Fly Like An Eagle

YahwehNow3168 | Feb 1, 2011

An idea sparked by andrewhitchcock23 ;-D
Lyrics:
Yeah, think I
better get up
Doo...doo...du du ... Yeah ...
Doo...doo...du du ... Love, love, love ...
Doo...doo...du du ... Don't it baby? ...
Time keeps on slippin'
Into the future...
Said
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future.........oohhh
Said I wanna fly like an eagle... to the sea
Fly like an eagle let my spirit carry me, I wanna...
fly...
Fly right into the future....
I wanna feed the babies... said, who can't get enough to eat
Wanna shoe the children... no shoes on their feet
I wanna house the people... livin' in the street
Oh yeah there's a solution
Let me fly like and eagle... to the sea
Fly like an eagle let that spirit carry me, I wanna
Fly right into the future
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future...
Time flies don't it baby?
Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin'
Into the future... ...Ohhh.
Time flies don't it baby?
Keep on flying...
keep on flying, ohhh ...
Oh yeah, yeah
Think I better get up...
Don't it baby?
Hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey...
I wanna fly like an eagle... to the sea
Fly like an eagle let my spirits carry me, I wanna
fly...
Fly right into the future
Lemme fly like an eagle ... to the sea
... Fly............ like an ea.....gle.... we'll
fly...
Fly like an eagle let that spirit carry me, I wanna...
fly....
Fly............... like an ea.....gle.... we'll fly...
Fly right into the future
Lemme fly like an eagle ... ... to the sea
In a sky full of people ... only some want to fly, isn't that...
crazy? ... Ohh hho ...oohh
fly....
Fly............ like an ea.....gle.... I'm gonna fly...
Fly............ like an ea.....gle.... I'm gonna fly...
Fly............ like an ea.....gle.... I'm gonna fly...

Fly Like A Bird (Be Free)

YahwehNow3168 | December 11, 2010

We are in some crazy times right now! But no matter what gets thrown at us, take a tip from our feathered friends and let your spirit soar ;-D

Avoid These 68 Airports If You Don’t Want An X-Ray Body Scan

Gus Lubin
November 20, 2010

If you think the airport scanner fiasco is big now, wait till Thanksgiving.

Advanced Imaging Technology People traveling in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and other major cities will have to choose between a revealing body scan and a very thorough pat down. http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-full-body-scanners-2010-11

Here are 68 airports with the scanners:

Albuquerque International Sunport Airport
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
Boston Logan International
Bush Houston Interncontinental Airport
Boise Airport
Bradley International Airport
Brownsville
Buffalo Niagara International Airport
Charlotte Douglas International
Chicago O’Hare International
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
Cleveland International Airport
Corpus Christie Airport
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
Denver International Airport
Detroit Metro Airport
Dulles International Airport
El Paso International Airport
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Fort Wayne International Airport
Fresno Airport
Gulfport International Airport
Grand Rapids Airport
Harrisburg International Airport
Harlingen/Valley International Airport
Honolulu International Airport
Indianapolis International Airport
Jacksonville International Airport
John F. Kennedy International Airport
Kansas City International
LaGuardia International Airport
Lambert/St. Louis International Airport
Laredo International Airport
Lihue Airport
Los Angeles International
Luis Munoz Marin International Airport
McAllen Miller Airport
McCarran International Airport
Memphis International Airport
Miami International Airport
General Mitchell Milwaukee International Airport
Mineta San José International
Minneapolis/St.Paul International Airport
Nashville International Airport
Newark Liberty International Airport
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport
Oakland International Airport
Omaha Eppley Field Airport
Orlando International Airport
Palm Beach International Airport
Philadelphia International Airport
Phoenix International Airport
Pittsburgh International Airport
Port Columbus International
Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Richmond International Airport
Rochester International Airport
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
Salt Lake City International Airport
San Antonio International Airport
San Diego International Airport
San Francisco International Airport
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Spokane International Airport
T.F. Green Airport
Tampa International Airport
Tulsa International Airport


These airports are getting them soon:

Chicago Midway International Airport
Houston William P. Hobby Airport
Saipan International Airport


http://peopleforfreedom.com/new-world-order-news/resistance/avoid-these-68-airports-if-you-dont-want-an-x-ray-body-scan/

Senate Bill S 510 Food Safety Modernization Act vote imminent

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Senate Bill S 510 Food Safety Modernization Act vote imminent: Would outlaw gardening and saving seeds

(NaturalNews) Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America." It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public's right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer's markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don't comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government.

"It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." - Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower (http://shivchopra.com/?page_id=2)

This tyrannical law puts all food production (yes, even food produced in your own garden) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. Yep -- the very same people running the TSA and its naked body scanner / passenger groping programs.

