New Age or Old Nick?

The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey is really the book of self-worship, with manifestation in the physical realm brought about through ritual. The pseudo-religious metaphysics talked about in movements like The Secret or the so-called Teachings of Abraham, are also clearly self-oriented and purport that physical manifestation can be brought about by sheer will. Ritual magick is really nothing more than the orientation and focus of the will.

Either way, it seems like having the ability to manifest physical reality to one’s own liking would be desirable. However, I would draw the line at doing so to the detriment of others, lest that manifestation become what I would consider to be inherently evil. This is the point where I questioned these New Age teachings which I have been exposed to lately. There was an interview on Larry King that I watched recently, but was taped sometime last year I believe. This New Age material was the topic of discussion, and the question was asked about what one should do about friends and family who were not on the same “path” as those who were getting involved in this New Age metaphysical movement. The answer was to basically let them fall by the way-side. That the more a person manifested and attracted that which they desired, the people and things that were not in accordance with that would fall away as a matter of course.

Well, that seems to me to be a convenient way to abandon friends and family who might be having troubles and are not on the same “spiritual path.” You should feel no guilt in abandoning the people you love, because this is really their own doing and once they realize this they will begin “manifesting” for themselves.

Now this brings up another problem. According to these teachings, you can have whatever you want and are really only limited by your own belief as to whether or not you can have them. If you don’t have what you need or want, it is simply because you have not gotten on the right sort of “frequency” to manifest it. And they take it further than the Satanists. If there are things in your life that are not desirable, you are actually manifesting those things as well, apparently through flaws in your own thought process. Your own negative thoughts and doubts are attracting all the bad things in your life.

I’m starting to have a problem with this. If I get shot in the head it was my fault, I attracted it? Suddenly I am left feeling like this whole thing is really just another scheme to prey on the people who really need help the most, while conveniently blaming them for their own plight. Another plot by the Satanic elite to divide the people and absolve themselves of their responsibilities to the people? 


Tweet

Men More Likely Than Womaen to Suffer Depression From Being Childless

Even though there's often more social pressure on women to have kids, men may actually feel more depressed and lonely over not having children, according to the results of a small British survey.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the British Sociological Association in London Wednesday (April 3) by Robin Hadley, of the United Kingdom's Keele University, who polled 27 men and 81 women who didn't have kids.

About the same proportions of men and women said they wanted kids (59 percent of men and 63 percent of women). Among that group, half of the men said they experienced isolation because they weren't parents, while just over a quarter of women said the same.

Compared with women, these men also were more likely to feel jealous of other parents and sad, angry, and depressed over not having kids.

"There is very little research on the desire for fatherhood among men," Hadley said in a statement. "This challenges the common idea that women are much more likely to want to have children than men, and that they consistently experience a range of negative emotions more deeply than men if they don't have children."

Read more at: LiveScience

Also see:

Crying Over Spilled Milk




Tweet

The Collectivist Conspiracy (VIDEO)

YouTube description:

In this exclusive 80 minute video interview, legendary conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin explains how his research, which spans no less than 5 decades, has revealed a banking elite obsessed with enforcing a world government under a collectivist model that will crush individualism and eventually institute martial law as a response to the inevitable backlash that will be generated as a result of a fundamental re-shaping of society.

Griffin discusses the similarities between the extreme left and the extreme right in the false political paradigm and how this highlights a recurring theme - collectivism. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism and believes that the interests of the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number, explains Griffin, uniting the doctrines of communism and fascism. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States are committed to advancing collectivism and this is why the same policies are followed no matter who is voted in to the White House.

"All collectivist systems eventually deteriorate into a police state because that's the only way you can hold it together," warns Griffin.

Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while fooling people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating squabbles between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda. Griffin documents how the Tea Party, after its beginnings as a grass roots movement, was later hijacked by the Republicans through the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

Pointing out how Republicans and Democrats agree on the most important topics, such as US foreign policy, endless wars in the Middle East, and the dominance of the private banking system over the economy, Griffin lays out how the left-right hoax is used to steer the destiny of America.

Griffin also talks at length on a myriad of other important subjects, such as the move towards a Chinese-style censored Internet, the demonization of the John Birch Society as a racist extremist group, the Hegelian dialectic, the power of tax-exempt foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations, the movement towards world government, and the question of whether the elite are really worried about the growing awareness of their agenda amongst Americans.









Tweet

Jesus Got His Days Mixed Up

Dude, seriously, this shit is not supposed to happen on a Friday. This is more like Monday morning crap....

And I never felt like this after a Saturday night, not in NY anyway...

Tweet

Domestic Violence, Feminism, and Setting the Record Straight

FACT: Women are as violent, or more violent than men in domestic relationships.

With the disastrous and completely misguided bill known as the Violence Against Woman Act about to go before Congress for renewal/re-introduction, we felt it appropriate to point out some conveniently overlooked and politically incorrect facts about domestic violence. 

In a quick Google search of why VAWA is bad, this brief popped up:

These are the 5 reasons why VAWA is profoundly flawed: 

1. VAWA does not recognize the fact that men are as likely to victimized by domestic violence as women. 

2. Because VAWA regulations specifically prohibit the provision of services to battered men, VAWA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 

3. VAWA gives rise to false allegations. Some attorneys now recommend that women seeking child custody file a domestic violence complaint, even if it has no basis in fact. 

4. VAWA makes it harder for fathers to get joint custody. Once a charge of domestic violence is on the books, the legal system views the father as a menace to his children. And some versions of VAWA have proposed that child custody be awarded to the "primary caretaker," a code word for "mother." 

