A film by Alex Jones exposing how western governments have created terror groups and used them to kill civilians and topple governments. Alex uses documents released by the governments themselves that show what they did.
Saturday 24 March 2007
Tuesday 13 March 2007
Imagine This
Imaging a world with no cash, where all transfer of value/money is done with a card so that the authorities know how much pocket money you give your children today.
Imaging a world where cash has a built in RFID chip so that every note can be scanned as you walk pass a scanner allowing the authorities to know exactly who has that note and when it was transferred.
Imaging a world where every person can be identified by the RFID chip in their clothes as they travel around pass RFID scanners.
Imaging a world where the world’s authorities have imposed a uniform personal ID card with biometrics and an RFID chip that can be scanned as you walk passed a scanner.
Imaging a world where several scanners are placed in every street that can read the RFID chips as you walk by at a distance which forwards that information to a central database.
Imaging a world where an RFID chip can be read by a satellite and its map grid reference is forwarded to a central database.
Imaging a world where supercomputers run software that tract every person on the planet in real-time using data from the RFID chips they carry.
Imagine that.
Now tell you’re politicians that you don’t want that to happen, because that’s exactly what they are creating; total control, control where they will eventually know whether your underpants are around your waist or ankles.
Imaging a world where cash has a built in RFID chip so that every note can be scanned as you walk pass a scanner allowing the authorities to know exactly who has that note and when it was transferred.
Imaging a world where every person can be identified by the RFID chip in their clothes as they travel around pass RFID scanners.
Imaging a world where the world’s authorities have imposed a uniform personal ID card with biometrics and an RFID chip that can be scanned as you walk passed a scanner.
Imaging a world where several scanners are placed in every street that can read the RFID chips as you walk by at a distance which forwards that information to a central database.
Imaging a world where an RFID chip can be read by a satellite and its map grid reference is forwarded to a central database.
Imaging a world where supercomputers run software that tract every person on the planet in real-time using data from the RFID chips they carry.
Imagine that.
Now tell you’re politicians that you don’t want that to happen, because that’s exactly what they are creating; total control, control where they will eventually know whether your underpants are around your waist or ankles.
Monday 12 March 2007
How To Fake Medical Studies On Food Supplements
Because more and more people are discovering that natural therapies and food supplements are helping them in the fight against disease and fatigue, the pharmaceutical companies via the medical profession have engaged in lies and false studies to make people believe that taking supplements is wrong so that they continue to sacrifice themselves to spending the rest of their lives ill and having to pay for drugs and treatments that do not cure. Recently, another study was released to show that vitamins are bad for you. This blog will show an article by ABC News, just one of many that could have been picked from the pool of so called news reports from the main media which will never inform people about the truth, and an article showing how this is all false. I will put my own comments in green.Are Too Many Vitamins Bad for Your Health? Supplements May Lead to Increased Risk of Death, New Research Suggests
By BETH M. WICKLUND, M.D.
ABC News Medical Unit
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=2908054&page=1
Feb. 27, 2007 — We tend to think of vitamins as healthy. But can you have too much of a good thing?
New research suggests this may be the case when it comes to supplements.
In a meta-analysis study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers reviewed 68 studies involving more than 200,000 patients to determine whether taking high-dose vitamin supplements — in particular, beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium — affected your risk of dying.
What they found was that some of these supplements actually increased risk of death by a small, but significant, amount.
Taking large doses of vitamin A increased the risk of death by 16 percent. Smaller increases were seen for vitamin E (4 percent) and beta carotene (7 percent).
Vitamin C and selenium did not appear to affect the risk of dying.
But exactly how the high doses of supplements affect the risk of death is not clear. The study authors speculate that perhaps the vitamins interfere with the body's defense mechanisms.
The researchers arrived at their conclusions by pooling the results from many different, previously published studies.
Because each of the studies involved in this meta-analysis was very different, though, it is hard to generalize the findings to one particular person, such as you or a family member.
Dr. Meir Stampfer, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, states, "The effects might well differ according to particular characteristics of the population, such as enhanced risk among smokers for beta carotene, but no increased risk among nonsmokers."
Some Still Need Supplements
Select people should still take supplements. For instance, people who have had gastric bypass surgery need large amounts of vitamin A, says internist Dr. Tina Dobsevage, assistant clinical professor of medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
She says she also prescribes vitamins D and B12 to patients who have low blood levels of these nutrients.
However, others have conditions that increase the health risk associated with certain supplements. Vitamin E, for example, has blood-thinning properties and may increase the risk of bleeding in people taking prescription blood thinners.
Information that large doses of some vitamins can be harmful is not new (is that because of the other many false studies conducted). When taken in excess, the fat-soluble vitamins — vitamins A, D, E and K — are stored in body fat tissues. This can lead to toxic buildup in the liver, brain and heart.
Excess amounts of water-soluble vitamins, on the other hand, are less hazardous because they are eliminated from the body in the urine.
It is also known that vitamins taken as supplements, rather than in whole foods, tend to be less beneficial. Thus, the study authors say, people should not shy away from fruits and vegetables for fear that they are overloading on vitamins (Natural vitamins come from fruits and vegetables, unlike the chemical vitamins used in the studies).
Vitamins a Big Business
An estimated 10 percent to 20 percent of U.S. adults — 80 million to 160 million people — look to vitamin supplements for a nutritional boost.
Supposed health benefits include longer life, a healthier heart and stronger bones.
Antioxidant supplements, which include the vitamins in the current study, are thought to fight off substances called "free radicals" and improve immune function.
Dr. Kathy Helzlsouer, a women's health specialist and director of the Prevention and Research Center at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore, thinks the study has "extremely significant findings."
"This is a big industry," she said. "Even small risks, with widespread use, result in large numbers of women [and men] affected."
This echoes the thoughts of the study authors, who write, "The public health consequences may be substantial."
Should You Toss Your Supplements?
Doctors (Who are not trained in nutrition) tend to agree that moderation is key when it comes to vitamins.
After reviewing the study, internist Dr. Ted Palen of Colorado Permanente Medical Group said, "I will counsel patients that moderate multivitamin intake may be beneficial, but megadoses may actually be harmful (Would that include vitamin D? 60 minutes in the summer sun will produce 40,000 units in the body. And dark skinned people need far more as a supplement than light skinned people)."
Keith Ayoob, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, agrees.
