, with videos, related to Dr Chris Busy and his positions on Radiation and claims that the Military Industrial Complex personnel were libeling him and sites posting information related to that were being given DMCA notices in an effort to silence him.

Definitions have not changed, plagiarism,  would be the case IF I had claimed the published work as my own......which I did not.

The notice below from GOOGLE is standard format and should be chilling.

Truth matters not, the content of the article does.......the watchers are everywhere if they are able to fund staff that searches out names, words or topics that could be offensive to the Dominant Society. 

Imagine, this tiny, unimportant Blog earning a DMCA take down......crazy world....and just who's money is that doing this funding, hmmmmm?

I just checked out Chilling Effects website, quite an interesting world happening out there.

Thanks

Toni

take down notice below
______________


Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to \"draft\" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message.) This means your post - and any images, links or other content - is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the offending content and republish, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again.

A bit of background: the DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement. If you believe you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-claim. In order to file a counter-claim, please see http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_counternotice&product=blogger.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org. We do this in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). You can search for the DMCA notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page at http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi, and entering in the URL of the blog post that was removed.

If it is brought to our attention that you have republished the post without removing the content/link in question, then we will delete your post and count it as a violation on your account. Repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in further remedial action taken against your Blogger account including deleting your blog and/or terminating your account. DMCA notices concerning content on your blog may also result in action taken against any associated AdSense accounts. If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

Affected URLs:

http://natural-health-home-remedies.blogspot.com/2013/02/christopher-busby-libeled-by-military.html

Be Very Careful About Believing Or Blindly Following Anonymous's Call To Arms, DO NOT RESPOND

Activist Post In the latest video from Anonymous, they have called for the most aggressive action yet. They're asking the American people to join them in a "call to arms" for the destruction and overthrow of the US Government. In the statement, Anonymous says the government is calling them "terrorists" because they truly fear a people's uprising. "The United States Government insists on labeling us as terrorists. The question is, "who do we terrorize?" Is it probable that the United States government is truly afraid of we, the people?" They are not calling for denial of service attacks on government websites or protests as is their normal modus operandi, but for freedom activists to join them in full-blown war to overthrow the US Government and return it to the control of the people. "We are not calling upon the collective to deface or use a distributed denial of service attack on a United States government agency website, or affiliate. We are not calling upon the people to once again occupy a city or protest in front of a local building, This has not brought on us any legislative change or alternate law. It has only brought us bloodshed and false criticism. For the last 12 years, voting has been useless. Corporations and lobbyists are the true leaders of this country and are the ones with the power to control our lives, To rebuild our government, we must first destroy it. Our time for democracy is here, Our time for resolution is here, This is America's time for revolution, To restore our constitutional rights, to once again, be free therefore, Anonymous along with the American people have decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms." The hacktivist collective lists a long train of abuses that can no longer be allowed: We refuse to be a police state. We refuse to be brutalized and dehumanized by the very people our tax dollars fund to protect our cities and streets. We will not allow the government to control our destiny, our right to build a life for ourselves. We demand freedom from government control, taxation, repossession and death. You will not come to our doors and take our guns, our property, you will not force the citizens of this great country to participate in the unlawful act of government mandated healthcare. We the people refuse to put in your control our health, our bodies, our minds, our lives. We will not grant permission for the government to deploy drones over our homes and communities. We must end the federal reserve. A private central bank should not issue our currency, set interest rates and run our economy. Rather, we need to return control over the currency to the American people where it belongs. They claim that all peaceful attempts to affect change within the system have failed and the time for action is now. "Our peaceful actions, patience and restraint have been demonstrated as we watched and waited for our Congress and Representatives to speak for the American citizens and protect us from the tyrant that sits in the oval office and happily strips the American people of our rights, one by one, executive order by executive order. We have waited long enough." NOTE: Who is Anonymous? Could it be a part of a Rogue Government group designed to provoke you into armed revolution? Isn't that exactly what would cause what many are trying to prevent? This is not the Art Of War, this is trying to attract a few more lone nuts....