5. VAWA promotes the radical Marxist-feminist belief that men as a class use violence as a tool to dominate and oppress women. This simplistic analysis does a profound disservice to male-female relationships. As a result, VAWA ends up pitting men against women. 

VAWA relentlessly scapegoats men as abusers and batterers. VAWA teaches women to play the victim. And VAWA is responsible for the removal of children from their loving father. VAWA is bad for fathers, women, and children. (And families as a whole.) We don't need a gender war in this country. Oppose VAWA.

Source: Shattered Men

But no matter what men have to say, no matter how pertinent it may be, political-feminists don't care to hear about it and will even violently oppose the resistance to their agenda.

Nevermind that a number of women's groups and female individuals themselves actually oppose VAWA as well.

Women Against VAWA Excess 

Concerned Women For America

Phyllis Schlafly

Freedom Works


Wow, that an awesome chick. (Pretty darn cute too.)

But let's go back now to what we said at the top of the page. That women are as likely, if not more likely to be violent in a domestic relationship. Keep in mind that this does not include the disproportionate rate of women who hire/manipulate other males to harm/kill their boyfriend/husband. These studies show that directly, woman are at least, if not more violent than men in domestic relationships.

Women more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as well as victims

“We’re seeing women in relationships acting differently nowadays than we have in the past,” said Angela Gover, a UF criminologist who led the research. “The nature of criminality has been changing for females, and this change is reflected in intimate relationships as well.” 

In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men. The students took selected liberal arts and sciences courses. Forty percent were men and 60 percent were women, reflecting the gender composition of these classes. 

Full article at: phys.org

The single largest and most comprehensive study on the subject, compiled over the course of many years through the exhaustive efforts of the contributors,  confirms this. Here is a brief:

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Martin S. Fiebert 
Department of Psychology 
California State University, Long Beach

Last updated: May 2011 

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800. 

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Despite the facts displayed there, we still have this notion in society that men are more violent than women, and even that a woman's violence should be excused while male violence should be regarded as loathsome. 
 

Perhaps it is hard-wired into us to think that way. After all, for tens of thousands of years males have been called upon to perform the violent tasks and heaviest physical labors, required of both their family and society as a whole. In the meantime, women cultivated a more psychological, coercive lifestyle in order to achieve goals and to protect their young. Brute force is certainly not always the defining factor of victory, and nature seems to have seen fit to diversify the strengths of the family unit in order to strengthen our species survival as a whole. This certainly doesn't mean that women are smarter or men more violent, it only goes to show how we may be smart, and violent, in different ways. 

But how does this all play out in modern society? Particularly in the last century or so, where tens of thousands of years of hereditary natural selection mechanisms have been overturned by industry, politics, and so forth? 

This woman makes some very profound observations on the subject, which she has shared with the public on YouTube with the piece "Feminism and the Disposable Male."



Wow, it still impresses me every time I watch that video. What a wonderful, intelligent woman. But with everything she has said there, it is almost as if there is some agenda. 

Is all this confusion simply the result of a new stage in evolution for mankind? The natural result of industrialization, technology, a global village? Or is someone pulling the strings?


While some folks might reject such conspiratorial talk as pure lunacy, we simply cannot ignore the very real damage being done to our society, to our families. Conspiracy or not, there are very bad things happening, and these things are being done deliberately for profit and power.

Miss Carol Rhodes speaks to a gathering back in 2010, in this video. She reveals "secret rules" used by Child Protection Services, which of course has huge influence when it comes to domestic violence cases where children are involved, custody disputes and so forth, and the dynamics of gender relations.


Even without all of these facts, statistics and insights, the VAWA is clearly gender-biased and discriminatory. When we do actually take into consideration what has been presented here, it's no wonder that society is disintegrating right before our eyes. Everything that is being done contradicts all common sense based on the scientific data, as well as the philosophical, and is counterproductive to the problems we are actually hoping to solve as a society.

We will leave off here now with one final video, in closure, to show some uncomfortable facts about domestic violence that are not usually considered by either society as a whole or legislators who pretend to know and dictate what is in our interests.




SUPPLEMENTAL:

False Allegations of Domestic Violence, Why You Should be Concerned

6 Things Everyone Knows About Women (That Aren't True)



Tweet



 

Liberal Lies On Gun Control

As regular readers here know, we aren't very interested in towing some party line or supporting any political persuasion or another without question. On many issues we will support liberal ideals, while on other issues we take a decidedly conservative stance. The point here is that it all comes down to the truth. Rhetoric, propaganda, falsehoods cannot be tolerated from whichever side of the political divide it comes from.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment though, mainstream liberalism would have us believe that there is plenty of room for debate, that the Amendment is rife with ambiguity, or that it is outright invalud. Today we are going to have a look at a Huffington Post blog editorial that is typical of the liberal argument when it comes to the right to bear arms. We will point out how the author has spun the facts into falsehood to suit his anti-Constitutional agenda. It might also be noted here, that not all liberals support the recent attacks on the 2nd Amendment and won't fall for this sort of flawed rhetoric either. But let us have a look now at the article in question before it gets torn to pieces.

Overcoming Delusions About the Second Amendment

by Jeffrey Sachs Director, Earth Institute at Columbia University; author, 'The Price of Civilization'

The 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller shows definitively that the Second Amendment is about an archaic issue relevant to 1790, not to 2012. The Second Amendment reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government. 

Though Justice Antonin Scalia tried in the majority opinion to use the Second Amendment to defend gun rights, the many sources that he cited are clear that the purpose of the amendment was to protect state militias. One source, for example, declares, that the purpose of the Second Amendment is "to secure a well-armed militia... ." Another source Scalia cited indicates that the amendment covers only arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Therefore, Scalia acknowledges that the Second Amendment -- even in his pro-gun interpretation -- only protects arms that would be used in a militia, not the weapons of a formal army. He makes clear that "M-16 rifles and the like" have no Second Amendment protection and may be banned.