"The best research says to take a complete multivitamin with 100 percent of the [recommended dietary allowance or RDA] and not more (The problem is that each country has a different RDA and all are too low; and how can they be the same for men and women, or for any weight for that matter)," he said.
Some doctors recommend concentrating on improving your diet rather than stressing about which supplements to take (Except that food does not have enough vitamins and minerals anymore because of the industrial methods used to farm).
People "should spend their money on multiple varieties and colors of vegetables and fruits, whole grains, and lean protein," said Dr. John Messmer, associate professor of family and community medicine at Pennsylvania State University's College of Medicine in Hershey, "and stop wasting it on supplements."
Dobsevage agrees. However, she said, "the American diet is so degraded, and so many of us no longer cook whole foods in our own homes for most of our meals, that I often recommend a modest level of vitamin and mineral supplementation — less than RDAs."
The conclusion I draw from this is that you should never take the chemical vitamins derived from crude oil which are the vitamins that are sold the most. People who take supplements and know what they are doing because they have spent some time studying this, always take natural supplements because they contain enzymes that are needed by the body and are always found with the vitamins. It is of course perfectly correct that you should eat as much fruits and vegetables as you can, but that is not enough anymore. When you take a good natural supplement you will experience the effect all these nutrients have within hours after years of being under nourished.
The big vitamin scare: American Medical Association claims vitamins may kill you (opinion)
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 by: Mike Adams
http://www.newstarget.com/021653.html
The latest round in conventional medicine's ongoing attempts to discredit (and ultimately outlaw) nutritional supplements is found in a highly questionable study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which claims that vitamins actually increase the risk of death.
The study claims to have analyzed a collection of previous studies on Vitamin A, beta carotene, Vitamin C, Vitamin E and selenium, concluding that most of the nutrients are actually dangerous to human health. Of course, this is research from conventional medicine - an industry that promotes patented chemicals as perfectly safe, even though FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are killing 100,000 Americans each year. (Imagine the uproar if vitamins killed even a fraction of that number.)
To avoid getting hoodwinked by questionable research on "vitamins," you have to strongly consider the financial interests of the source of this research. JAMA accepts millions of dollars in advertising from drug companies each year, and its pages are absolutely packed with drug ads. The American Medical Association, for its part, has long worked to discredit alternative medicine and has even been found guilty by U.S. federal courts of engaging in a conspiracy to destroy chiropractic medicine. The AMA, which is largely considered a joke by anyone familiar with natural health, is hardly a credible source for publishing scientific findings on nutrition. To protect the multi-billion dollar drug industry, the AMA would say practically anything, I believe.
How to fake a vitamin study
Faking a vitamin study to show supplements as harmful is extremely easy to pull off, by the way. All you have to do is use synthetic forms of the vitamins and avoid using natural, food-sourced vitamins. These synthetic vitamins - which are really just industrial chemicals - may be called "Vitamin E" or "Vitamin A" or even "Vitamin C" but they have no functional resemblance to the real vitamins that occur in nature. Every single study over the past two decades that has sought to discredit Vitamin E, for example, focused on using synthetic Vitamin E in order to show harm. It is curious that no researcher from the world of conventional medicine will ever test the natural, full-spectrum vitamins, nutrients and phytochemicals that appear in nature. You know why? Because they would discover a universe of natural medicine that makes patented prescription drugs obsolete.
A second way to fake a vitamin meta-data study is to simply cherry-pick the results you want to include in your meta-data analysis. This is a routine trick used by dishonest researchers who have an agenda of discrediting nutritional supplements. To pull this one off, they simply eliminate all previous studies that showed positive results for vitamins, and include only previous studies that showed negative results. Then they run a statistical analysis on all the studies they hand-picked and declare - surprise! - those vitamins are dangerous! Many of the studies on vitamin E, by the way, were conducted on dying heart patients who were only expected to live two weeks, regardless of what they took.
A third way to distort the science is to confuse people with statistical obfuscation. The reporting on this particular study, for example, confuses absolute risk with relative risk. Vitamin A, according to the reports on this study, increased mortality risk by 16 percent. But that is a relative risk number, meaning that if 1 person out of 100 normally died, then 1.16 people out of 100 would die when taking these synthetic Vitamin A supplements. In other words, it might not even be one additional person out of 100, or even out of 1000.
And yet, it is curious that when conventional medical researchers report the results of mortality risks for their prescription drugs, they always use absolute risk. They say things like, "Well, this drug only increased the risk by one percent." But what they are not saying is that it may be a 200% relative increase in mortality risk, depending on the baseline absolute mortality numbers. So if only 0.5 people out of 100 normally died from heart disease during a particular study, but 1.5 people died when taking a drug during that study, the relative risk increase is 200%. But the medical journals and the mainstream media will report is at a "one percent increase."
You see how the game is played? Here's the con:
. All statistics on the dangers of prescription drugs are reported as absolute risk to make the numbers seem smaller (and make drugs seem safe).
. All statistics on the dangers of synthetic vitamins are reported as relative risk to make the numbers seem larger (and vitamins seem dangerous).
And this is how conventional medicine lies with statistics. It's only one of the many tricks used to disinform the American public about the dangers of pharmaceuticals or the benefits of nutrition.
This research published in JAMA does remind us of one important point, however: synthetic chemicals are harmful to human health. If you take cheap "vitamins" made of these synthetic chemicals, you are doing yourself more harm than good. These cheap vitamin manufacturers, by the way, are usually owned by pharmaceutical firms. I would personally never take vitamins purchased at common retailers such as Wal-Mart or Walgreens. I only recommend and consume vitamins from high-end nutritional supplement companies.
Blurring the line to scare consumers
But conventional medicine researchers try to blur the line between "junk vitamins" and "quality vitamins" by classifying all nutritional supplements as "vitamins," regardless of what they're really made from. By discrediting a few synthetic chemicals, they can effectively dissuade the masses from taking ANY vitamins, including the good ones. And that is, of course, their goal: to use FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to scare consumers away from nutritional supplements so that patients will flock to the patented, synthetic chemicals that earn drug companies billions of dollars in profits. Drugs make money for Big Pharma, and vitamins compete with drug sales. Once you understand the economics and the motives of the parties involved here, the junk science con becomes quite obvious: Pushers of pharmaceuticals will always use dirty tricks to discredit nutritional supplements because it is in their financial interests to do so.