This law would also give the U.S. government the power to arrest any backyard food producer as a felon (a "smuggler") for merely growing lettuce and selling it at a local farmer's market.It also sells out U.S. sovereignty over our own food supply by ceding to the authority of both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Codex Alimentarius.

It would criminalize seed saving (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/seeds-how-to-criminalize-them/ ), turning backyard gardeners who save heirloom seeds into common criminals. This is obviously designed to give corporations like Monsanto a monopoly over seeds.

It would create an unreasonable paperwork burden that would put small food producers out of business, resulting in more power over the food supply shifting to large multinational corporations.

I encourage you to read more about this dangerous bill at the Food Freedom blog on Wordpress: http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/seeds-how-to-criminalize-them/
Watch this excellent video on NaturalNews.

TV which explains S.510 in more detail: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=9209B7B02D4A5A8EA8B71038D6C18D26

Take action now or lose your right to grow your own foodSign this petition at Citizens for Health:http://www.citizens.org/?page_id=2312 Do it today! This is really important.

In addition, the Cornucopia Institute recently sent out an urgent call-to-action email containing the following information: (http://www.cornucopia.org/2010/11/action-alert-act-by-nov-17-on-senate-food-safety-legislation/)

How to protest Senate Bill 510

1) Go to Congress.org and type in your zip code in the box in the upper right hand corner.

2) Click on your Senator's name, and then on the contact tab for their phone number. You can also call the Capitol Switchboard and ask to be directly connected to your Senator's office: 202-224-3121

3) Once connected ask to speak to the legislative staff person responsible for agriculture. If they are unavailable leave a voice mail message. Be sure to include your name and phone number.

Give them this message in support of the "Tester Amendment" which would exempt small farms from S.510: "I am a constituent of Senator___________. I ask that he/she support the Tester Amendment to the food safety bill. The Tester Amendment will exempt the safest, small, owner-operator farms and food facilities and farmers who direct market their products to consumers, stores or restaurants. Food safety legislation should not create inappropriate and costly regulatory barriers to family farms and the growing healthy food movement in the drive to crack down on corporate bad actors. Please support the Tester Amendment and market opportunities for small and mid-sized family farms, and small food processing facilities.

"You may also wish to explain that you oppose the Food Safety Modernization Act in its entirety, and it is a destructive, freedom-crushing law that will destroy the future of food in America.

Remember, America has already lost control over its money supply to the Federal Reserve (nearly a hundred years ago). America has lost its health due to the medical industry and its profit-from-sickness agenda. Now we may lose our right to grow our own food and save our own seeds if Senate Bill 510 passes.

This is a dangerous, tyrannical law that would thrust the American people into an age of darkness and malnutrition. It would criminalize many of the very people growing our food and turn food production into yet another corporate monopoly.

Please take the time right now to contact your U.S. Senator and voice your strong opposition to this bill.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030418_Food_Safety_Modernization_Act_seeds.html


How they voted so far
Here’s how the senators voted on the motion to send S.510 to a full floor vote: (this is a procedural vote to move the bill forward so that it can be voted on for final passage)

Who voted in FAVOR of moving S.510 forward

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


Who OPPOSED S.510

Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wicker (R-MS)

All of you who live in states where senators voted in favor of this need to call your U.S. Senate offices today — right now — and urge them to oppose this nefarious bill.

Call the Capitol Switchboard and ask to be directly connected to your Senator’s office: 202-224-3121.

We are about to lose our food freedoms over the bill, because unless more pressure is brought to bear, it looks like this bill will soon pass — and we will be thrust into a new era of FDA tyranny over the food supply.

Senate bill S 510 vote imminent – procedural vote passes 74-25

Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, November 18, 2010

(NaturalNews) U.S. Senate Bill S 510 is now on the Senate floor where a vote is expected shortly. Yesterday, the Motion to Invoke Cloture passed on a vote of 74-25 (see how they voted, below), sending the bill forward for a final vote perhaps as early as today.

US Senate offices are experiencing a huge backlash of grassroots opposition to the bill — called the Food Safety Modernization Act — as virtually every health freedom organization, family farm group and even dietary supplement companies have aligned to oppose this new bill. It is being called “The most dangerous bill in United States history” and would thrust America into a new Dark Ages of FDA tyranny over seeds, foods, herbs, gardens and nutritional supplements. (http://naturalnews.com/030418_Food_Safety_Modernization_Act_seeds.html)

Opposition to the bill has been widespread. For example, the John Birch Society issued this alert yesterday:

Senate Bill 510 has already passed committee and is on the Senate calendar. It calls for enhanced expansion of FDA authority over small farms, ranches, and other food producers, establishes burdensome administrative requirements for large and small operations, and arbitrary legal authority to recall “unsafe medications,” the definition of which is not clearly established; if in line with the global standard set by Codex Alimentarius, “unsafe medications” could extend to dietary supplements and herbal products. There is language that currently exempts from heavy regulation dietary supplement manufacturers and packagers. However, the FDA and its agents are notorious for interpreting regulations their own way.