West Point Trains Military To Take On Americans

Soldiers and police in America take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. But knowing who is a domestic enemy of the Constitution can be confusing to a young grunt. So a West Point think tank decided to broadly define what a domestic enemy may look like to ensure soldiers follow orders when the time comes.

In a study recently published by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger, the author of the study, attempts to present a picture of an America infested with dangerous “Right Wing” domestic terrorists lurking in the shadows and waiting to launch an attack on government establishments, agents, and minorities.

In the study, what Perliger defines as the “Far-Right” is actually a mixture of race hate groups with ordinary militias, anti-abortion activists, Libertarians/Anarchists, and “conspiracy theorists.” Perliger suggets that this “Far-Right” contingent is glued together by an identification with an “anti-federalist” ideology as well as a belief in a “New World Order.” 

According to Perliger, these groups are concerned with the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

Perliger, who is the director of terrorism studies at the West Point Combating Terrorism Center writes in the Introduction to the study that its purpose is to provide “a conceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks and their associated trends.”

For all the repetition of the terms “terrorism” and "violent" however, it is important to mention just how broad a definition has been assigned to this term in recent years. As Madison Ruppert of End the Lie writes in his article, “West Point study identifies ‘violent far-right’ with recognizing tyrannical, corrupt nature of government,” “It is worth noting that the federal government is quite tyrannical and corrupt with a federal judge ruled the government can claim the legal right to assassinate Americans without any charge or trial while never explaining the legal basis, engage in widespread illegal surveillance (which is dramatically increasing) and indefinitely detain Americans.”

Ruppert continues by stating, “If those aren’t violations of individuals’ civil liberties and constitutional rights, I don’t know what is.”

Yet, while Perliger defines three different branches of the “far-right” – racist/white supremacy movement, anti-federalist movement, and fundamentalist movement – the author lumps the three different branches into one, all while conveniently ignoring pertinent facts that might not back up his claims.

Perliger’s paper notably lacks mention of the fact that a great many “racist/white supremacy” organizations are themselves either partially or even entirely staffed by law enforcement agents of government intelligence. Likewise, Perliger entirely conflates race-based movements (also likely infiltrated and controlled by government agencies) with what he labels the “Christian Fundamentalist” movement. This, as Madison Ruppert points out, is described with a complete lack of understanding (intentional or otherwise) as to what “fundamentalism” actually is.

Yet, the “anti-federalist” movement (itself a variety of movements mixed together to provide an easier category for Perliger and his readers), is the most interesting when evaluating the West Point paper. According to Perliger, this “movement” is centered around a belief in a “New World Order,” and the recognition of the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

In this regard, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.

In further summarizing the “anti-federalist” viewpoint, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist movement’s ideology is based on the idea that there is an urgent need to undermine the influence, legitimacy and practical sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The groups comprising the movement suggest several rationales that seek to legitimize anti-federal sentiments. Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order,” (NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another version of global government. The NWO will be advanced, they believe, via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement agencies into a federally controlled “National Police” agency that will in turn merge with a “Multi-National Peace Keeping Force.” The latter deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American society’s deficiencies and US government incompetency. This will convince the American people that restoring stability and order inevitably demands the use of international forces. The last stage, according to most NWO narratives, involves the transformation of the United States government into an international/world government and the execution and oppression of those opposing this process.

Indeed, anyone even faintly aware of historical and current events would be hard-pressed to argue with the so-called “anti-federalists” in their analysis.

Regardless, in light of the recent push for citizen disarmament, the paper tellingly states,

Linda Thompson, the head of the Unorganized Militia of the United States details the consequence of this global coup: ”This is the coming of the New World Order. A one-world government, where, in order to put the new government in place, we must all be disarmed first. To do that, the government is deliberately creating schisms in our society, funding both the anti-abortion/pro-choice sides, the antigun/pro-gun issues…trying to provoke a riot that will allow martial law to be implemented and all weapons seized, while ‘dissidents’ are put safely away”. The fear of the materialization of the NWO makes most militias not merely hostile towards the federal government but also hostile towards international organizations, whether non-profitable NGOs, international corporations, or political institutions of the international community, such as the UN.