My own financial interests, by the way, are squeaky clean. I sell no supplements, I earn no money from supplement companies, and in fact I am not even paid by NewsTarget for my work on these articles. In terms of potential conflicts of interest, I have far more credibility than the AMA, a shady organization that remains mired in blatant conflicts of interest and a frightening agenda of pushing drugs, surgery and radiation onto as many Americans as possible.
Now, here's a common sense way to quickly realize the JAMA research is complete nonsense. Round up 100 people who are taking multiple pharmaceuticals, and compare their health to 100 people who are taking vitamins and nutritional supplements. Guess who's healthier? The supplement crowd will be healthier every time. It's the obvious question: If vitamins are so dangerous, where are all the dead vitamin takers? And if pharmaceuticals are so safe, where are all the super-healthy prescription drug patients? They are nowhere to be found.
The healthiest people, by far, are those who take supplements, who engage in regular exercise, and who avoid taking prescription drugs.
Why conventional medical researchers remain nutritionally illiterate
Western medicine still doesn't "get" nutrition. They think all health effects are achieved by single, isolated chemical constituents. But nutrition doesn't work that way. In nature, for example, Vitamin C is not a single chemical, but rather a symphony of complementary phytonutrients that work in concert. Conventional medical researchers almost never test plant medicine using full-spectrum nutrients. Why? Because they don't understand the concept of nutritional synergy.
The bottom line? Only fools believe research about nutrition that comes from the American Medical Association or its journal. Conventional medical researchers declaring that vitamins are worthless is about as credible as Bush Administration climatologists claiming there's no such thing as global warming.
With the publication of this research, the distortion of health reality is now complete. According to the Americal Medical Association, vitamins will kill you but pharmaceuticals will make you healthy.
Someone help me stop laughing before I blow out a lung and require surgery.
Wednesday 7 March 2007
Vaccines And The Effect On Your health
In this interview Alex Jones and Dr. Deagle talk about the vaccines currently being given to, or planned to be given to children and the way the vaccines will affect those children by giving them many other health problems at this time and later in life.
BIO:
Dr. Wm. R. Deagle MD, ABFP, CCFP, CIME, AAAAAM, ACOEM, AAPM, SPPM, AAEMAmerican Board Family Physician
Founder of NutriMedical, 1999.
Member of the American Board of Family Practice, Canadian College of Family Practice, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine and A.C.O.E.M., the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Dr. Deagle is also completing board certification examinations in the American Board of Pain Medicine, February 2003.
Board eligible in Occupational and Environmental Medicine since 1996.
An ACOEM Board Certified Independent Medical Examiner, and member of the American Academy of Legal Medicine.
Dr. Deagle has a teaching appointment as medical student preceptor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.
Dr. Deagle plans completion in 2003 of the Board Certifications in the American Academy of Thermal Imaging, the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, and the American Board of Holistic Medicine. Research interests include clinical consulting with Genovations and Great Smokies Laboratories for gene SNP, single nucleotide DNA polymorphisms. These are the genetic basis for current of future disease.
Dr. Deagle is writing a text on Functional Medicine - The Genetic and Immunotoxic Basis of Health and Disease with Dr. Ari Vojdani, PhD, Director of Immunosciences Clinical Laboratories, in Beverly Hills, California.
Dr. Deagle holds a patent pending for new topical pain pharmacotechnologies for pain control and new pain blockade trigger point technologies. Research interests include sensory nerve mapping for pain control utilizing the new 1997 FDA approved VsNCT, voltage actuated sensory nerve technology, MediDx 7000 from NDA Nerve.
Dr. Deagle has completed a study for the State of Colorado Department of Revenue on repetitive motion injury induced nerve entrapment diagnostics and trauma release interfacial therapeutics for the upper extremities. Plan is for future research of pain diagnostic of C.T.I. - Computerized Thermal Imaging technologies with a delta sensory nerve mapping for Interventional Pain Blocking Therapies.
Dr. Deagle is a public speaker on application of advanced laboratory testing or organ function in wellness and disease and the genetic basis for Holistic Integrative Medicine.
Download interview
Links
Alex Jones
http://www.infowars.com/
GCN
http://www.gcnlive.com/
Tuesday 6 March 2007
Nick Rockefeller Revealed Elite Agenda to Aaron Russo During Friendship
Freedom to Fascism Filmmaker Aaron Russo has exposed first-hand knowledge of the elite global agenda during a video interview and live on Alex Jones' nationally-syndicated radio show.
Nick Rockefeller told Russo about the plan to microchip the population, warned him about 'an event that would allow us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq' some eleven months before 9/11 and foretold the fact that the 'War on Terror' would be a hoax wherein soldiers would be looking in caves for non-existant enemies.
Rockefeller also tried to recruit Aaron Russo to the Council on Foreign Relations during the tenure of their friendship. Now, a picture send by the Russo family verifies that friendship and strengthens evidence of the global agenda which Rockefeller related to the filmmaker so frankly during their private conversations.
Download interview section
MP3 size 6Mb
GigaSize or zShare
WMA size 2Mb
GigaSize or zShare
Links
Filmed interview with Aaron Russo
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918&q=Historic+Aaron+Russo
Nick Rockefeller told Russo about the plan to microchip the population, warned him about 'an event that would allow us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq' some eleven months before 9/11 and foretold the fact that the 'War on Terror' would be a hoax wherein soldiers would be looking in caves for non-existant enemies.
Rockefeller also tried to recruit Aaron Russo to the Council on Foreign Relations during the tenure of their friendship. Now, a picture send by the Russo family verifies that friendship and strengthens evidence of the global agenda which Rockefeller related to the filmmaker so frankly during their private conversations.
Download interview section
MP3 size 6Mb
GigaSize or zShare
WMA size 2Mb
GigaSize or zShare
Links
Filmed interview with Aaron Russo
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918&q=Historic+Aaron+Russo
Film Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=Freedom+to+Fascism
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=Freedom+to+Fascism
Sunday 4 March 2007
Welcome to The Twilight Zone
Meet Jeff. Jeff is a social worker from Pennsylvania, and two years from having left college. One day Jeff decides to call the Alex Jones show for reasons only known to himself and declare that Troy another critic definitely got Alex Jones. Jeff is a well meaning man who doesn't understand he's been brainwashed all his life; this after all to quote President Bush is the land where the constitution "is just a god damn piece of paper". We have just crossed over into The Twilight Zone, where the top is bottom, what's right is left, and where the dumb control the lives of millions.