Take Action: Click here to sign the John Birch Society petition opposing S.510.
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?APP=GAC&AID=972&IssueID=22734&SiteID=-1


The John Birch Society insists that “My right to produce, distribute, and consume the foods of my choice is part of my right to life and liberty under the Constitution.”

Having A Supply Of Healthy Foods That Last Just Makes Sense (AD)

I happen to agree. The FDA has no business telling us we can’t buy raw milk, or we can’t save our own garden seeds or grow organic produce and sell it at the farmer’s market.

How they voted so far
Here’s how the senators voted on the motion to send S.510 to a full floor vote: (this is a procedural vote to move the bill forward so that it can be voted on for final passage)

Who voted in FAVOR of moving S.510 forward

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


Who OPPOSED S.510

Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wicker (R-MS)

All of you who live in states where senators voted in favor of this need to call your U.S. Senate offices today — right now — and urge them to oppose this nefarious bill.

Call the Capitol Switchboard and ask to be directly connected to your Senator’s office: 202-224-3121.

We are about to lose our food freedoms over the bill, because unless more pressure is brought to bear, it looks like this bill will soon pass — and we will be thrust into a new era of FDA tyranny over the food supply.

Sign this petition at Citizens for Health:
http://www.citizens.org/?page_id=2312

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet

Arlen Spector and Robert Casey - Our so called Pennsylvania congressional reps. also voted to advance the U.S. Senate Bill S 510, the one that takes our food freedoms away, making it illegal to grow your own food and save your seeds. What They are doing is Pre-Meditated Mass Murder in my book!


The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Nov 18th 2010

from the free-speech-isn't-free dept

This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:

Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- California
Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
Jon Kyl -- Arizona
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- Illinois
John Cornyn -- Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
Al Franken -- Minnesota
Chris Coons -- Delaware

This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so.

First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.

First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico as spill cover-up goes Orwellian

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
July 3 2010


First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico as spill cover-up goes Orwellian

(NaturalNews) As CNN is now reporting, the U.S. government has issued a new rule that would make it a felony crime for any journalist, reporter, blogger or photographer to approach any oil cleanup operation, equipment or vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone caught is subject to arrest, a $40,000 fine and prosecution for a federal felony crime.

CNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, "A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, ... will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you're probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they're working for because they're afraid of losing their jobs."

Watch the video clip yourself at NaturalNews.TV: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=203

The rule, of course, is designed to restrict the media's access to cleanup operations in order to keep images of oil-covered seabirds off the nation's televisions. With this, the Gulf Coast cleanup operation has now entered a weird Orwellian reality where the news is shaped, censored and controlled by the government in order to prevent the public from learning the truth about what's really happening in the Gulf.


The war is on to control your mind
If all this sounds familiar, it's because the U.S. government uses this same tactic during every war. The first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. There are lots of war images the government doesn't want you to see (like military helicopter pilots shooting up Reuters photographers while screaming "Yee-Haw!" over the comm radios), and there are other images they do want you to see ("surgical strike" explosions from "smart" bombs, which makes it seem like the military is doing something useful). So war reporting is carefully monopolized by the government to deliver precisely the images they want you to see while censoring everything else.

Now the same Big Brother approach is being used in the Gulf of Mexico: Criminalize journalists, censor the story and try to keep the American people ignorant of what's really happening. It's just the latest tactic from a government that no longer even recognizes the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights. Because the very first right is Freedom of Speech, which absolutely includes the right to walk onto a public beach and take photographs of something happening out in the open, on public waters. It is one of the most basic rights of our citizens and our press.

But now the Obama administration has stripped away those rights, transforming journalists into criminals. Now, we might expect something like this from Chavez, or Castro or even the communist leaders of China, but here in the United States, we've all been promised we lived in "the land of the free." Obama apparently does not subscribe to that philosophy anymore (if he ever did).

So how does criminalizing journalists equate to "land of the free?" It doesn't, obviously. Forget freedom. (Your government already has.) This is about controlling your mind to make sure you don't visually see the truth of what the oil industry has done to your oceans, your shorelines and your beaches. This is all about keeping you ignorant with a total media blackout of the real story of what's happening in the Gulf.

The real story, you see, is just too ugly. And the government has fracked up the cleanup effort to such a ridiculous extent that instead of the "transparency" they once promised, they're now resorting to the threat of arrest for all journalists who try to get close enough to cover the story.

