This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.

From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.

1. State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation “with teeth” to put the federal government back in its place.
2. The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.
3. County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.

Step 1: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation

Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the “separation of powers.” Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.

Enter the “doctrine of nullification.”

Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a “conflict of interest.”

Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,

“co-States, recurring to their natural right…will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.”1

Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” 2

It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.

1. Nullification of Socialized Health Care [current efforts] [example legislation]
2. Nullification of National Cap and Trade [example legislation]
3. Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification) [details]
4. Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account [example legislation]

If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.

Next, blanket nullification.

The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:

“Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution.” 3

Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the “law” is automatically null and void.

Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.

Step 2:   Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.

As recently stated in the famous Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms “is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence” and “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny.” 4

Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5

Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:

• Sheriff First [model legislation]
• Extension of the Castle Doctrine (right to protection) [sample legislation]
• Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking [see above]
• Firearms Freedom Act [current efforts] [model legislation]

The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into “shires” consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6

The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the “reeve” or “reef.” Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, “shire reef” or “Sheriff.” 7

Consequently, the Sheriff’s pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7    Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote inFederalist 39:

“In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”9

Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.

Extending the castle doctrine to one’s person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary “no carry” areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.

Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of “reducing gun related” crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.

Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007 Montana Law Review article.10

The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state’s borders.

This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler’s laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.

In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.

See this article on the Tenth Amendment Center for resources and more information.

The internet is under attack by our very own US Government, working on behalf of corporate interests in the entertainment and content industries. What does this mean for you?

1. You can be banned from the internet, fined and even jailed if a copyright holder ACCUSES you of wrongdoing three times. Whether you violated their copyright or not.

2. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will be forced to invest heavily in intrusive monitoring infrastructure. Guess who’ll end up covering those costs?

3. Once intrusive monitoring infrastructure (such as deep packet inspection) is in place, say goodbye to your privacy! To avoid liability, ISPs will need to monitor every packet of data that is transmitted or stored on their network to make sure it doesn’t contain copyrighted materials. This means they’ll see your emails, your facebook messages, which sites you visit on the internet, and what you do on those sites.

4. The government rewards their pet corporations for being lazy and refusing to adapt and innovate.

I’m not condoning internet piracy. I think copyright holders have a right to use their intellectual property as they see fit. The issue here is that the content industry is using our government (and our government is merrily letting them) to push global copyright regulations that will have horribly destructive consequences – to internet users, internet service providers, and the businesses that rely on them.

Read the new leaked document here:
http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/wp-content/uploads/674b-09.pdf

Jesse Ventura has had many titles. He has been a Navy seal, a professional wrestler, an actor, a mayor and Governor of Minnesota, and now with his new truTV show Ventura is taking on a new title: conspiracy theorist. On “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura,” which premieres on Dec. 2nd at 10 pm, Ventura and his team of researchers take on a number of curious conspiracies and postulate if the terrorist attack on 9/11 was an inside job, or if the mysterious High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) complex in rural Alaska has the power to create tidal waves and control minds. Starpulse spoke to Governor Ventura about developing the show, his conversation with Fidel Castro and if the government is even capable of pulling off such elaborate stunts.

Starpulse: How long have conspiracy theories been an interest of yours?

Jesse Ventura: Well, it started back actually in my days when wrestling made the transition from the 26 territories to being a nationwide sport. Well what that did was it took us out of automobiles and put us on airplanes. And if you’ve ever traveled a lot, at one point I wrestled 63 consecutive nights in a row, you find out there’s a lot of dead time in an airplane and an airport so I read. I got into reading to reading conspiracy, particularly the John F. Kennedy assassination that happened when I was a child, and I find it very intriguing reading because you realize there is always the possibility that what you are reading is true. And there’s always the possibility that who you read about are actual living, breathing people, or they were. It’s not a figment of a novelist’s imagination or characters made up in their head. And so I have always found that intriguing and it was natural that this show would come about because of my passion for delving into this type of thing.

How do you pick what conspiracy theories to cover for the show?

That was a battle between myself and the network. We decided that this first run we would keep all of them within the decade, within the last 10 year period, so there won’t be shows on Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy or that nature. They’re all within the last decade, and we would just put a batch of them into the pot and we’d start going through the pot, we’d have a bit of a tug-of-war. We finally settled on the 7, we did an initial pilot, and then when they ordered 6 more, we settled on the 6 more, forged ahead and got the job done.

Read the rest of the interview at this link.

The closure of St. Rose of Lima in Buffalo, New York, ignited a fury in libertarian activist, attorney, and LewRockwell.com contributor James Ostrowski. Ostrowski was furious that his children, who were happily enrolled in the private school, now had to start all over.

“It made me angry that a good school was forced to close because the working class parents who constituted most of its customers could no longer afford to pay twice, first for the government schools they didn’t use and once again for the private school tuition for St. Rose.”