Download Jeff's phone-in call
MP3 size 6Mb
GigaSize or zShare
WMA size 2Mb
GigaSize or zShare
Links
Alex Jones
http://www.infowars.com/
GCN
http://www.gcnlive.com/
MP3 size 6Mb
GigaSize or zShare
WMA size 2Mb
GigaSize or zShare
Links
Alex Jones
http://www.infowars.com/
GCN
http://www.gcnlive.com/
Will The North American Union Be American Patriots' Last Stand?
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
December 7, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
No one who peruses even the Establishment's pet media, let alone alternative sources of information, can remain unaware of the political maneuvers now on-going in aid of creating a so-called "North American Union" composed of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Yet notwithstanding this publicity, conspicuous by its absence has been a detailed answer to the question: Exactly where in the Constitution lurks any power for the General Government, or the States, or both together, somehow to "merge" the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a single super-national entity?
To answer this question requires reversion to fundamental principles.
First, as its very title attests, the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to claim and to justify Americans' national independence. Not, however, simply as a matter of fact, but also and especially as a matter of law. The Declaration came into being when "it [became] necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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." And the Declaration asserted "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; * * * 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." For Americans "to dissolve * * * political bonds" 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" were not simply historical events with no moral or legal components, but acts that invoked and relied upon the highest legal authority, and entailed profound legal consequences.
Second, WE THE PEOPLE who composed the "Free and Independent States" then entered into the Constitution, not to repudiate or relegate to the dustbin of history either the fact of national independence that the Declaration announced or the principles of law that the Declaration embodied, but (as the Preamble to the Constitution states) in order "to form a more perfect Union" amongst themselves. That is, to secure the fact of independence and make the principles upon which it rested even more effective in practice than they had been theretofore.
Third, the legitimacy of the Constitution depends upon the Declaration of Independence; and therefore the Constitution's powers cannot contradict the Declaration's principles. For, were the Declaration not an actual law both prior in time and superior in authority to the Constitution, and the source of WE THE PEOPLE'S authority to enact the Constitution, the Constitution itself would not be valid. After all, before they could enact their own laws, binding on anyone, including themselves, Americans had to win legal independence from Great Britain. They secured that independence only under the aegis of the Declaration. Therefore, they could enact only such subsequent laws as were entirely consistent with the principles the Declaration set forth.
Fourth, the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution in no way rejected the sovereign status of "the several States" incorporated within the Constitution's federal system. Rather, it modified that status only insofar as WE THE PEOPLE, through the Constitution, explicitly limited some of the powers of the States in ways favorable to the Union. (In particular, see Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1 through 3, and Article VI, Clause 2.) And out of the limitations on the sovereignties of the States, the Constitution created a sovereign status for the Union as a whole among the nations of the world. (In particular, see Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13; Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1 and 3; and Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.)
Thus, the Constitution was not a repudiation of national independence, but a transferral of some of the powers of "Free and Independent States" from the individual States to the "more perfect Union" of them all, and thereby a perfection of national independence. For it enabled all of the States together to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" in ways more effective than any of the States could have put into operation individually.
Fifth, although in theory wholly "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES" could merge with foreign states, in practice under the Constitution this is not possible. Perforce of the Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE have caused the States to surrender their primordial ability to do so, and have delegated no competence to the General Government in that particular.
(a) The most basic rule of constitutional interpretation is that the States retain all of their original sovereign powers that the Constitution does not take away from them. Conversely, the General Government can exercise only those powers that the Constitution delegates to it. And "[p]owers not granted are prohibited." United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).
(b) The Constitution provides that "[n]ew States may be admitted by the Congress" into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Thus, the Constitution withdraws from the States the powers they originally enjoyed to divide or to consolidate themselves solely on their own initiatives. And the Constitution denies to the Union any power to split up or to merge the States, in whole or in part, solely on its own initiative.
(c) The Constitution says nothing about the States' merging on their own initiatives with foreign nations to form some new super-national entity. As practical matter, however, any such merger would require some form of legally binding agreement between at least one State, on the one hand, and one foreign nation, on the other. And the Constitution does provide that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, * * * enter into any Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power." Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.
Moreover, "any Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" aimed specifically at creating a new super-national entity could not be constitutional. For the States are required to treat the Constitution as "the supreme Law of the Land". Article VI, Clause 2. And State officials "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Article VI, Clause 3. "[A]ny Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" to form a new super-national entity, however, would have to absolve State officers from their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution" as "the supreme Law of Land," because the new entity would necessarily be subject to some law other than and to the exclusion of the Constitution. But for State officials to enter into such an "Agreement or Compact" would itself violate their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s]," and therefore be illegal from its inception.
To be sure, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States" become part of "the supreme Law of the Land." Article VI, Clause 2. Arguably, a State's "Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" is not a "Treat[y]." Even if it were, "a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of the Constitution." The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616, 620 (1871). And surely an "Agreement or Compact" of less legal status than a "treaty" cannot do so, either. So no such "Agreement or Compact" can absolve a State, or its officials, from their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution." And to the extent it purports to do so, it is unconstitutional, and therefore cannot be given any legal effect by any State or any State officials.
That the Constitution allows Congress to give its "Consent" to a State's "Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" does not change this result. For Congress's "Consent" cannot enlarge Congress's own constitutional powers, or diminish its constitutional disabilities. The only power of Congress relevant to possible "merger" of foreign nations with the United States is the power to admit new States to the Union. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. The Constitution delegates no power to Congress to license any State—let alone all of them—to leave the Union and be incorporated into some other super-national entity. And "[p]owers not granted are prohibited."
Furthermore, Congress cannot extend its "Consent" to a violation of the Constitution by the States or their officials. So Congress cannot give its "Consent" to any purported "Agreement or Compact" for a State to merge "with a foreign Power," because that would amount to "Consent" for that State to set aside the Constitution and for her officials to violate their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Conitution."
Similarly, Members of Congress themselves must respect the Constitution as "the supreme Law of the Land," and are "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3. So Congressmen cannot possibly give "Consent" to any purported "Agreement or Compact" for a State to merge "with a foreign Power," because that would contradict "the supreme Law of Land" by enabling them to subject part or even all of the United States to the laws of some new super-national entity, to the exclusion of the Constitution.