There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown. Even Scalia is explicit on that point.

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century. 

More basically, the idea that unregulated private gun ownership and trade protects us against tyranny, or that gun controls would threaten tyranny to us all, is baseless. Democracies around the world regulate guns, preserve their freedoms, and achieve firearm murder rates that are a tiny fraction of the rates suffered in the United States. Other countries, like Australia, have made themselves much safer from gun massacres. Only the U.S. has a political class, on the take from gun manufacturers owned by Wall Street, that stands by while the nation's children are slaughtered. Yet perhaps the stench is getting even too great for some on Wall Street. 

In the name of the children, let us wake from the trap of ancient history and the gun-manufacturers.

The author begins his piece by stating a downright ridiculous opinion that is in no way supported by the SCOTUS decision he cites. The only reference that the court makes to the era when the 2nd Amendment was created, is to hold the following decision which has been maintained for hundreds of years.

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

There is nothing written in that decision which in any way invalidates the 2nd Amendment, or "definitively" renders it "an archaic issue relevant to 1790, not to 2012" as Sachs puts it. The threat of a politicized standing army is as valid today as it ever was in the past. Tyranny, despotism, totalitarianism, these are not threats that suddenly became outdated with time. We can look at the military forces of Germany, leading up to World War II to see how a national military with a long history can rather suddenly be politicized, under the Nazi banner in that instance. Or even as in Russia, the republics of the USSR, and eastern Europe under the Communist party up until the fall of the Iron Curtain.

The 2nd Amendment is as essential today to our Constitutional Republic, as the balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our Federal government. From the Revolution to this very day, the 2nd Amendment protects our right to maintain the tools of an actionable will of the people should government fail us. And that is what the 2nd Amendment is really all about, the balance of power between the people and the government. To insure that the government can be ejected should we so choose.

What Sachs is telling us here is that this balance of power is "irrelevant today" as if tyranny ceased to exist in the world at some point within a few years after this nation was founded. As if somehow magically here in the United States we are immune from the threat of our government being subverted, or otherwise acting contrary to the will and best interests of we, the people. To say that the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant today is to say that the entire Constitution should be thrown out.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive" -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

 ~ ~ ~

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson

Sachs then tells us that we do not rely on "state militias" in 2012 to protect us from Federal government. No one ever said we did. These so-called state militias are not mentioned at all in either the court's decision which he cited, nor in the 2nd Amendment itself. It is clear from all interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, by those who drafted it, by those who ratified it, and by the Supreme Court itself which has upheld it, that the militia is the people, not the state. Sachs continues to interject this myth about state militias though, as being the basis of the right to bear arms. 

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Sachs then goes so far as to misquote Justice Scalia, and imposes his own erroneous interpretation as if it was that of the Justice himself. Sachs writes:

Therefore, Scalia acknowledges that the Second Amendment -- even in his pro-gun interpretation -- only protects arms that would be used in a militia, not the weapons of a formal army. He makes clear that "M-16 rifles and the like" have no Second Amendment protection and may be banned.

Scalia has made no such acknowledgement, nor does he mention anything about "M-16 rifles and the like."  Sachs has interjected complete falsehoods in order do make his opinion appear factual. He even makes an entirely baseless comparison between militia and a "formal army." Nowhere is any such distinction made except in Sachs' own mind. Or, alternately, is he telling us that our state National Guard units may not have the same rifles as the regular army? The only specification made in the court's decision as to the type of arms which are protected by the 2nd Amendment, was stated thus:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition ofLondon youth stabbings increase by 30% in three years prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

One such historical tradition is the following statement:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

In other words, whatever guns the government uses are indeed those same guns which are "in common use at the time" whether it be the muskets of the Revolution or the M-16 of a modern-day infantryman. On the other hand, by this interpretation, things like chemical or biological weapons might be considered to be uncommon weapons, and therefore not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Essentially, any weapon that is issued to a regular army infantryman should be seen as protected by the 2nd Amendment for carrying by citizens who are in fact the militia.

Sachs goes in the complete opposite direction though, not only lying about the court's decision and ignoring all historical context of the right to bear arms, but then making an ignorant leap from a soldier's rifle to that used in the Connecticut school shooting. He writes here:

There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown. Even Scalia is explicit on that point.

Quite obviously there is in fact constitutional protection for rifles, and saying that Scalia is "explicit" to the contrary is a complete lie.

Moreover, the rifle that was allegedly used by the shooter was not a military rifle at all. It was a semi-automatic rifle no different than any other semi-automatic rifle owned by citizens for an array of purposes including sport competition, hunting, home defense, and more. Even a rifle that only has two bullets in it might be built as a semi-automatic rifle. The term semi-automatic is not synonymous with select-fire or fully-automatic. For details on the sort of weapon we are talking about, and the distinctions between military and civilian grade rifles, see this article:

Bushmaster AR-15 Menace?

The blogger then goes on to once again claim that the Constitution is "moot" and a "relic" and so forth, which we have already shown to be otherwise. The right to bear arms is an integral part of our particular brand of democracy and a defining boundary of government itself in our Constitutional Republic. The 2nd Amendment is not there to protect the states from federalism, but to protect the people from tyranny. Nonetheless, despite all historical reference and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, Sachs calls this conclusion "baseless." He continues then:

Democracies around the world regulate guns, preserve their freedoms, and achieve firearm murder rates that are a tiny fraction of the rates suffered in the United States.