So, what did Ostrowski do in response? He wrote the book,Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids: What You Need to Know. But according to Ostrowski, this isn’t just any ordinary book. His goal is to incite a movement among the various groups who are inspired by the message of liberty. Specifically, Ostrowski is targeting those who rose up to support Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential run and the multitude of people who have come together as part of the more recent so-called Tea Parties. “This book provides the tea party movement with a strategic roadmap to restore the Jeffersonian vision of individual liberty that is the very essence of America…. Direct citizen action is at the heart of the book.” (In the interests of full disclosure, I am friends with the writer of this book, reviewed the manuscript for him before publication, and regularly blog for his political site. I did my best, though, to write this review as an unbiased reader.)

Ostrowski focuses his sights on the government monopoly on education. Government schools weren’t always the mess they are today, but he claims they are too far gone to be saved. “I will admit there was a time when government schools worked better…. Those days are gone. Federal and state bureaucrats and teachers unions, not parents and local school boards, call the shots now. It is time to pull the plug on this failed 150-year-old experiment and move on.”

History

Ostrowski briefly delves into the history of government schooling before he begins diagnosing the problems facing so many today. “Before compulsory, tax-supported government schools became the norm around 1890, American society had survived and thrived without them for over 200 years while creating one of the most successful and literate societies in human history.” Ostrowski explains in painstakingly researched detail how political elites, particularly militant atheists and socialists, enthusiastically endorsed government schooling as part of an “utopian, egalitarian scheme” and not to actually educate the public. If anything, government involvement in schooling was detrimental to American education. He also explains the little-known fact that American religious conservatives contributed to the aggrandizement of state power in education as part of a misguided effort to stifle the spread of Catholic schools. This mistake would come back to haunt social conservatives in spades as the federal government would eventually strictly ban all forms of religious expression from government schools.

Furthermore, Ostrowski argues that government employees are poorly suited to even teach the subject of history. “What does a 99 in a government school American history course mean? That the student has mastered Propaganda 101?” According to Ostrowski, school teachers would never discuss how the Department of Education is unconstitutional because of its role in funding their salaries. On that same point, government employees will generally teach students that more government intervention throughout history has been a positive thing and that only more government involvement will solve almost any problems. Because government schools “control the past, they control the future.” As a matter of fact, Ostrowski argues that this is the reason why so many Americans are historically ignorant. “Being unaware, and thinking that the current regime is the best of all possible worlds, they are utterly unequipped to deal with the new harsh reality that the regime is falling and that the nation is in the process of collapse.”

Fundamental Problems

So what does Ostrowski regard as being the single biggest problem with government schools? “Government schools are coercive institutions; private schools are voluntary…. The rules and regulations governing government schools are rigid, inflexible and by definition, coercive…. The main point is that relations among people in government schools are coercive and involuntary…. It is a top-down, coercive, bureaucratic model of decision-making.” And it is entirely because of the coercive nature of government schooling that government schools are so poor says Ostrowski.

Read the rest at this link.

1st December 2009 will go down in British history as a turning point; it is as constitutionally significant as that of 15th November 1688, when King William’s fleet arrived in Torbay to deliver the land from tyranny: it was the last successful invasion of England.

There had never been a revolution quite like it. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is often termed ‘bloodless’, and it was, almost. It was a conspiracy by a faction of the ruling élite which led an invasion by invitation: they were concerned to preserve and propagate their religio-political agenda which involved an internal change of constitution.

The Inglorious Revolution of 2009 has also been bloodless: it is also a conspiracy by the ruling élite which has led to an invasion by invitation: they are also concerned to propagate their religio-political agenda which involves an undeniable internal change of constitution.

The revolution/invasion of 1688 was by the Protestant Dutch, and it heralded an era of constitutional monarchy, the Bill of Rights, religious liberty, material prosperity and political stability. The revolution/invasion of 2009 is by the European Union, the suzerain power, to which the Monarch is now subject: it enshrines a charter of ‘fundamental human rights’, and heralds an era of religious oppression, penal taxation, economic stagnation and political instability.

On this day, the ‘Constitution for Europe’ becomes law, and the ‘President of Europe’ becomes our head of state. The Queen is still the Queen, but she is now subject to the provisions of the new constitution. The Prime Minister is still the Prime Minister, but he is now obliged to promote the aims and objectives of the European Union over and above those of the United Kingdom.

And yet we are no more an ‘occupied’ nation than we became in 1688, for our Parliament has conspired with a foreign power: they have permitted, encouraged, conceded and surrendered. We are now but a province in the Empire of Europa: the Queen is but a regional governor beneath an omnipotent Emperor; Parliament is but a regional council, yet it lacks even the authority to legislate for refuse collection or road repairs. From today, everything is subject to the Supreme Government in Brussels.

And still the people come and go, talking not quite of Michelangelo, but of Coronation Street, X-Factor and I’m a Celebrity.

And still the anoraks pore over their opinion polls, wondering about the size of the next majority or the prospect of a hung parliament.

Nothing, apparently, has changed at all.

But everything has.