(d) On its own initiative, Congress could "merge" Canada, Mexico, and the United States by admitting Canada and Mexico as two or more new States pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution (quoted above). But that is not what is being proposed for the North American Union. Under the plan now being stealthily put into operation, Canada and Mexico are not to be incorporated as new States within the United States, subject to her Constitution, but along with the United States are to be restructured into some new Northern-Hemispheric superstate subject to some supra-constitutional legal system. The Constitution delegates no such power to Congress. And "[p]owers not granted are prohibited."
(e) The President does have the "Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. But this would hardly serve for creating some new super-national entity from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. "A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations," or "a compact between independent nations." Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Peters) 253, 314 (1829); Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884). Therefore, a mere "treaty" cannot merge two or more independent nations into one, because that would be to dissolve the independence of at least one of them.
Moreover, even if a "treaty" could in some sense "merge" the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Congress always could override and nullify it by subsequent legislation. "Congress by legislation, and so far as the people and authorities of the United States are concerned, [can] abrogate a treaty made between this country and another country which has been negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate." La Abra Silver Mining Co. V. United States, 175 U.S. 423, 460 (1899). And if the "treaty" purported to deny Congress this constitutional authority (or any other authority, for that matter), it would be unconstitutional. For "a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of the Constitution." The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616, 620 (1871). So the purported "merger" would constitute, not a true "union" at all, but at most some sort of loose association for mutual cooperation, with inherent impermanence because of the possibility of its dissolution by Congress at any time. Which, one must presume, is not what the proponents of the North American Union have in mind.
(f) It appears that the foundations of the North American Union are now being poured out of various international trade deals, economic arrangements, agreements among regulatory bureaucrats, and faits accomplis (such as the superhighway being constructed from Mexico through the very center of America's heartland, and eventually to continue into Canada), all of them with "commercial" character (as befits a scheme designed by, and intended to serve the special interests of, international big business and high finance). Although these machinations are taking place primarily among executive officials in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, at some point the North American Union will need at least colorable support from Congressional legislation. And Congress does have the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
The power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," however, self-evidently presumes the permanent existences as independent nations of the entities involved in the "Commerce." So any North American Union could never be the result of "regulat[ing] Commerce with foreign Nations," because a "merger" of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into one super-national entity would destroy and thereafter render impossible "Commerce with foreign Nations" between the United States and those two "foreign Nations," which with respect to the United States would no longer be "foreign Nations" at all. And if, pursuant to the "merger," Canada and Mexico were not constitutionally transformed into States within the United States, or somehow fancifully equated with "Indian Tribes," no rational basis could possibly exist for saying that the North American Union was justified under the Commerce Power.
(g) Although the Constitution can be amended, it is difficult to imagine how any amendment could provide for the "more perfect Union" to "merge" into some other, super-national entity. After all, a new super-national entity distict from the United States (that is, where Canada and Mexico were not simply admitted as one or more new States) would have to operate under a charter of government decidedly different from the Constitution. So the putative "amendment" would actually have to supersede the Constitution in its entirety, in the same way that the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation.
Even if such an "amendment" could be drafted, it would nevertheless have to satisfy the standards of the Declaration of Independence, because the power of amendment is a constitutional power and therefore subject to the selfsame principles of the "higher law" that governs all constitutional powers. Among those principles are the following:
That the positive laws of any government are always subject and subordinate to the Natural Law—"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
That all men are equally entitled to "certain unalienable Rights"—whether or not that is convenient to public officials or special-interest groups, domestic or foreign.
That "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"—and therefore can never claim any unjust powers whatsoever, or impose any powers "from the top down."
That "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter and abolish it, and to institute new Government"—"the People" being always morally, politically, and legally superior to "any Form of Government." And,
That "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce the[ People] 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." For the fulfillment of which "right" and "duty" the People must be organized, armed, and disciplined in the "well regulated Militia" the Second Amendment declares to be "necessary to the security of a free State."
The insurmountable practical problem for any "merger" of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union by means of a putative "amendment" of the Constitution is that neither Canada nor Mexico satisfies the standards of the Declaration of Independence, by a long shot. And therefore no North American Union that simply incorporated those two countries, fundamentally unchanged, could meet the Declaration's standards, either.
(h) Therefore, the only way to create a North American Union that could absorb Canada and Mexico without radically reforming their regimes would be to repeal the Declaration of Independence, repudiate the principles on which it stands, and replace them with some new set of contradictory principles consistent with the way political business is carried on in Canada and Mexico. This could not be accomplished simply by an "amendment" of the Constitution, because the power of amendment in Article V is to "propose Amendments to this Constitution," not amendments to or replacements for the Declaration of Independence. Instead, it would be necessary to adopt a new Northern-Hemisperic "Declaration of Interdependence" that reduced the United States morally, as well as politically, to the level of Canada and Mexico.
Little imagination is necessary to posit what the noxious principles of such a "Declaration of Interdependence" would have to be:
"[T]he Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" would be replaced with purely "positive law"—that is, "law" would become whatever the political Establishment said it was, with no right of appeal to any "higher law."
"[C]ertain unalienable rights" would be replaced with entirely "alienable rights"—that is, with no real "rights" at all, because such "rights" as the Establishment permitted under its "laws" could be set aside whenever it served the Establishment's purposes.
The idea that "Governments * * * deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed" would be replaced by the claim that governments determine their own powers, which common people must accept as being "just."
"[T]he Right of the People to alter and abolish [any Form of Government], and to institute new Government," would be replaced with an unconditional duty to obey "the authorities" in everything, no matter how tyrannous they became. And,
The People's "right" and "duty" "to throw off [an abusive] Government" would be abolished through pervasive "gun control" and other police-state measures, leaving common Americans (and Canadians and Mexicans, too) at the mercy of "the authorities," who could Waco-ize them without fear of resistance.
Can the Establishment convince Americans to repudiate the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and to substitute for them the grotesque counter-principles of a Northern-Hemispheric totalitarian state? Probably not, if the matter were openly and honestly presented in that way. Which means that the matter will be presented in some other way. Most likely, the Establishment's minions will simply skirt the question entirely, claiming that some combination of "statutes," "treaties," "executive orders," and "executive agreements" will suffice to create the North American Union.