Yes, this is happening right now in America. This isn't a hoax. I know, it sounds more like something you might hear about in Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela or some other nation run by dictators. But now it's happening right here in the USA.

As Anderson Cooper reported on CNN:

"Now the government is getting in on the act. Despite what Admiral Thad Allen promised about transparency just nearly a month ago.

Thad Allen: "The media will have uninhibited access anywhere we're doing operations..."

Anderson Cooper: The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers, reporters and anyone else from coming with 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on an island surrounded by a boom, you can't get close enough to take that picture. Shot of oil on beaches with booms? Stay 65 feet away. Pictures of oil-soaked booms uselessly laying in the water because they haven't been collected like they should? You can't get close enough to see that. Believe me, that is out there. But you only know that if you get close to it, and now you can't without permission. Violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges."

See the video yourself at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=203


Welcome to the (censored) club
All I can say to CNN is: Welcome to the club! This kind of censorship, intimidation and tyranny has been going on for decades in the field of health, where the Orwellian FDA has treated the entire U.S. public to a nationwide blackout on truthful health information about healing foods and nutritional supplements. CNN has never covered that story, by the way. Most of the mainstream media has, in fact, gone right along with censorship of truthful health information by the FDA and FTC.

Now they're suddenly crying wolf. But where was the media when the FDA was raiding nutritional supplement companies and arresting people who dared to sell healing foods with honest descriptions about how they might help protect your health? The media went right along with the cover-up and never bothered to even tell its viewers a cover-up was taking place.

You see, even CNN is willing to tolerate some Orwellian censorship, as long as its advertisers are okay with it. The only reason they're talking about censorship in the Gulf of Mexico right now is because oil companies don't influence enough of their advertising budget to yank the story.


Censorship is not okay in a free society
I like the fact that CNN is finding the courage to speak up now about this censorship in the Gulf, but I wish they wouldn't stay silent on the other media blackouts in which they have long participated. Media censorship is bad for any nation, and it should be challenged regardless of the topic at hand. When the media is not allowed to report the truth on a subject -- any subject! -- the nation suffers some loss as a result.

Without the light of media scrutiny, corporations and government will get away with unimaginable crimes against both humanity and nature. That's what's happening right now in the Gulf of Mexico: A crime against nature.

Obama doesn't want you to see that crime. He's covering it up to the benefit of BP. He's keeping you in the dark by threatening reporters and photographers with arrest. How's that for "total transparency?"

The only thing transparent here is that President Barack Obama has violated his own oath of office by refusing to defend the Constitution. By any honest measure, in fact, these actions, which are endorsed by the White House, stand in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. And that means this new censorship rule in the Gulf, which suspends the First Amendment, is unconstitutional. It also means those who decided on this rule are enemies of freedom.

They are the ones who should be arrested and hauled off to federal prison, not the CNN reporters who are trying to cover this story.


The seeds of tyranny
The loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico isn't the only catastrophe taking place here, you see: Now we're losing our freedoms while our government tries to intentionally blind us all from the truth of what's happening on our own public beaches.

When those who seek truth are branded criminals by the government, it is only a matter of time before that government expands its criminalization labeling to include anyone who disagrees with it. These are the seeds of tyranny, and Obama is planting them at your doorstep right now.

What BP did to the Gulf Coast, Obama is now doing to your freedom

http://www.naturalnews.com/029130_Gulf_of_Mexico_censorship.html

No Wonder They Didn't Want Photos Taken - Cynthia McKinney

God Bless You Cynthia! Hope You are doing Well. am Starting to Worry though.
Haven't heard a peep from you since July 20 2009?

Hugs and Peace, Lisa - (I tried to post this comment to her to no avail-thus far)


No Wonder the Israelis Didn't Want Photos Taken

By: Cynthia McKinney
July 17, 2009 - Friday

The Viva Palestina convoy, led by George Galloway, is about to leave Gaza after having been permitted to enter for a period of 24 hours after waiting 11 days in Cairo for permission to enter Gaza. That in and of itself is a major story when expanded to include the inability of Gazans to exit The Strip--even if only to enter another part of their country, the West Bank or to move about freely in the fictional "Palestinian State." I say fictional because it continues to dwindle even while peace talks are underway. Fictional, because Palestinian elections deemed by international observers to be free and fair, don't count if the US- and Israel-approved party loses, and the winners get to sit for years in an Israeli jail. Fictional, because they use Israel's currency here, the shekel, and the international roaming on our US cell phones indicates calls are from Israel.