Columbia MO December 1, 2009 — In a new CNN report deeply rooted in Department of Homeland Security propaganda, CNN’s John Acosta says that the Federal government is not building detention camps around the country and that there is absolutely no proof of these kinds of activities. However, a highly controversial documentary released a couple of months ago offers the viewers almost 90 minutes of heart-stopping proof that plans for martial law and FEMA camps are indeed very real.

Find out more at the original here.

When Brent Leung started showcasing his groundbreaking new documentary film about AIDS, “House of Numbers” (www.HouseOfNumbers.com), he had no way to comprehend the wave of defamatory attacks that would be unleashed against him. Promoters of conventional AIDS theories (with all their vaccines and pharmaceuticals) have gone on a rampage against Leung, calling him an “AIDS denialist” — with an obvious invocation of the similar-sounding “Holocaust denialist” phrase.

The implication, of course, is that if you deny any part of conventional AIDS theories, you’re as bad as a Nazi war criminal. It’s a curious comparison, especially given that the origins of the modern pharmaceutical industry are found precisely in the Nazi regime where pharmaceutical scientists routinely conducted medical experiments on Jewish prisoners. As a fascinating matter of historical fact, the Chairman of Bayer in the 1950’s (yes, the same Bayer that makes Bayer Aspirin) was Dr. Fritz ter Meer, a convicted war criminal, who after committing crimes against humanity was sentenced to seven years in prison at the Nuremberg war trials.

The pharmaceutical industry operating today is largely a cabal of unindicted criminals who are guilty of crimes against humanity, and one of their favorite methods of multiplying their profits is to push a disease, then sell a vaccine they claim “treats” the disease. It’s the same old scam, whether we’re talking about cervical cancer, swine flu or even AIDS.

Getting back to Brent Leung and his film House of Numbers, when the AIDS-pharma promoters saw his film, they knew they had to attack the messenger and try to discredit him as quickly as possible. So they claimed Leung quoted the scientists in the film out of context, thereby distorting what they were saying. In particular, Leung was attacked for his interview with Dr. Luc Montagnier, the Nobel Prize-winning co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, who explained to Leung during the interview that AIDS can be overcome (cured) with nutrition, and that the vaccine approach is entirely overblown.

Such an idea, of course, spells financial doom for drug companies and their cohorts, all of whom profit from the oft-repeated myth that “AIDS has no cure” and that only drugs can treat AIDS. So the critics went after Leung for daring to include Montagnier’s words in his documentary. One critic in particular, Jeanne Bergman from an “AIDS truth” website, claimed that Leung “sucker punched” Montagnier.

She also claimed Leung quoted Montagnier out of context and blamed him for asking “leading questions” by saying, “Montagnier does not spontaneously say in the film that a healthy diet will clear the virus. Leung asked leading questions and then presented a fragment of conversation out of context.”

As you’ll soon see, Jeanne Bergman has no clue what she’s talking about. But that’s actually par for the course when it comes to the AIDS industry.

The raw interview with Luc Montagnier – revealed!

To help provide clarity to this issue, NaturalNews spoke with House of Numbers filmmaker Brent Leung who agreed to provide us with exclusive, un-cut footage of the conversation with Luc Montagnier, complete with subtitles.

You can now view this exclusive, revealing footage on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoN…

Read the rest at this link.  (Including a full transcript)

From a University of East Anglia Press Release

CRU Update 1 December

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.

Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible.  After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this.  The Review process will have my full  support.”

Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said: “I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations.

“We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”

An AP story is here

“Climategate” has everybody rethinking global warming. Many are wondering — if leading scientists were tempted to finagle their data, is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought?

Actually, the evidence was never even evidence.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding — shared by nearly everybody about the nature of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) — over exactly what constitutes evidence for that theory and what does not.

Remember when we heard that the icebergs were melting, that polar bears were decreasing in number, that some places were drier than usual and that others were wetter, that the ocean was growing saltier here and fresher there, and that hurricanes were becoming more terrifying? Remember the hundreds of reports on what happens when it gets hot outside?

All of those observations might have been true, but absolutely none of them were evidence of AGW.

Diminishing glaciers did not prove AGW; they were instead a verification that ice melts when it gets hot. Fewer polar bears did not count in favor of AGW; it instead perhaps meant that maybe adult bears prefer a chill to get in the mood. People sidling up to microphones and trumpeting “It’s bad out there, worse than we thought!” was not evidence of AGW; it was evidence of how easily certain people could work themselves into a lather.

No observation of what happened to any particular thing when the air was warm was direct evidence of AGW. None of it.

Every breathless report you heard did nothing more than state the obvious: Some creatures and some geophysical processes act or behave differently when it is hot than when it is cold. Only this, and nothing more.

Can you recall where you were when you heard that global warming was going to cause an increase in kidney stones, more suicides in Italy, larger grape harvests in France, and smaller grape harvests in France? How about when you heard that people in one country would grow apathetic, that those in another would grow belligerent, and — my favorite — that prostitutes would be on the rise in the Philippines? That the world would come to a heated end, and that women and minorities would be hardest hit?

Not a single one of these predictions was ever evidence of AGW.

Read the rest at this link.