Perliger, of course, does not attempt to challenge any of Thompson's claims as they are presented in this short quotation nor does he attempt to debunk any of the claims made by the “anti-federalist” communities that he so concisely repeats in the statement above. While, admittedly, it is not a stated goal of the author’s study to defend his position and debunk those of his subjects, one would also be justified in concluding that Perliger does not attempt to defend his case simply because disproving the claims made by the “anti-federalist” activists as he presents them would impossible for him to do in a convincing manner.

Yet the purpose of the paper is not to provide legitimate information about these groups as much as it is to terrify the reader – West Point and other military trainees – into believing that anyone who rightly supposes that their government is overstepping its bounds, violating their rights, or moving forward in otherwise unconstitutional directions is a conspiracy-obsessed, right-wing, racist fanatic who is intent on killing military, police, and minorities.

Unfortunately for the author, however, a careful reading of his own argument causes it to fall apart at the seams.

After postulating numerous reasons for the alleged violence of “far-right” groups ranging from political, socio-economic, geographical, and operational possibilities, Perliger attempts to turn to the actual numbers.

At first, Perliger’s presentation of thousands of violent attacks per year (using 2010 statistics) is quite shocking since such attacks are not known to the general public and the mainstream media has not seized upon them at every available opportunity as one would expect. The actual level of violence in its own right, whether reported or not, would be concerning to say the very least.

These numbers would be an even more concerning situation if they demonstrated that such attacks were on the rise.

Unfortunately for the government argument, however, this is not the case as even Perliger has to admit when he says, “Hence, in periods during which many streams of terrorism have shown improvement in their operational capabilities and, as a result, an increase in their tendency to engage in mass casualty attacks, the violent American far right shows stagnation, at least in terms of its ability to enhance the harm it generates.”

For instance, while the term “right-wing violent attack” might conjure images of lynchings, executions, or mass terror attacks, the statistics, even those presented by Perliger, tend to show a different reality. Indeed, the type of “attack” referenced in Perliger’s study is entirely unclear in terms of just what would constitute a “right-wing violent attack.”

Indeed, when examining Perliger’s statistics, one can easily see that well over half of the “attacks” being described are actually proxy “attacks” (loosely defined term) against property, “foiled attacks” (which are wildly undefined, especially since the overwhelming majority of any foiled terrorist attack in the United States has been directed by the FBI), “heavy damage to property,” and “cross burnings.”

Likewise, with so many acts of property damage and racial symbols being later determined to have been directed by the “victims” themselves, one must also call these numbers into question since they are left unclear in the study.

Of those attacks designed to cause “mass casualties,” the Oklahoma City Bombing was no doubt included in the statistics, an obvious government-run false flag operation.

Yet, even among the 42% of “attacks” described as involving “specific human targets,” the incidents are not necessarily connected with any political, racial, or religious origin. As with any attempt at methods of divide and conquer, there is the very real possibility that any violent attack leveled against any individual of minority status or non-right-wing political ideology is thus considered to be a “specific human target” attack. Under such loosely defined rules of categorization, since the incidence of “specific human targets” were overwhelmingly one on one or (at most) two on one altercations, a simple shoving match between two individuals in which one could be remotely considered right wing, racist, or religious could then be delineated as a violent right-wing attack.

Since Perliger easily allows his own political bias to appear during the course of the paper and, since much of his political theory is based upon Israeli political scientist Ehud Sprinzak’s Iceberg model of the structure of political movements, it is apparent that Perliger’s own methodology is likely devised in a manner that would allow even the most distant and unrelated events seem directly related to the core of political ideology Perliger has set in his sites.