If democracies from around the world are taking away the guns of their citizens, then they are not in fact preserving their freedoms. You simply cannot preserve freedom by taking it away, yet this is the twisted logic we are meant to accept by the subversives bent on undermining the bedrock of freedom. As to murder rates, that too is not so simple an interpretation as mainstream liberals would like us to believe.

It is true that Britain has a lower murder rate with firearms than the United States, but that is not really very much proof of anything at all. Their overall violent crime rate makes Britain the most dangerous country in the European Union. This stands in stark contrast to Switzerland, who has one of the highest gun ownership rates while enjoying some of the lowest crimes rates on the planet. Furthermore, while the United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, many countries like Honduras and El Salvador who have far fewer guns per capita, have much higher murder rates.

Crime Stats by Reality Check (VIDEO)

Statistics also show that when harsh gun-control measures are enacted, crime rates soar. Here in the U.S. some of the most dangerous places to travel are in cities with the strictest gun laws. Cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. often top the lists of the most murderous cities in the country despite a near outright ban on citizen ownership. In places like Australia and Britain, crime rates skyrocketed immediately following their gun bans. 

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

SOURCE

In Britain, and particularly in metro areas like London, stabbings and knife crimes have reached unprecedented highs. Headlines declare stats like, London youth stabbings increase by 30% in three years. One such case was the tragic murder of young actor Robert Knox, who was stabbed to death just before the release of a Harry Potter movie which he played a role in.

In comparing a disarmed Britain to a well-armed United States, many numbers stand out in favor of an armed citizenry. According to this source, the British are 133% more likely to be the victim of assault, 125% more likely to be raped, and 25% more likely to be a victim of crime in general. And while it is true that the homicide rate by firearm is much higher in the U.S. it is also true that you are more than twice as likely to be the victim of a knife crime in the UK than you are of being the victim of a gun crime in America.

So even with the Constitutional issues aside, and just looking at the issue from a safety standpoint, the anti-gun position still fails to maintain a logical basis. Besides...

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. " - Thomas Jefferson

Finally, and at long last now we come to Sachs' coup de grace. A lame but typical tactic of propagandists to illicit emotional appeal rhetoric rather than fact-based good sense. He concludes:

In the name of the children, let us wake from the trap of ancient history and the gun-manufacturers.

One could probably convince a good number of fools that it was a good idea to crap in their hat if you told them it was for the sake of the children. While he may argue that the 2nd Amendment is "ancient history" and therefore somehow invalidated by the centuries, there are also some lunatics out there who say the same thing about the Ten Commandments, and murder.

For the sake of our children, teach them wholesome values, teach them how to be free and to never live in fear of evil men.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Tweet




 

Jury-Nullification Gets Accused Pot Dealer Off the Hook

Personally, I am no pot-head. So in that respect this case has no bearing on me personally one way or the other. I am not over here smoked-out mumbling "right on man, right on" and applauding this as a victory for marijuana smokers.

However, I do believe that the war on drugs is a terrible waste of resources, and is more damaging than the drugs themselves. Even when it comes to harder drugs, other than marijuana, I believe in decriminalization. 

I also believe that a jury has not only the right, but the duty to return an acquittal, regardless of the facts, when they see a law as unjust or being improperly applied.

Be sure to also read...

What is Jury Nullification?

... if you are a stranger to the concept.

NJWeedman found not guilty in pot distribution case


MOUNT HOLLY — Ed “NJWeedman” Forchion hopes the not-guilty verdict a Burlington County jury rendered in his pot distribution trial plants a seed for other medical marijuana patients and sparks a change in the law.

“I think other patients should argue the same points. They can call it the ‘Weedman defense,’ ” he said after a jury of 10 women and two men returned the verdict Thursday following an hourlong deliberation that ended the three-day trial. “The law is wrong. My jury heard that and understood that.”


Forchion, who claims dual residency in Pemberton Township and Los Angeles, was acquitted of possession with the intent to distribute a pound of marijuana that police found in his trunk during a traffic stop on April 1, 2010, in Mount Holly.

The state contended that the sheer volume in Forchion’s possession and the $2,000 in cash he had in his pocket at the time of his arrest were tell-tale signs of distribution, despite the absence of other packaging paraphernalia.

Forchion has maintained that he is no drug dealer. He brought the marijuana from California, where he is a licensed medical marijuana patient, for his own use while on a trip to New Jersey to visit his family, he claimed.

“I don’t use it the way the state says. To me, it’s medicine, it’s food,” Forchion said in his closing argument, noting for the jury that he had been eating pot-laced cookies throughout the trial. “I feel I’m the victim of a flawed law.”

Article continues at link:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/crime/njweedman-found-not-guilty-in-pot-distribution-case/article_2d6d582d-0887-53f2-a7d5-c7c10bc8b958.html

NJ “Weedman” found not guilty in jury nullification victory

With few options left for people to protect themselves from the ever growing police state, an old and long forgotten aspect of constitutional law is making a huge comeback, and becoming very popular in cases where people are facing jail time for nonviolent offenses.

This reemerging defense is the act of jury nullification, which is basically the right for any juror to not only judge the facts of the case, but to also actually judge the validity of the law itself. This means that if a jury feels that a defendant is facing an unjust charge they actually have the right to rule in their favor even if they are technically guilty.

Ed Forchion is a medical cannabis user and cancer patient known as the “NJ weedman”. Ed claims dual residency in Pemberton Township, New Jersey and Los Angeles, California. Due to his residency in California he has a prescription for Cannabis and is legally allowed to grow and consume the plant in that state.

However, he is not legally allowed to possess the plant in the state of New Jersey and unfortunately while in New Jersey on April 1, 2012 Forchion was stopped by police and found with a pound of cannabis and $2,000, enough to get slapped with a distribution charge.