Gaza is beautiful. Gaza is full of life, despite Israel's Operation Cast Lead. And now, I have seen, Gaza has been bombed to smithereens. I think I've mastered my video camera enough to share some images with you. I'll post them on the sites below when I return. In the meantime, my fellow Americans and citizens of the world, we have a lot to do to put right all the wrong things done in our name. Much love to all of you who helped me, guided me, prayed for me, to make this successful entry into Gaza happen.

Viva Palestina!!
Free Gaza!!

Cynthia McKinney

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=329054963&blogId=500838576

--------------------------------------

P.S. from Lisa:

Cynthia's Blog Comments are Disabled.

But at time of my posting this she has: 1000000021 Kudos!

Playmobil Security Checkpoint -For Kids!

Feminist Peace Network
February 12, 2009


When I flew home from Washington, DC after a business trip last week, the TSA agent asked to test my laptop. I politely asked what they were testing for. It was just routine she told me. And she’s right, it has become routine, a much too routine standard operating procedure designed to make us believe that the usurping of our privacy and human rights is normal and necessary if we are to be secure and free.


The obvious irony is that we are not secure and free if government agents have a right to violate our privacy and deny our rights without cause. I considered protesting but I figured that the best outcome of that would be missing my flight, the worst case being detained incommunicado in an undisclosed location. The likelihood of a plausible explanation for this sudden interest in my laptop was undoubtedly nil. In otherwords, whatcha gonna do and TSA knows that.

Most insidious are the toys marketed to preschool and elementary school age children that exploit the war on terror mantra. Playmobil has several toys that fit that bill, including Playmobil Security Checkpoint (for ages 4-7) and Playmobil Police Checkpoint (for ages 10 and up).

What is particularly disturbing about the normalizing of this notion that it is unpatriotic to question measures that supposedly defend us from acts of terror is the use of entertainment to hawk the message. In addition to the Disney-owned ABC’s Homeland Security reality show, there is now a Homeland Security television channel on the internet that bills itself as,


(T)he world’s first online, on-demand television network dedicated to homeland security and global development. HSTV is a 24/7 interactive television channel dedicated to producing broadcast-quality video programs on all aspects of homeland security and the role of global development in fighting terrorism.
HSTV is also dedicated to facilitating rapid awareness of new technologies and services, and assisting in the transfer of those technology solutions to the government and critical infrastructure marketplace.


And the U.S. military has spared no expense giving kids every opportunity to play sanitized military video games that helpfully provide links to military recruiting sites. In addition to video games such as “America’s Army“, the Army recently opening the $12 million U.S. Army Experience Center at the Franklin Mills shopping center outside of Philadelphia where kids can play sanitized military video games.”


The Philadelphia center lures recruits with a separate room for prospective soldiers to “fire” from a real Humvee on enemy encampments projected on a 15-foot-high (4.5-meter-high) battleground scenario that also has deafening sound effects.
In another room, those inclined to attack from above can join helicopter raids in which enemy soldiers emerge from hide-outs to be felled by automatic gunfire rattling from a simulator modeled on an Apache or Blackhawk helicopter.

Most insidious however are the toys marketed to preschool and elementary school age children that exploit the war on terror mantra. Playmobil has several toys that fit that bill, including Playmobil Security Checkpoint (for ages 4-7) and Playmobil Police Checkpoint (for ages 10 and up).
The only thing that gives one hope are the product reviews on Amazon where you can buy these propaganda for profit gems. Here is one of the reviews of the Security Checkpoint toy:


Finally a toy that gets our kids used to living in a police state. Benjamin Franklin said that those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. But then again, he lived in France for awhile, so what did he know about anything.
Before this toy came out I was afraid my son would not know how to cope with the new reality of American life; how to prepare him to the future, I was wondering. Boy am I relieved; so many lessons learned! Now he knows that:


1) Some people can make a decent living treating others like cattle, and the best part: the cattle is paying their salaries.
2) You only have the rights that the government gives you; you can move around the country only if you comply with government regulations, no matter how frivolous they might be. No liquid you say? except if in a ziplock bag? Check. Lighter ok because the cigarette lobby fought the no-lighter rule? Swell. All passengers searched but cargo mostly un-scrutinized? No problem.
3) You should always bow to people in uniforms, even though they might be in this job because they could not qualify for police work (because of the rap sheet or the drug abuse).


Unfortunately, this toy comes short in a few areas:


1) It does not show that if you’re rich, you don’t have to wait in line for hours. If you can travel first class, you get your own fast-track screening. Too bad the terr’ists have plenty of Saudi and Pakistani cash and can easily travel first class should they want to. They should have included another screening set in the box.
2) It does not come with the 300 tired-looking playmobils you would need to show the passengers waiting in line behind the screening area.