Such a concern is only compounded by the fact that one of Perliger’s main sources for his paper is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a notorious race-baiting organization that routinely accuses anyone who disagrees with the company line in regards to government policy as racist and potentially violent and dangerous. Not far behind, of course, is the citation of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization of similar race-based incredibility.

In the end, Perliger’s report is nothing more than just another cog in the wheel of a military-industrial complex on overdrive in its attempt to brainwash new military recruits into believing that a terrorist lurks behind every bush. More importantly, these new recruits are being trained that such terrorists are no longer shadowy Muslims hiding in caves in Afghanistan, but good ol’ boys, gun owners, and average American citizens that will eventually have to be dealt with.

20 Ways To Be More Self Sufficient

One thing you don't want to be during the coming "crunch" – a polite word for "collapse" – is dependent on the system. 

The more you can take care of yourself, the better off you'll be physically, financially, emotionally and even spiritually. Here are 20 ways to become more self-sufficient while you still can: 

1) Get a small solar system that can be used to run a laptop or recharge batteries
2) Drill a water well and install a hand pump or solar-powered DC pump
3) Set up a rainwater collection system or barrel
4) Stash some cash: stock away some green dollar bills and lots of U.S. nickels
5) Own and learn how to use a handgun, rifle and shotgun
6) Store some ammunition
7) Own and know how to use a water filter
8) Start a garden this spring and acquire more food production skills
9) Save garden seeds so you can plant the next generation of food
10) Acquire a wood-burning stove for heat and cooking
11) Possess a large quantity of stored food; enough for at least 90 days
12) Get to know your local farmers and ranchers
13) Store up valuable barter items that are relatively cheap today: Alcohol, coffee, ammo, matches, etc.
14) Safely store extra vehicle fuel (gasoline, diesel) at your home or ranch
Be sure to use fuel stabilizers to extend their life.
15) Learn emergency first aid skills and own first aid supplies
This could save a life or possibly save a trip to the emergency room.
16) Start growing your own medicine
Plant and grow aloe vera, oregano, garlic, cayenne pepper and other medicinal herbs that can replace a surprisingly large number of prescription drugs. Oregano, for example, is a potent antibiotic. Aloe vera treats cuts, scrapes and burns.
17) Own emergency hand-cranked radios so you can tune in to news and announcements
My #1 recommended brand is Freeplay.
18) Boost your immune system with vitamin D and superfoods
19) Increase your level of physical fitness
20) Learn how to raise animals such as rabbits, chickens, goats or cow

Sign Entering Virginia

Hemp Growing Was Once The Law In The US

HEMP IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY, highlighted a 1914 series $10 bill of a hemp harvest, and it is discussed in the video attached. The bill is printed on 100% hemp paper. 

The first Federal Reserve Bank notes were issued in 1914. This $10 bill bears the signature of Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of the Treasury under multiple presidential administrations. Mellon was also the head of several oil companies and banks. Mellon was the uncle of Harry Anslinger, the first leader of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1931-1961. Anslinger was the main cheerleader of the Reefer Madness misinformation campaign and the primary person responsible for marijuana prohibition.

Aaron Jackson, Guest Writer

Waking Times
Before you start growing your own hemp plants, it is worthwhile to read up on the history of hemp growing in the US. At one time it was legal. Not only was it legal, the law required the growing of it.

According to the book Healthy Oils, hemp is another word for the plant Cannabis sativa L. Marijuana comes from this same plant genus – as does cauliflower and broccoli. However, the strains used in consumer and industrial products contain only a negligible amount of the intoxicating substance delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

 Thus industrial grade hemp is not marijuana. Yet, since the 1950’s the growing of hemp has been effectively prohibited.

But this has not always been the case. Going back to 1619 America’s first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, VA. All farmers were ordered to grow Indian hemp seed. Mandatory cultivation laws were enacted in MA in 1631, in CT in 1632, and in the Chesapeake colonies in the 1700’s.