Article continues at link:

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/nj-weedman-found-not-guilty-in-jury.html

Tweet

FDR's 'Economic Bill of Rights' Speech

The following is an excerpt taken from a speech by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Congress, January 1944:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.


In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.


Among these are:


The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;


The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;


The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;


The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;


The right of every family to a decent home;


The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;


The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;


The right to a good education.


All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.


America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

The Declaration of Independence

Action of Second Continental Congress,
July 4, 1776. 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pre-tended Offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized Nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

*  *  *

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Hate Crime Against Satanists

Source

I'd be willing to bet that if the sign said "Vote for Jesus" or even "Vote African-American" it would have been considered a hate crime.

 Tweet

Roller-Coaster of Death

I am actually not too much against euthanasia, but this doesn't seem very dignified. Badass as all hell, but still, not very fitting of a legal dispatch of a human life. Unless maybe you were a roller-coaster junkie or something.

An engineer has come up with macabre rollercoaster concept where passengers are thrilled and then ‘killed’.

The chilling Euthanasia Coaster is a theoretical machine engineered to ‘humanely, with elegance and euphoria, take the life of a human being’.

It is designed to subject the rider to a series of unique experiences from euphoria to thrill and from tunnel vision to loss of consciousness.

Get the full article here:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2107238/Euthanasia-Macabre-concept-roller-coaster-thrills--kills-you.html

Feminism and the Disposable Male

What has feminism done to shatter the patriarchal "women and children first" mentality, and elevate men to status as full human beings deserving of empathy and human rights? What has it done to reinforce and legally entrench the mentality that everyone, including men themselves, should put men last?

First They Came...

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

after all I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

after all I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

after all I was not a trade unionist.

When they locked up the uncurables,

I did not speak out;

after all I was not sick.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

-Attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Rights vs. Privilege, What's the Difference?

Rights and privileges. The two words are not synonymous, yet it seems that most Americans today would be hard-pressed to explain the difference between the two. It's little wonder then that things are so bad in this country, when it's own people no longer understand the most basic and fundamental concepts which define us as a people in the first place. What is it that we shed blood to protect? What is it which protects us from having our blood shed on the swords of tyrants?

Rights.

So what exactly is a right? The legal dictionary at Law.com defines the word as follows:

1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal.

Okay, so who entitles us to our rights then? The word "entitlement" gives us the impression that rights are handed down from some sovereign, or perhaps divine authority.

In medieval Europe, only the King could own property. In turn, he could then share that property with whom he chose. It was therefore this human being, who ultimately defined the rights of all those who resided in his lands. It's no wonder why, through the ages, Kings have been revered as gods upon the earth. The righteous and the tyrants alike held this power over the people in their realm.

All of that suddenly changed, when a group of men rebelled against the concept of one man ruling over other men. Industrious men of the New World rebelled against their sovereign King, and declared their independence from him and his government.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
~Declaration of Independnce

These men founded a new nation, where rights would be shared equally among all men. Rights entitled by no one man but rather by nature and the divine, defined by a Constitution, and empowered by the consent of the governed. They formed a new government, where all men would be their own king, owing their destiny to no man. Each man a sovereign, free to choose his own destiny.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
~Preamble, United States Constitution

So now we see that while rights may actually have variable definitions throughout the world and throughout history, the definition has been made more exact in the United States of America, by the Founding Fathers of hte nation. Here, rights are ordained by nature and God, not by the men who have documented what those rights are. It is not even the government formed by We the People, which entitles us to the rights defined by the Constitution.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

A right is not something that can be changed, or taken away. A right is that which defines our very being, as an American, as a human beings. So let us compare that now, to the definition of privilege. What exactly is a privilege, and how dies it differ from a right as we explored above? Black's Law Dictionary defines the word privilege as follows:

privilege - 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty

So we see that the word privilege first requires a legal right, rather than a natural or divine right which was defined as "unalienable" and "self-evident" by the Founding Fathers when they declared Americans sovereigns and penned the Constitution. A legal right is a construct of men and government, not by nature and not by God. It is neither self-evident nor unalienable.

unalienable - incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

The Constitution secures your rights, it does not grant them or create them. It defines the framework in which law and government must confine itself within. The Constitution is not law itself, but the document which defines us as a people. It spells out the values which constitute America.

Statutes and laws on the other hand are privileges. They can be written, repealed, altered, transferred, applied selectively, irregularly, and arbitrarily based upon whatever criteria an authority self-validates. Rights cannot be affected in any such way. They are set in stone so to speak. Privileges can be extended to you or revoked from you, by authorities such as the government, police, your boss, your parents, your landlord, and so forth. Rights on the other hand, are a constant, that cannot be altered.

A privilege is created to give favor to a person or class of persons separate from all others. Of course, this then flies in the face of equality, to give some people certain privileges that other people do not enjoy. But it also means that such favor can be taken from you by that authority which granted it to you in the first place.

Let us take a police officer for example, since so often citizens tend to resent the privileges afforded them. A sworn police officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to perform certain duties of justice in accordance with those values. In exchange, he is afforded special privileges that the average citizen does not enjoy.

Chief among them, an exemption against prosecution for detaining a citizen. You, as a citizen, may arrest another citizen for a crime, but you must be certain that you are not committing a crime yourself by doing so. If it turns out that the person you detained was not in fact guilty of the crime you alleged, you would have actually then committed a slew of crimes yourself by defaming them and infringing upon their liberty. You can be charged with any number of crimes and face civil liability for denying the persons freedom of movement, kidnapping, making false and defamatory accusations, false arrest, and so forth.