In sum, NO constitutional grounds for a North American Union exist. Indeed, the whole project is patently illegal. That fact, however, will prove to be of merely theoretical significance unless WE THE PEOPLE oppose the creation of a North American Union with every form of exposure, denunciation, protest, obstruction, and resistance that the Constitution permits. And as soon as possible. For all the evidence indicates that the Establishment considers the North American Union a top priority, its foundations at the least to be poured into place with the next few years.
To prevail in the coming struggle to preserve America, however, patriots must first overcome the centrifugal tendencies that have all too often rendered them ineffective on other fronts by enabling the Establishment successfully to concentrate its forces and to employ divide-and-conquer tactics.
Revitalizing "the Militia of the several States" could provide the necessary focal point for the political zeal, skills, and experiences of many patriotic groups now engaged in isolated, mutually unsupportive activities. Perhaps other projects could also serve the same unifying, directing, and (most importantly) empowering purpose. In any event, the time for patriots to stop working in isolation, and instead to engage in coordinated, concerted action is as close at hand as it is short. If America is not saved soon, there will soon be nothing left of her to save.
© 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
December 7, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
No one who peruses even the Establishment's pet media, let alone alternative sources of information, can remain unaware of the political maneuvers now on-going in aid of creating a so-called "North American Union" composed of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Yet notwithstanding this publicity, conspicuous by its absence has been a detailed answer to the question: Exactly where in the Constitution lurks any power for the General Government, or the States, or both together, somehow to "merge" the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a single super-national entity?
To answer this question requires reversion to fundamental principles.
First, as its very title attests, the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to claim and to justify Americans' national independence. Not, however, simply as a matter of fact, but also and especially as a matter of law. The Declaration came into being when "it [became] necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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." And the Declaration asserted "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; * * * 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." For Americans "to dissolve * * * political bonds" 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" were not simply historical events with no moral or legal components, but acts that invoked and relied upon the highest legal authority, and entailed profound legal consequences.
Second, WE THE PEOPLE who composed the "Free and Independent States" then entered into the Constitution, not to repudiate or relegate to the dustbin of history either the fact of national independence that the Declaration announced or the principles of law that the Declaration embodied, but (as the Preamble to the Constitution states) in order "to form a more perfect Union" amongst themselves. That is, to secure the fact of independence and make the principles upon which it rested even more effective in practice than they had been theretofore.
Third, the legitimacy of the Constitution depends upon the Declaration of Independence; and therefore the Constitution's powers cannot contradict the Declaration's principles. For, were the Declaration not an actual law both prior in time and superior in authority to the Constitution, and the source of WE THE PEOPLE'S authority to enact the Constitution, the Constitution itself would not be valid. After all, before they could enact their own laws, binding on anyone, including themselves, Americans had to win legal independence from Great Britain. They secured that independence only under the aegis of the Declaration. Therefore, they could enact only such subsequent laws as were entirely consistent with the principles the Declaration set forth.
Fourth, the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution in no way rejected the sovereign status of "the several States" incorporated within the Constitution's federal system. Rather, it modified that status only insofar as WE THE PEOPLE, through the Constitution, explicitly limited some of the powers of the States in ways favorable to the Union. (In particular, see Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1 through 3, and Article VI, Clause 2.) And out of the limitations on the sovereignties of the States, the Constitution created a sovereign status for the Union as a whole among the nations of the world. (In particular, see Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13; Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1 and 3; and Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.)
Thus, the Constitution was not a repudiation of national independence, but a transferral of some of the powers of "Free and Independent States" from the individual States to the "more perfect Union" of them all, and thereby a perfection of national independence. For it enabled all of the States together to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" in ways more effective than any of the States could have put into operation individually.
Fifth, although in theory wholly "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES" could merge with foreign states, in practice under the Constitution this is not possible. Perforce of the Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE have caused the States to surrender their primordial ability to do so, and have delegated no competence to the General Government in that particular.
(a) The most basic rule of constitutional interpretation is that the States retain all of their original sovereign powers that the Constitution does not take away from them. Conversely, the General Government can exercise only those powers that the Constitution delegates to it. And "[p]owers not granted are prohibited." United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).
(b) The Constitution provides that "[n]ew States may be admitted by the Congress" into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Thus, the Constitution withdraws from the States the powers they originally enjoyed to divide or to consolidate themselves solely on their own initiatives. And the Constitution denies to the Union any power to split up or to merge the States, in whole or in part, solely on its own initiative.
(c) The Constitution says nothing about the States' merging on their own initiatives with foreign nations to form some new super-national entity. As practical matter, however, any such merger would require some form of legally binding agreement between at least one State, on the one hand, and one foreign nation, on the other. And the Constitution does provide that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, * * * enter into any Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power." Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.
Moreover, "any Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" aimed specifically at creating a new super-national entity could not be constitutional. For the States are required to treat the Constitution as "the supreme Law of the Land". Article VI, Clause 2. And State officials "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Article VI, Clause 3. "[A]ny Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" to form a new super-national entity, however, would have to absolve State officers from their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution" as "the supreme Law of Land," because the new entity would necessarily be subject to some law other than and to the exclusion of the Constitution. But for State officials to enter into such an "Agreement or Compact" would itself violate their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s]," and therefore be illegal from its inception.
To be sure, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States" become part of "the supreme Law of the Land." Article VI, Clause 2. Arguably, a State's "Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" is not a "Treat[y]." Even if it were, "a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of the Constitution." The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616, 620 (1871). And surely an "Agreement or Compact" of less legal status than a "treaty" cannot do so, either. So no such "Agreement or Compact" can absolve a State, or its officials, from their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution." And to the extent it purports to do so, it is unconstitutional, and therefore cannot be given any legal effect by any State or any State officials.
That the Constitution allows Congress to give its "Consent" to a State's "Agreement or Compact * * * with a foreign Power" does not change this result. For Congress's "Consent" cannot enlarge Congress's own constitutional powers, or diminish its constitutional disabilities. The only power of Congress relevant to possible "merger" of foreign nations with the United States is the power to admit new States to the Union. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. The Constitution delegates no power to Congress to license any State—let alone all of them—to leave the Union and be incorporated into some other super-national entity. And "[p]owers not granted are prohibited."
Furthermore, Congress cannot extend its "Consent" to a violation of the Constitution by the States or their officials. So Congress cannot give its "Consent" to any purported "Agreement or Compact" for a State to merge "with a foreign Power," because that would amount to "Consent" for that State to set aside the Constitution and for her officials to violate their "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Conitution."