Cannabis hemp was even used as legal tender in most of the Americas from 1631 until the early 1800’s. The reason for making it legal tender was to encourage farmers to grow more. You could then pay your taxes with cannabis hemp throughout America for over 200 years. If you did not grow hemp during periods of shortages, you could be jailed.

In fact, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson used enslaved African labor to grow this crop on their plantations.

Hemp has been grown for over 12,000 years for textiles, fiber, and food. There are established hemp growers in China, Romania, Hungary, and France. It is also now grown in Australia, Canada, Britain and Germany where for decades there had been none. The US has an experimental crop being grown in Hawaii under a government license.

Hemp is beginning to make a comeback in the US. Fashion designers and mass producers use it. It is also added to personal care products such as soap, shampoo and skin care products. Hemp seed oil naturally replenishes skin moisture and helps with the skin‘s elasticity. The omega-6 fatty acids are said to be helpful for sufferers of eczema, and psoriasis and other dry skin conditions.

Hemp seed oil is also used for cooking and is extremely high in polyunsaturated content (at least 80%). Because it is a very good source of omega fatty acids, adding it to your diet helps to substantially improve the skin’s natural elasticity and appearance.

In England, I found it easy to find all sorts of hemp seed products on the supermarket shelves.
Now cars made in France are being made from flax, hemp and other natural fibers.

NOTE:  Check out:  http://www.marijuana-tourism-information.com

The US Proven Record Of Keeping Peace & Killing

This is an open letter to one of my friends who is pro-gun control... Well, that's not exactly true; he doesn’t just want gun control. He wants to make all guns completely illegal.

Dear Lenny (not his real name),

About gun control: I agree with you. We need to protect the children. I understand that the best entity to do that is undoubtedly the US government. They have a proven record of success that cannot be matched!

Perhaps you should tell everyone who is against gun control about how the U.S. government protected them when they killed about 1 million Native Americans (who, by the way, didn't have guns). Those Native Americans were savages and they had to die to make way for our God-given manifest destiny and us.

Also remind people not to forget the great protection the US government gave its own citizens when it waged a war against them and killed nearly 700,000 of them in a war to protect sanctity of the state between 1861 and 1865? A war that killed citizens that had voted in that government to protect them! 


Or how, as late as about 1890, the US government righteously executed over 150 American Indians (80% were women and children) in a legal gun seizure raid at Wounded Knee? 

 Or those evil Branch Davidians at Waco, TX in 1993, killing 76 men, women and children?

Don’t forget to mention the now rarely disputed view that FDR knew about and encouraged the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor – and didn't allow his commanders to know about it, so that 2400+ Americans died? FDR did that to save lives!

Sure, sometimes there are tough choices to make, right? But remind everyone that the US government are always the Good Guys, with God on our side. Everyone makes mistakes, but at least our government means well. 

Isn’t it wonderful living in the greatest country in the world?

Oh, and don’t forget to mention about how the U.S. government – which would never turn on its citizens – imprisoned about 112,000 peaceful Japanese Americans during WWII? And also imprisoned peaceful German Americans during both world wars (over 2,000 in World War I and over 11,000 in World War II.)

Or, don’t forget to mention shooting peaceful student protestors and killing them at Kent State in 1970! Sure, those things happened... But it was for those students' own protection!

9/11? What? There another 3000 died. But no one could possibly imagine that our benevolent leaders would intentionally allow the world's most powerful, most feared, air force to sit at base doing nothing at the time, right?

 Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.
Some nutcases will argue that US history is replete with the US government committing gross crimes against humanity (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) and a litany of atrocities against its own people. But these cases are all hearsay. What proof do they have?

Blowing away a few to several hundred troublesome Americans matters to no one except conspiracy nuts and terrorists, right? I mean, if they are troublesome, they can’t be "real Americans," anyway!)

We need to protect the children. We need to take guns out of the hands of the citizens and give it back to the government…. 

After all, history shows that the US government is our best protector. They've proven, without a doubt, again and again, that they will take care of us! 

Thanks to my friend, David Kramer.