A police officer on the other hand, can detain someone for the purposes of investigation for anywhere from 24 to 72 hours depending on what state you live in. After such time, the police then have to charge a person with an actual crime, or release their detainee. But even if it turns out that the person did not in fact commit any crime, and/or if they are exonerated at trial, the police officer still cannot be charged with any crime or civil penalty so long as the charge was based upon what the officer saw as reasonable evidence. Prosecuting attorneys are also afforded similar privilege as officers of the court.

The police officer can have that privilege revoked at any time a superior or judge deems appropriate, even after an arrest had been made. So let us make another example there, to see how having privileges rather than rights, can become a serious liability. A police officer makes an arrest and files a charge on a citizen, for what the officers states is reasonable suspicion and evidence. If, however, his superior views the arrest to not be reasonable, and does not believe that the officer truly believed the arrest was reasonable, his privilege can be revoked retro-actively and the officer can then be prosecuted for making a false arrest, dereliction of duty, civil rights violations, and so forth. On the one hand, this protects citizens to some degree, from police officers who may be inclined to make false arrests for any number of political, personal, or otherwise criminal reasons. But on the other hand, we also see how the arbitrary nature of the privilege might be misused, to coerce or blackmail police officers into cooperating with agendas of cronyism and even criminal enterprise within the system.

At this point, you the reader should see clearly that there is indeed a difference between rights and privileges. They are nearly complete opposites. Given a preference, I for one would much prefer rights over privileges too. I like to know where I stand, and not leave my fate in the hands of someone else or some other group of people who may or may not be looking out for my best interests, and regardless of their own intentions which may or may not be well-meaning.

There are so many examples that could be made of the differences between rights and privileges. Yet time and time again, we see lawmakers today blurring the two concepts, to the detriment of liberty. Society, being too busy working for their slave-wage or otherwise preoccupied with the many distractions put out there to dumb-down the population, are content with this blurring of the distinct meanings. Indeed in this day and age it takes little to sway the masses to not only accept the erosion of liberty, but to demand it with potent support of knee-jerk reactionary legislation of all sorts. But now dear reader, you are informed. You know the answer to the question put forth here to today. What is the difference between rights and privileges?

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
~Thomas Jefferson

For further insight, please enjoy any or all of the following material:

Arbitrary Arrests and the Rule of Law

Recap of Caylee's Law Controversey

Freedom a Threat to Police

Season of Treason (video)

And finally, here is part one of five for Michael Badnarik's lecture on Rights vs. Privileges:

EDIT:

His lecture was removed from YouTube. Here is another short brief by the same lecturer:



Here is a link to part 1 of 5 for another lecture he did on the topic... http://youtu.be/kjhkydPddEE
.

My Fellow American

http://myfellowamerican.us/

Also check out:

CIA Psyop: Cordoba Initiative

F#@k It!

Expose on USAF Christian-themed manual leads to cancellation of Nuc Missile Officer ethics course

Air Force Pulls Christian-Themed Ethics Training for Nuclear Missile Officers After Publication of Truthout Report

by: Jason Leopold, Truthout | Report

The Air Force, in response to an exclusive report published by Truthout earlier this week, has withdrawn materials used in a training session that relied upon passages from the New and Old Testament and a quote from an ex-Nazi SS officer to teach missile officers about the morals and ethics of launching nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare training "has been taken out of the curriculum and is being reviewed," said David Smith, chief of public affairs of Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. "The commander reviewed it and decided we needed to have a good hard look at it and make sure it reflected views of modern society."

Smith said the ethics training has been in place for "20-plus years" and the decision to remove it was made on Wednesday after Truthout's report was published. He added that it will now be "given thorough scrutiny" and "folks will be appointed to look at what we have and determine its utility and if they think its useful to continue having an ethics course they will develop a new course."

The course was led by Air Force chaplains and took place during a missile officer's first week in training at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Officers who train to be missileers were required to attend the ethics course, which included a PowerPoint presentation on St. Augustine's "Christian Just War Theory" as well as numerous examples of characters from the New and Old Testament the training materials asserted engaged in warfighting in a "righteous way."

St. Augustine's "Qualifications for Just War," according to the way the Air Force characterized it in slides used in the ethics training, are: "to avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order (just cause)" and "to restore moral order; not expand power, not for pride or revenge (just intent)."

One of the PowerPoint slides also contained a passage from the Book of Revelation that claims Jesus Christ, as the "mighty warrior," believed some wars to be just.

At the conclusion of the ethics training session, missile officers were asked to sign a legal document stating they will not hesitate to launch the nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) "if lawfully ordered to do so by the President of the United States or his lawful successor."

The documents' blatant use of religious imagery and its numerous references to the New and Old Testament would appear to constitute a violation of the First Amendment establishing a wall of separation between church and state.

The 43-page PowerPoint was included with more than 500 pages of other documents pertaining to a missile officer's first week in training that was released by the Air Force under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and provided to Truthout by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a civil rights organization.

Another PowerPoint slide quoted Wernher Von Braun, a former member of the Nazi Party and SS officer who is regarded as the father of the US space program. Von Braun was not cited in the PowerPoint as a scientific expert, rather, he was specifically being referenced as a moral authority, which is remarkable considering that the Nazi scientist used Jews imprisoned in concentration camps, captured French anti-Nazi partisans, civilians, and others to help build the V-2, a weapon responsible for the death of thousands of British civilians.

MRFF President Mikey Weinstein said more than 30 missile officers contacted his organization over the past week to complain about the Christian imagery and biblical passages in the ethics training. He said the decision by the Air Force to pull the ethics course material is a "great victory for the constitution." [Full disclosure: Weinstein is a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.]

