RED ALERT: “And Then They Came For Me”

Source: SGTReport.com
February 23, 2017

It’s hard to overstate the pure evil and tyranny Google has engaged in by wiping NaturalNews.com off the internet. Not only has the attack on the free press and REAL NEWS been taken to the next level with this move, but this assault on FREE SPEECH will undoubtedly COST LIVES. The valuable catalog of information about health and wellness which Natural News provided, some 140,000 pages of articles and research have been scrubbed. As Mike Adams has said, this is a modern day book burning.

Special Solari Report – American Suicide: Proposals for Constitutional Amendments & Convention w/ Edwin Vieira, Jr.

[Editor’s Note]

Please follow the link bellow to Catherine Austin Fitts’ Solari website in order to listen to this phenomenal interview.


“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
~ US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7

Source: Solari.com
Catherine Austin Fitts
February 22, 2017

America’s sovereign finances have been operated outside the law for some time. Since fiscal 1998, the federal government has refused to publish audited financial statements and has reported over $11 trillion in undocumentable adjustments. Solari Report subscribers have heard for years about black budgets, hidden systems of finance, trillions in money going missing from the US government accounts, all constituting a “financial coup d’etat. Clearly, there have been significant violations of provisions in the US Constitution and law related to management of resources and assets.

You would expect that we would hear a growing chorus of both conservatives and progressives insisting that Congress comply with the law with respect to the management of our finances. Where is our money? Which mechanisms should we use to get it back? However, that has not happened. Instead, we see a push for Constitutional amendments and conventions.

This raises numerous questions.  If we are not going to enforce the Constitution, why the rush to change it? Why do so in a process that could be hijacked? If you look at the extraordinary sums of money, dirty tricks and covert operations used to push through tort reform, Common Core or mandated vaccines at the state level or destroy my community wizard software tool or other attempts to ensure proper accounts and reporting, the push to change the Constitution seems mighty suspicious.

Are the people who have shifted all the money out of government accounts hoping to make sure that the Constitution can not be used to enforce, even get the money back? What is the real agenda here?

To help me sort through these questions and dig into the very real risks, I asked attorney and Constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira to join me for a Special Solari Report on the current push to fiddle with the powerful covenant that protects us all. What does it mean to us and why should we make sure our Congressmen and state legislators are focused on enforcement of the Constitution, rather than changes?

If you don’t know about Edwin Viera, you should. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

You can find Dr. Vieira’s articles at EdwinVieira.com and his books here, including my favorite, Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution. His lecture series on the problems facing our economy and security as well as legal remedies, The Purse and the Sword can be found here.

While many people are distracted by events in DC, a deeper game is afoot. Last year alone $6.5 trillion went missing from the federal government at the same time the push for a Constitutional Convention increased.  With the help of Dr. Vieira’s formidable experience and scholarship, I am sounding the alarm!

Read More At: Solari.com

Selling Food From Home Should Be Legal But It’s Not

organicchoice

Source: TheDailyBell.com
February 17, 2017

Make It Legal to Sell Home-Cooked Food … As food delivery becomes ever more popular in the U.S., some innovators have been looking to do for meals what Uber and Lyft have done for rides. Good cooks or even professional chefs working at home can produce tasty food for people nearby, income for themselves, and tax revenue for cities and states. Or they could if it were legal to sell home-cooked food. In most states, it’s not. – Bloomberg

Have you ever been sickened by home-cooking? We’ve had problems sometimes with food bought elsewhere but never with food that is prepared at home. Never that we can remember anyways.

We’d venture to say that food prepared at home is probably as safe or safer than any other food.

But that’s not what regulators think. For them, food cooked at home is subject to myriad difficulties and dangers.

Regulators have all but banned food cooked at home from being sold commercially.

More:

In some states, it’s simply illegal to sell most food that’s been prepared at home, no matter what technology is in the kitchen.

… Even if the risk from home-cooked food were as high as or higher than that from restaurant-cooked food, the danger would have to be extraordinarily great to justify a ban.

Some home-cooking startups have tried to get around the present ban by using shared cooking spaces that meet restaurant-grade safety standards. But food prepared in such kitchens may run afoul of other legal requirements.

The article gives examples of the many kind of requirements that confine food to the home. It goes over licenses an ice-cream maker might need. You have to get a license from the Department of Public Health to sell to consumers.

But if you want to sell directly to restaurants, you have to get a license from the Department of Agriculture & Markets’ Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services.

But this license doesn’t actually exist. You can sell to consumers directly but not indirectly to a restaurant. That’s just one example.

Old laws, the article says, were established for hub-and-spoke distribution. But now we want a more flexible market.

We tends to think this is not true entirely. We believe it is the Internet itself that is giving rise to discontent about what can be sold and from where.

It’s one reason top elites are so set on reconfiguring the Internet so that it avoids controversial topics.

We’ve been right about the Internet. The ‘Net began by suggesting certain changes and is now suggesting changes to almost everything.

Additionally, despite suggestions that parts of the Internet are run by the alt.right, many important and influential sites are still libertarian oriented. This is driving top elites nuts.

Their idea is to virtually ban all but properly approved concepts, but even if this ban goes into effect, it won’t last. Inventions like the Internet are not static and tend to be used, one way or another until their innovations have been exhausted. That could take a long time.