However, it does some things very well: for instance, the screening apparatus is not actually functional. This represents faithfully the actual TSA system, which, every time it is tested or audited, fails to catch anything (weapons, even bombs).
So, thank you Playmobil. I hope they will expand their product offering and give us more toys that can help our children prepare for the new reality of a much safer America; specifically, I am eagerly waiting for the Staline-style Guantanamo American gulag set, the North-Korean-style CIA water-boarding set, the KGB-style NSA phone-tapping set. Some people will whine about the loss of their civil liberties, but my son knows that the North-Korean are some of the safest people in the world. They had virtually no fear of terrorists.


Quite honestly after falling out of my chair laughing at a whole slew of reviews in that vein, I began to think that never mind that I was reading this on Amazon, perhaps these were spoofs. However queries to both Playmobil and Amazon confirmed that both products, sadly, are for real.


As difficult as it sometimes seemed to raise sons during the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Power Ranger years, clearly teaching children the difference between right and wrong has become far more challenging as the toys and games pitched at them become blatant police state propaganda.

http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2009/02/09/hey-kids-wanna-play-security-checkpoint-the-terrifying-marketing-police-state-normalacy-to-children/

Virtual Cantons - A New Path to Freedom?

by Roderick T. Long

The Problem of Structure

What would the constitution of a free nation look like? In trying to answer that question we immediately think in terms of a Bill of Rights, restrictions on governmental power, and so forth. And any constitution worth having would certainly include those things. But if a constitution is to be more than a wish list, it must also specify the political structure necessary to ensure that these freedoms are not eroded or ignored. Consider the old Soviet Constitution, which guaranteed all sorts of fine-sounding freedoms for its citizens -- but which in practice proved only an empty promise, since its interpretation and enforcement lay in the hands of an unfettered monolithic centralized state.

Framing a constitution is an exercise in public-choice economics; politicians react to incentives, and so the political incentive structure must be designed in such a way that those in authority cannot profit by the aggrandizement of state power.

Such was the intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution when they established the Federal system. Each branch of government was expected to be jealous of the others, and so to be motivated to serve as a check on their expansion. At the same time, the broad base of representation was expected to ensure that no special interest could succeed in manipulating the government.

As we have since learned all too well, the experiment eventually proved to be a failure. Madison and his colleagues could not foresee the logrolling process whereby government branches and special interests ("factions") that were intended to hold one another in perpetual check instead made concessions to one another's ambitions in exchange for like concessions to their own.
Yet some foresaw the danger; one Anti-Federalist poet, bemoaning the recent ratification of the Constitution, wrote:

In five short years, of freedom weary grown,

We quit our plain republics for a throne;

Congress and President full proof shall bring

A mere disguise for Parliament and King.


Thus did the streamlined confederation become the swollen imperial Leviathan.


Decentralize!

Thomas Jefferson wrote many stirring passages about the natural rights of man. But when asked to summarize his political philosophy, he replied that he could state it in one sentence: "Divide the counties into wards.
" In other words: decentralize, decentralize, decentralize!

There are many advantages to political decentralization as a structural limitation on government power. Imagine a country the size of the United States, but consisting of only five states. Now imagine the same region containing 500 states. All other things being equal, the second situation is likely to be much more hospitable to freedom than the first. The smaller the political unit, the greater the influence an individual citizen can have in politics, thus decreasing the lobbying advantage that concentrated special interests have over the diffuse general public. Further, as the number of available alternative political jurisdictions increases, the citizen's exit option becomes more powerful. The freedom to leave one state is small comfort if there are only a handful of others nearby to go to; but with many states, the odds of finding a satisfactory destination are much better.

In addition, competition between states can serve as a check on state power, since if any state becomes too oppressive its citizens can vote with their feet. Also, decentralization softens the impact of government mistakes. If a single centralized government decides to implement some ill-conceived plan, everybody has to suffer. But with many states implementing different policies, a bad policy can be escaped, while a good policy can be imitated. (Here too, competition can serve as a discovery process.) The Federal structure of the United States, imperfect though it is, may well explain why this country has not plunged as rapidly into socialism as its European counterparts -- individual states having free entry while most European countries do not. (Fifty states is certainly better than one -- though still a far cry from Jefferson's notion that six square miles was the optimum size for a basic political unit within a republic.) And Switzerland's even more decentralized canto! n sy stem has doubtless played a similar role in the preservation of Swiss freedom. (Frances Kendall and Leon Louw's book After Apartheid has helped to bring to the libertarian community's attention the usefulness of a canton-style system to countries torn by ethnic strife; but its appeal is not limited to such cases.)