"We are not going to commend the Air Force for doing something they should have done a quarter-century ago," Weinstein said. "It's an outrage and a deliberate attempt to torture and distort our constitution when the US Air Force mandatorily teaches its nuclear missile launch officers that fundamentalist Christian theology is inextricably intertwined with the 'correct' decision to launch nukes."

http://www.truth-out.org/air-force-pulls-christian-themed-ethics-training-missile-officers/1311972789

Air Force Cites New Testament, Ex-Nazi, to Train Officers on Ethics of Launching Nuclear Weapons

Manifesto of Norwegian mass-murderer

Breivik in Freemason regalia

Here is the video and 1500-page written manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the man accused of being Norway's most deadly mass murderer. He is said to be responsible for the bombing of a government building in Oslo, and then hours later, gunning down more than 80 people at an island youth camp. The shooting spree lasted for over an hour and a half, while SWAT response was hampered for nearly an hour trying to reach the island. The death toll between the two attacks is expected to reach nearly 100 people.

Bombed building in Oslo

You can read the entire manifesto as a Microsoft Office Word document by downloading from here:

http://www.zshare.net/download/92921750531cd108/


I also converted that file to a pdf document if you prefer that format, available here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?ii746uj1x4dhpt2

Here is the video that was uploaded to Youtube on Friday I believe, the day of the attacks, followed by info taken from several different copies of video descriptions...

This ia a Movie by Anders Behring Breivik - Knights Templar 2083 The man behind explosion in Oslo who killed 7 people, and about 90 youth people at Utøya island outside Oslo July 22th . Anders Behring Breivik is A 32-year-old Norwegian he has been arrested over two terror attacks in Norway as 92 are confirmed dead . Police have said the Norwegian man arrested after the twin attacks in Norway is a right-winger with anti-Muslim views, but they do not know whether that was a factor in the attacks. His views are very clear from this video of his production it is also said that he admired of the Dutch far right politician Geert Wilders and he is also described as "Christian fundamentalist" and a Freemason.Officers are continuing to search Breivik's property - a flat and farmhouse - in a wealthy suburb west of Oslo.


It has emerged that he is a former member of a populist anti-immigration party who wrote blogs attacking multiculturalism and Islam.


Website entries under Breivik's name criticised European politicians for trying to accommodate the cultures of different ethic groups, and claimed a significant minority of young British Muslims backed radical Islamic militancy.


"When did multiculturalism cease to be an ideology designed to deconstruct European culture, traditions, identity and nation-states?" said one entry, posted on February 2, 2010 on the right-wing website www.document.no.


"According to two studies, 13% of young British Muslims aged between 15 and 25 support al Qaeda ideology," said another entry dated February 16 last year.


He described himself on his Facebook page as leaning towards right-wing Christianity.


Breivik had also been a member of the Progress Party, the second largest in parliament and a rival to the Labour Party.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Below are excerpts of an alledged letter written to Giuseppe Mazzini, by Albert Pike(a 33rd degree mason) in 1871. READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH VERY CAREFULLY:


"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."


"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."


"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion...We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

And from another profile:

Personal facts:
Name: Andrew Berwick
Nationality: Norwegian
Born: February 1979
Height: 183 cm
Weight: 80 kg
Ethnicity: Nordic/Norwegian
Address: Oslo ,Norway
Personality: Optimistic, pragmatic, ambitious, creative, hard working
Political view: Cultural conservative, revolutionary conservative, Vienna school of thought, economically liberal
Religion: Christian, Protestant but I support a reformation of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by Catholisism. The typical “Protestant Labour Church” has to be deconstructed as its creation was an attempt to abolish the Church
Religious: I went from moderately to agnostic to moderately religious
Education: Non-formal equivalent to 7 years + at university level
Professions: Investor, Director, Manager – founder of several companies, Small business management (including organisational development), political analyst, author, stock analyst/trader. Im unsure whether resistance fighter (Justiciar Knight Commander) and martyr counts as a professionPostet bilde
Nicotine: Yes
Alcohol: Occasionally
Drugs: No
Tattoos: No
Sports: Snowboarding, fitness (body building/spinning), running
Watch sport: Only women’s sand volley ball:P Perhaps I would if Norway didn’t suck so hard in footbal
Name of your primary weapon: Mjöllnir
Name of your side arm: Gungnir
Hobbies: Political analysis, studying new topics, Free Mason, Heraldry, Genealogy, gaming (MMO or Modern Warfare 2), travelling – learning about new cultures, music, friends. I have had the privilege of experiencing the following countries:

Sweden, Denmark, UK, Germany, Poland, Belarus, France, Austria, Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Cyprus, Malta, US, Turkey, Mexico, China, Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia.

Key points – curriculum vitae

Key qualifications:

Organisational/business development – Experience with the establishment, development and management of smaller businesses related to the fields; organisational/business development, small business management, marketing and sales
Financial analysis – stock/currency analysis relating to the fields/indicators; candlesticks, RSI, stochastic, MACD, Bollinger bands, DMI, momentum

2005-2007: Managing director of E-Commerce Group AS (part investment company – 50%, part sales/outsourcing company – 50%). I converted ABB ENK to a corporation (AS). Total of 7 employees: 3 in Norway, 1 in Russia, 1 in Indonesia, 1 in Romania, 1 in the US. Distribution of outsourcing services to foreign companies, sold software/programming solutions. Worked part time with day trading (stocks/options/currency/commodities). This was a front (milking cow) with the purpose of financing resistance/liberation related military operations. The company was successful although most of the funds were channelled through a Caribbean subsidiary (with base in Antigua, a location where European countries do not have access): Brentwood Solutions Limited with bank accounts in other Caribbean nations and Eastern Europe. E-Commerce Group was terminated in 2007 while most of the funds were channelled in an “unorthodox manner” to Norway available to the coming intellectual and subsequent operations phase.