Similarly, Members of Congress themselves must respect the Constitution as "the supreme Law of the Land," and are "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3. So Congressmen cannot possibly give "Consent" to any purported "Agreement or Compact" for a State to merge "with a foreign Power," because that would contradict "the supreme Law of Land" by enabling them to subject part or even all of the United States to the laws of some new super-national entity, to the exclusion of the Constitution.
(d) On its own initiative, Congress could "merge" Canada, Mexico, and the United States by admitting Canada and Mexico as two or more new States pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution (quoted above). But that is not what is being proposed for the North American Union. Under the plan now being stealthily put into operation, Canada and Mexico are not to be incorporated as new States within the United States, subject to her Constitution, but along with the United States are to be restructured into some new Northern-Hemispheric superstate subject to some supra-constitutional legal system. The Constitution delegates no such power to Congress. And "[p]owers not granted are prohibited."
(e) The President does have the "Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. But this would hardly serve for creating some new super-national entity from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. "A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations," or "a compact between independent nations." Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Peters) 253, 314 (1829); Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884). Therefore, a mere "treaty" cannot merge two or more independent nations into one, because that would be to dissolve the independence of at least one of them.
Moreover, even if a "treaty" could in some sense "merge" the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Congress always could override and nullify it by subsequent legislation. "Congress by legislation, and so far as the people and authorities of the United States are concerned, [can] abrogate a treaty made between this country and another country which has been negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate." La Abra Silver Mining Co. V. United States, 175 U.S. 423, 460 (1899). And if the "treaty" purported to deny Congress this constitutional authority (or any other authority, for that matter), it would be unconstitutional. For "a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of the Constitution." The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616, 620 (1871). So the purported "merger" would constitute, not a true "union" at all, but at most some sort of loose association for mutual cooperation, with inherent impermanence because of the possibility of its dissolution by Congress at any time. Which, one must presume, is not what the proponents of the North American Union have in mind.
(f) It appears that the foundations of the North American Union are now being poured out of various international trade deals, economic arrangements, agreements among regulatory bureaucrats, and faits accomplis (such as the superhighway being constructed from Mexico through the very center of America's heartland, and eventually to continue into Canada), all of them with "commercial" character (as befits a scheme designed by, and intended to serve the special interests of, international big business and high finance). Although these machinations are taking place primarily among executive officials in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, at some point the North American Union will need at least colorable support from Congressional legislation. And Congress does have the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
The power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," however, self-evidently presumes the permanent existences as independent nations of the entities involved in the "Commerce." So any North American Union could never be the result of "regulat[ing] Commerce with foreign Nations," because a "merger" of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into one super-national entity would destroy and thereafter render impossible "Commerce with foreign Nations" between the United States and those two "foreign Nations," which with respect to the United States would no longer be "foreign Nations" at all. And if, pursuant to the "merger," Canada and Mexico were not constitutionally transformed into States within the United States, or somehow fancifully equated with "Indian Tribes," no rational basis could possibly exist for saying that the North American Union was justified under the Commerce Power.
(g) Although the Constitution can be amended, it is difficult to imagine how any amendment could provide for the "more perfect Union" to "merge" into some other, super-national entity. After all, a new super-national entity distict from the United States (that is, where Canada and Mexico were not simply admitted as one or more new States) would have to operate under a charter of government decidedly different from the Constitution. So the putative "amendment" would actually have to supersede the Constitution in its entirety, in the same way that the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation.
Even if such an "amendment" could be drafted, it would nevertheless have to satisfy the standards of the Declaration of Independence, because the power of amendment is a constitutional power and therefore subject to the selfsame principles of the "higher law" that governs all constitutional powers. Among those principles are the following:
That the positive laws of any government are always subject and subordinate to the Natural Law—"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
That all men are equally entitled to "certain unalienable Rights"—whether or not that is convenient to public officials or special-interest groups, domestic or foreign.
That "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"—and therefore can never claim any unjust powers whatsoever, or impose any powers "from the top down."
That "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter and abolish it, and to institute new Government"—"the People" being always morally, politically, and legally superior to "any Form of Government." And,
That "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce the[ People] 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." For the fulfillment of which "right" and "duty" the People must be organized, armed, and disciplined in the "well regulated Militia" the Second Amendment declares to be "necessary to the security of a free State."
The insurmountable practical problem for any "merger" of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union by means of a putative "amendment" of the Constitution is that neither Canada nor Mexico satisfies the standards of the Declaration of Independence, by a long shot. And therefore no North American Union that simply incorporated those two countries, fundamentally unchanged, could meet the Declaration's standards, either.
(h) Therefore, the only way to create a North American Union that could absorb Canada and Mexico without radically reforming their regimes would be to repeal the Declaration of Independence, repudiate the principles on which it stands, and replace them with some new set of contradictory principles consistent with the way political business is carried on in Canada and Mexico. This could not be accomplished simply by an "amendment" of the Constitution, because the power of amendment in Article V is to "propose Amendments to this Constitution," not amendments to or replacements for the Declaration of Independence. Instead, it would be necessary to adopt a new Northern-Hemisperic "Declaration of Interdependence" that reduced the United States morally, as well as politically, to the level of Canada and Mexico.
Little imagination is necessary to posit what the noxious principles of such a "Declaration of Interdependence" would have to be:
"[T]he Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" would be replaced with purely "positive law"—that is, "law" would become whatever the political Establishment said it was, with no right of appeal to any "higher law."
"[C]ertain unalienable rights" would be replaced with entirely "alienable rights"—that is, with no real "rights" at all, because such "rights" as the Establishment permitted under its "laws" could be set aside whenever it served the Establishment's purposes.
The idea that "Governments * * * deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed" would be replaced by the claim that governments determine their own powers, which common people must accept as being "just."
"[T]he Right of the People to alter and abolish [any Form of Government], and to institute new Government," would be replaced with an unconditional duty to obey "the authorities" in everything, no matter how tyrannous they became. And,
The People's "right" and "duty" "to throw off [an abusive] Government" would be abolished through pervasive "gun control" and other police-state measures, leaving common Americans (and Canadians and Mexicans, too) at the mercy of "the authorities," who could Waco-ize them without fear of resistance.