Housetrailers and Empty Landscapes

The constitution of a free nation, then, should most likely be characterized by a radically decentralized power structure, along the lines of some sort of canton system. But can the Swiss model be improved on? I think so.

The effectiveness of competition among political jurisdictions is inversely proportional to the costs of changing one's jurisdiction. Massachusetts faces serious competition from New Hampshire, but little from Alaska, since the costs of voting with one's feet are so much higher in the second case. (The same is true at the international level; there's no mystery as to why Cuban and Haitian refugees are trying to get into Miami rather than into Geneva.) And even when the alternative jurisdiction is nearby, the costs of switching are not exactly low. Uprooting oneself and perhaps one's family in order to move to another state can be costly, both financially and emotionally.

The high cost of switching results from the fact that political jurisdictions correspond to geographical regions, and geographical relocation is not always feasible. Yet a decentralised system serves as a more effective check on the growth of state power to the extent that switching costs are low. Therefore, it seems desirable to decouple political jurisdiction from geographical location.

David Friedman offers an example: "Consider our world as it would be if the costs of moving from one country to another were zero. Everyone lives in a housetrailer and speaks the same language. One day, the president of France announces that because of troubles with neighboring countries, new military taxes are being levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three generals, and twenty-seven war correspodents." (Machinery of Freedom, 2nd ed., p. 123.)

If people could switch political jurisdictions without switching location, we would have the functional equivalent of the situation Friedman envisions. Competition among jurisdictions would be higher, and the amount of state interference that people would tolerate without switching would be lower, than in a political system where jurisdiction and geographic location are linked.


The Case of Iceland

There are a number of historical precedents for this idea. To pick one famous example, the Icelandic Free Commonwealth (930-1262) operated on the Thing system. A "Thing" was a court or assembly. (The English word "thing" originally had this meaning also; when Hamlet says "The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King," the pun is successful because in Shakespeare's time the word "thing" had begun to have its modern meaning, but also still retained the earlier flavor of a judicial proceeding to establish guilt or innocence.) The national legislative assembly, with its attendant national judiciary, was called the All-Thing; beneath it were four Quarter-Things, corresponding to the four geographical regions of Iceland. But here the tie between geography and jurisdiction ended.

Under each Quarter-Thing were three or four Varthings, and assigned to each of these were three Things. Residents of a Quarter were free to choose membership in any of the nine or twelve Things attached (through the Varthings) to their Quarter-Thing. Membership in a Thing determined who your Godhi or chieftain was; a Godhi protected his Thingmen against local threats, appointed judges from his Thing to serve on the judiciary, and represented his Thingmen in the national legislature. In return, a Godhi's Thingmen paid him fees and did him various favors. One could officially switch one's membership from one Thing to another simply by making the appropriate announcement in front of witnesses. Since the cost of transferring one's allegiance to another Godhi was far smaller than it would have been if the Things had been purely territorial entities, competition put a brake on the ability of any Godhi to oppress his Thingmen too severely or to demand excessive favors or tribute. ! This decentralized system appears to have been quite effective. The Icelandic Free Commonwealth did eventually succumb to centralization, but it took three hundred years; the United States took much less.

(For more information on the Icelandic system, see Jesse Byock's Medieval Iceland, William Miller's Bloodtaking and Peacemaking, and David Friedman's "Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case" (Journal of Legal Studies 8, 1979). For a historical survey of similar systems, see Bruce Benson's Enterprise of Law, and bibliographic essays by Tom Bell and Albert Loan in Humane Studies Review 7, no. 1 (1991/92).)


Virtual Cantons

The Icelandic case has been a popular model among libertarian defenders of market anarchism. But it's important to see that it offers valuable lessons to framers of governments as well. Within the framework of a state, the divorce of jurisdiction from geography is not an option at the national level; but it remains a very live option at the local level. Just as a nation may be divided into many small geographically distinct cantons for purposes of local government and national representation, so it might also be divided into analogous political units that had no territorial significance. These might be called "virtual cantons."


Two Functions of Virtual Cantons

Like the Icelandic Things, the virtual cantons would have two functions: representation at the national level, and government at the local level (with "local" now serving as a structural rather than a geographical concept).

In the first case, each virtual canton would send a representative to the national legislature. Citizens would be free to switch their allegiance to another canton whenever they chose, without having to change their residence; so it would be like being able to live in New York and yet choose a Senator from Arizona as one's representative. Also advisable would be a constitutional provision allowing any group of citizens above a certain size to form a new canton. (The lack of this crucial feature proved to be a fatal flaw in the Icelandic system: since Godhordh, or seats on the legislature, were marketable commodities, it eventually became possible for a small number of families (who had acquired their wealth by being recipients of tithe taxes, which, unlike Godhi fees, divorced income from accountability -- a result of Iceland's forcible conversion to Christianity) to buy up these Godhordh and monopolize the legislature. The Icelandic constitution had no provision for the cr! eation of new Godhordh to counteract this threat.)