2002-2004: Director of Anders Behring Breivik ENK) (part time from May 02 (shortly after my inclusion in PCCTS) – des. 02, full time from March 03. Same emphasis as E-Commerce Group. This was a front (milking cow) I established and focused on shortly after my inclusion in PCCTS, Knights Templar with the purpose of financing resistance/liberation related military operations.

2002-2003: Supervisor/internal advisor for Bankia Bank ASA (Apr. 02 – March 03)

2001-2002: Customer service representative for Bankia Bank ASA (Nov. 01 – Apr. 02)

2000-2001: Managing director of Media Group AS. Development and sales of outdoor media solutions (primarily billboards). My company was partially acquired/bought by Mediamax Norway AS after I (and my employee, Kristoffer Andresen) had built a billboard portfolio from scratch in the Oslo area which was then sold to Mediamax Norge AS (which was later bought by JC Decaux Norway) and Clear Channel (July 00 – July 01)

1999-2000: Team leader for the customer service rep. dept. for Enitel Telephony/mobile/internet/support division (March 99 – July 00)

1998-1999: Director for Behring & Kerner Marketing DA. Implenetation and sales of telephonic services (part time from Aug. 98-Feb. 99)

1997-1999: Corporate customer care rep. for customer care/internet support for Telia Norway AS (Nov 97-Feb 99)

1996-1997: Part time as a sales rep. for ACTA Economical Counselling (Feb 96-97)

Education: Non-formal studies/degrees: Bachelor of Business Administration (major: small business management) part time studies using the curriculum/online study courses from AIU, American InterContinental University (98-02), Bachelor of Political Science (major: political science and history) part time studies (00-05), Master of Political Science, full/part time studies (05-10). See other chapter for specification.

Other professional activities:

2005: Was coached by my friend, former mentor and independent stock analyst; Xun Dai over a 6 month period on the areas: technical stock analysis: candlesticks, RSI, stochastic, MACD, Bollinger bands, DMI, momentum

2000-2001: Was coached by mo former mentor – and managing director of Hypertec AS; Richard Steenfeldt-Berg over a 12 month period on the areas; management, administration, corporate/business/organisation development (May 00-May 01)

1995-1998: Oslo Handelsgymnasium/Hartvig Nissen High School

Board positions, professional activities, responsibilities

2003: Candidate for the Oslo City Council election on behalf of the Oslo Progress Party. This was during the “crossroad” when I was in the process of deciding whether I would fully abandon conventional politics (and a career within conventional politics) as a solution/source to acquire funds for the future operation or if I would rather leave conventional politics altogether and rather focus on entrepreneurship/business as the source for financing my future and clandestine participation in the pan-European Conservative Revolutionary Movement/pan-European Resistance Movement. As you already know I became one of the founding members of the PCCTS, Knights Templar in 2002 and among the very first Justiciar Knight Commanders. However, regardless of this choice, I was not completely convinced I was done with conventional politics. I actually decided to do a last push (after my pledge to the PCCTS) as I was already nominated on behalf of the Oslo Progress Party for the City Council election in 2003/2004. I came relatively close to being elected but was not among the final contestants due to the fact that the Progress Party Youth (lead by my rival Jøran Kallmyr) refused, for strategical reasons, to support my candidature. At the time I was more popular than Jøran but needed the support of the youth organisation (an organisation I had been a part of for a few years). I don’t blame him for backstabbing me like that though. After all, he had invested so much more of his time to the organisation than I had. He deserved it while I didn’t and I would probably have done the same thing if I was him.

Also, during the “crossroad phase” I had lost all faith in the Progress Party as a solution to Norway’s rapid disintegration due to multiculturalism and Islamisation. A moderate cultural conservative political party like the Progress Party is un-capable of solving any of our primary problems as they are systematically ridiculed and isolated by all other political parties and a united media sector. This, even despite of the fact that they have taken measures and gotten rid of all true nationalists ending up with only opportunistic career cynisists unwilling to take any political risks.

The Progress Party is now a part of the problem as they continuously give the Norwegian people false hope and thus contributes to pacify them. They should rather be honest and admit that all hopes for the democratical change of the society is futile and rather encourage all patriotic Norwegians to resist the multiculturalist regime through armed resistance. Their unwillingness to do this makes them a central part of the problem and in fact an obstacle to the liberation of and the reconquista of Norway.

I anticipate that the Norwegian media will persecute and undermine the Progress Party for my earlier involvement in the organisation. This is not a negative thing as an increasing amount of Norwegians will then have their “illusions of democratic change” crushed (if the Progress Party is annihilated by the multiculturalist media) and rather resorts to armed resistance. From a tactical and pragmatical viewpoint; the PC Medias defeat of the Progress Party will benefit the armed National Resistance Movement in Norway. The more moderate alternatives are persecuted the more likely it is that the average nationalists illusions of peaceful reform will be crushed, which will lead to him seeking “other means”. Because at this point, armed resistance and the violent overthrow of our regime is the only thing that can save us.

2002: Founding member (national representative) of the PCCTS, Knights Templar, in London (April).

2002: Member of the board of directors of the control authority for Majorstuen Eldresenter (Majorstuen Retirement home), political position for the Norwegian Progress Party.

2002: Member of the board of directors for Uranienborg Elementary and Secondary School, political position for the Norwegian Progress Party.

2001: Development of the financial prospectus for Hypertec AS in cooperation with NB Partner AS and PriceWaterhouseCoopers DA (Jan 01-May 01)

2000-2003: Board member in Progress Party Frogner and Vice Chairman in the Progress Party Youth – Oslo West.