Can the Establishment convince Americans to repudiate the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and to substitute for them the grotesque counter-principles of a Northern-Hemispheric totalitarian state? Probably not, if the matter were openly and honestly presented in that way. Which means that the matter will be presented in some other way. Most likely, the Establishment's minions will simply skirt the question entirely, claiming that some combination of "statutes," "treaties," "executive orders," and "executive agreements" will suffice to create the North American Union.
In sum, NO constitutional grounds for a North American Union exist. Indeed, the whole project is patently illegal. That fact, however, will prove to be of merely theoretical significance unless WE THE PEOPLE oppose the creation of a North American Union with every form of exposure, denunciation, protest, obstruction, and resistance that the Constitution permits. And as soon as possible. For all the evidence indicates that the Establishment considers the North American Union a top priority, its foundations at the least to be poured into place with the next few years.
To prevail in the coming struggle to preserve America, however, patriots must first overcome the centrifugal tendencies that have all too often rendered them ineffective on other fronts by enabling the Establishment successfully to concentrate its forces and to employ divide-and-conquer tactics.
Revitalizing "the Militia of the several States" could provide the necessary focal point for the political zeal, skills, and experiences of many patriotic groups now engaged in isolated, mutually unsupportive activities. Perhaps other projects could also serve the same unifying, directing, and (most importantly) empowering purpose. In any event, the time for patriots to stop working in isolation, and instead to engage in coordinated, concerted action is as close at hand as it is short. If America is not saved soon, there will soon be nothing left of her to save.
© 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
Saturday 3 March 2007
Is the emission of green house gases really responsible for global warming. Or is it the sun.
We are told by the so called experts that global warming is due to man made pollution. Politicians and governments plan to introduce a carbon tax to reduce the emissions. But why is global warming also taking place on the other planets?
Dr. S Coffman is CEO of sovereignty International, president of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. and editor of Discerning the Times Digest and NewsBytes in Bangor, Maine. Sovereignty International is a UN watchdog and provides educational materials for policymakers and citizens concerning UN global governance. Environmental Perspectives, Inc. is a consulting organization providing educational information on environmental and global issues. Dr. Coffman has a Ph.D. in ecosystems analysis and classification. He played a key role in helping to stop the Convention on Biological Diversity from being ratified.
The radio interviews shows how the globalists use the United Nations Agenda 21, government leaders, and environmental movements to confiscate land in the name of protection to be later used by large corporations for mineral extraction and development. The show also explains how people are being duped into believing that global warming is due to man made pollution in order to increase taxation and control them. The history of the environment movement is also clearly explained and shows that it has always been under the control of the globalists. Proof is presented that the real reason for the warming of the planet is due to the suns heat increasing.
Download radio show
MP3 size 35Mb
GigaSize or zShare
WMA size 12Mb
GigaSize or zShare
Links
Dr. Coffman
http://www.discerningtoday.org
Alex Jones
http://www.infowars.com
GCN
http://www.gcnlive.com
What science and the old scriptures tell us about our near future
25th February 2007
Brent Miller on The Horizon Project
The Horizon Project's Research Team uses an unprecedented approach to deciphering the answers behind life's most puzzling questions; breaking through the flawed explanations of fragmented modern theory that compound each year to further mask the truth. See the overwhelming scientific evidence previously lost and rediscover the shocking answers that have been under our noses all along.
In this radio interview, Brent Miller discusses the Earths shifting axis, the magnetic North Pole, the coming expedition to the North Pole, and the Kolbrin Bible.
Download radio show
MP3 size 23Mb
GigaSize or zShare
WMA size 7Mb
GigaSize or zShare
The Horizon Project's Research Team uses an unprecedented approach to deciphering the answers behind life's most puzzling questions; breaking through the flawed explanations of fragmented modern theory that compound each year to further mask the truth. See the overwhelming scientific evidence previously lost and rediscover the shocking answers that have been under our noses all along.
In this radio interview, Brent Miller discusses the Earths shifting axis, the magnetic North Pole, the coming expedition to the North Pole, and the Kolbrin Bible.
Download radio show
MP3 size 23Mb
GigaSize or zShare
WMA size 7Mb
GigaSize or zShare
Friday 2 March 2007
What's really going on in Genesis
If you were to read the Hebrew version of the Bible, instead of the modern manipulated versions there to brainwash you, you would see that only where the "Lord God" is used is it in the singular. When "God" is used, it is in the plural, meaning, that there were more than one god.
Another obvious fact even in the modern versions is that there was civilisation before Adam and Eve.
Genesis 1
26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
It is clear from 27 that men and women were created at the same time long before Adam and Eve.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
REPLENISH the earth? So there were others before these were made. Why else would the GODS have told them to replenish? I wonder what happened to all those that were there before.
Genesis 2
7. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So Adam is genetically made.
21. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
We see genetic engineering to create Eve. This can also be found in the Sumerian Tablets that write about this and genetic engineering more than 6,000 years ago. I wonder how that is possible. How is it possible that the Sumerians knew about genetic engineering?
Another obvious fact even in the modern versions is that there was civilisation before Adam and Eve.
Genesis 1
26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
It is clear from 27 that men and women were created at the same time long before Adam and Eve.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
REPLENISH the earth? So there were others before these were made. Why else would the GODS have told them to replenish? I wonder what happened to all those that were there before.
Genesis 2
7. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So Adam is genetically made.
21. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
We see genetic engineering to create Eve. This can also be found in the Sumerian Tablets that write about this and genetic engineering more than 6,000 years ago. I wonder how that is possible. How is it possible that the Sumerians knew about genetic engineering?
How do the elites create cultures and manipulate people with psychology to think they are in control, but in reality are controlled sheep.
25th February 2007
Alan Watt is a long-term researcher into the causitive forces behind major changes in historical development. Born in Scotland, he watched the subtleties of politics and media as they guided the population of the U.K. covertly into a European Amalgamation. He has been warning the North American people for some years now that the same process of amalgamation is being carried out. With historical documentation, he shows how cultures are created and altered by those in control, always to lead the people like sheep into the next pasture. Learn the science of Religion Creation-Domination. Rather than simply stating current events and details, Alan attempts to deprogram the listener and reader of his works. He has authored three books, made available CD's and has just completed a DVD on these topics. He spent a good part of his life in the music industry and has had poetical works published by major university presses, mainly under a psuedonym.
Download radio show
MP3 size 43Mb
WMA size 44Mb
Alan Watt's website:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)