On the "local" level, each virtual canton would pass its own laws and provide its own enforcement. Citizens would be subject to the laws of the national legislature and to those of their own canton, but not to those of other cantons. A principal job of the national government would be to regulate relationships among cantons, laying down guidelines for the adjudication of disputes among members of different cantons, resolving conflicts between laws of different cantons, and so forth. But within that nationally-determined framework, there would be free competition among virtual cantons.

Such competition would have many benefits. The threat of losing "customers" would push taxes and wasteful spending far below their current monopoly levels. The presence of alternatives would also lower the incidence of government oppression by linking revenue with accountability. (Imagine, for example, how quickly the LAPD would have lost paying customers after the Rodney King beating if rival law enforcement agencies in the same area had been competing for public support.)

A virtual-canton system is also more fair than a purely majoritarian system. Under majority rule, if 51% of the population favors law X and 49% favors law Y, then law X is imposed on everyone, including the dissenting minority. In short, majority rule creates negative externalities for minorities. A system of virtual cantons would help to internalize these externalities: the minority opposed to law X need not be subjected to it, but may instead join a virtual canton offering law Y. Those in the majority cannot conscript the minority into supporting their projects (or vice versa), but must bear the full costs themselves.

Virtual cantons also provide a better check against local tyranny than do other decentralized systems. In a territorial system, those in a given geographical region may find voting with their feet prohibitively costly, and so must suffer whatever the local government decides to impose; the option to change cantons without changing residency offers the functional equivalent of voting with one's feet, at a far cheaper rate. In general, virtual cantons would provide far more effective checks and balances than those among the three branches of government in the Federal system, because of the competitive potentialities (to which the Federal system has no analogue) of switching between cantons or creating new ones.

The virtual canton system also solves information problems: would cantons tend to divide at all along geographical boundaries, or not? would they vary greatly in size? how many would there be? Competition would allow the market to determine the optimal answers to meet citizens' needs.


National Government

The national government has a vital role to play in providing coordination among the policies of the various cantons. Yet it must be severely restricted in its powers, or the whole purpose of decentralization will be defeated. If the national government, rather than the cantons, becomes the chief locus of decision-making, then the competition among jurisdictions will become otiose, and the cantons will degenerate into special interest blocs vying for centralized power. Hence national powers must be more severely constrained (not just by a written wish list, but structurally) than canton powers, in order to force most political disputes down to the canton level (and thus onto the competitive market).

There are a number of ways of doing this: severe term limits, supermajority requirements, a plural executive, etc. One promising suggestion, offered by Robert Heinlein in his novel The Moon is A Harsh Mistress, would be a bicameral legislature: one house requiring a two-thirds vote to pass laws, the other a one-third vote to repeal laws. It might be especially useful to compose the former of canton representatives (thus ensuring maximum participation of various interest groups in the legislative process) and the latter of popularly elected representatives (thus accommodating Isabel Paterson's principle, in God of the Machine, that any stable political regime must provide an official conduit for the masses to exercise a veto power). A weak central power and thriving virtual cantons could combine the best of anarchy and limited government.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f11l1.html

A MESSAGE TO ALL FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS!

Shane Eden

HELLO HEROES!
____________________________________________________________

It would seem that the judges who are dismissing these cases regarding Barack Obama's citizenship eligibility should be taken to task for their actions. Clearly the Constitution is supreme and its mandates cannot be ignored.

Appealing the decisions to a Constitutional court is the answer, and those who refuse to abide by our Constitution must be charged with Treason.

Freedom/Liberty is NOT free and must be acted upon in order to prevail. That is why it is so crucial that Constitutional Law be taught all through the schooling process. I hold teachers & the system responsible for the 'dumbing down' of the American people, and I believe that to be a treasonable offense.

I hold the "Press" to be culpable in their refusal to bring attention to these matters, thus aiding and abetting our enemies by helping to keep citizens unaware of the problem. This makes the press guilty of treason as well.

We need to be adult, responsible, and serious about this attack on our Constitutional Republic. An uninformed public cannot defend the Constitution. An uninformed public cannot defend itself from political attack.

An uninformed public is contrary to the mandate of the Constitution; ie: that it is the duty of the people to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution.

People have given their lives, and in fact are still giving their lives, for these ideals. Respect for that is required. Inform Yourself NOW. It is your duty as an American.


____________________________________________________________

PLEASE SUPPORT THE WORLD TRUTH TOUR.



In Liberty, Shane Eden