The article also states that, “To determine what safety requirements are most appropriate for home kitchens, states need to build on our existing knowledge about food safety — including data gathered by the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control — to put together a clear picture of the risks involved.”

No it doesn’t. The market simply needs to do away with this “knowledge about food safety.” Leave it up to individuals. That’s what is going on anyway. You’re simply punished after-the-fact for any kind of food poisoning.

And chances are there won’t be any. Do you get food poisoning from food you cook at home? If you are trying to build a business you are going to be pretty careful about what you give customers to eat.

Conclusion: It is the market itself that disciplines you and makes sure you provide what is timely and necessary. If you do not do not deal with food in this manner, you go out of business. Regulations have little or nothing to do with it.

Jefferson Was Correct

thomasjefferson
Source: TheRoadLessTraveled
January 29, 2016

In his last years – after a lifetime of learning and experience, Jefferson had one thing preeminently on his mind: the principle of decentralized government.

Rather than saying “centralization,” Jefferson used the word “consolidation,” but they mean the same thing. Here’s his core statement on the subject, from his autobiography, written in 1821:

It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected.

This statement put Jefferson at odds with the political leaders of his time and raised difficulties for him, as he writes in a letter to Judge William Johnson in 1823:

I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution.

For the following passage – a letter to William Johnson, written in 1822 – Jefferson’s words are set in italics and explanation/commentary in plain text:

They [a political party] rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government.

Here he points out that political parties tend to favor centralization, which they certainly have since.

Their aim is now, therefore, to break down the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States as a bulwark against that consolidation.

This party is trying to steal the power of the individual States and centralize it in one city, and they are willing to alter or bypass the Constitution to do so. The fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the Constitution at its birth….

Here Jefferson is saying the Anti-Federalists were right and that the Constitution could not prevent the theft of liberties by the national government.

I trust…that the friends of the real Constitution and Union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism.

Notice his phrase, “the real Constitution.” Already in 1822, he needed to make this distinction, because the Constitution was already being twisted, overridden, and bypassed. Alternately, he may have been referring to the original Articles of Confederation.

In a letter to William T. Barry in 1822, Jefferson writes this:

The foundations are already deeply laid by their [the Supreme Court Justices’] decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.

Jefferson is likely referring to the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803, a decision that…

Continue Reading At: TheRoadLessTraveled

Big Government Police State: Florida residents being fined for growing vegetables on their own property

Vegetable gardens
Source: NaturalNews.com
Samantha Debbie
August 4, 2016

Florida may be known for its tropical climate and spicy Latin-American culture, but what it’s not known for is the freedom to garden. The southeastern state continues to make headlines over the state government’s contempt for front yard gardens.

Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts had been cultivating their garden for 17 years when their hometown, Miami Shores, passed a new ordinance restricting vegetable growing to the backyard. The couple begrudgingly dug up their lush garden in August 2013, after local officials threatened them with a daily fine of $50, according to reporting by Fox News.

Miami Shores fights longtime residents over front yard vegetable garden

The ordinance was a component of a new zoning plan adopted by the town, which has a population of about 10,500 people, and is located just north of Miami.

The South Florida couple sued over the garden ban, arguing that it was a violation of the state’s Constitution, because it included “improper limits on their private property rights and violation of the equal protection clause by singling out vegetables over other plants.”

The couple’s attorney argued at a hearing in June 2016 that barring them from growing vegetables anywhere on their property violated their Constitutional rights.

“We’re not saying you can do anything you want on your property,” attorney Ari Bargil told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Monica Gordo. “We are simply saying you can grow vegetables on your property and that is protected by the Constitution.”

Growing vegetables is not a fundamental right, says community lawyer

Richard Sarafan, the attorney for Miami Shores, countered that the new zoning rule was not “irrational and treated all homeowners the same: their front yards should be covered with grass, sod or a ‘living ground cover’ not further defined. It’s no problem, he said, to have a vegetable garden in the backyard,” according to reports.

“There certainly is not fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard,” Sarafan said. “Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes. Not every property can lawfully be used for every purpose.”

On Thursday, August 25, a Miami-Dade judge upheld the ruling, indefinitely banning front yard gardens. Circuit Judge Monica Gordo ruled that while she doesn’t understand the argument that front yard gardens destroy aesthetics in neighborhoods, the city nonetheless has the right to ban them, according to the Miami Herald.

Judge: City has ‘every right to decide front-yard veggies make a neighborhood ugly’

“Given the high degree of deference that must be given to a democratically elected governmental body … Miami Shores’ ban on vegetable gardens outside of the backyard passes constitutional scrutiny,” wrote Gordo.

The ruling is a big disappointment for the South Florida couple, who love to grow a variety of organic vegetables including okra, kale, lettuce, onions, spinach and several varieties of cabbage.

“I am disappointed by today’s ruling,” said Ricketts, whose legal battle with the city lasted three long years.

“My garden not only provided us with food, but it was also beautiful and added character to the community. I look forward to continuing this fight and ultimately winning so I can once again use my property productively instead of being forced to have a useless lawn.”

Meanwhile, the upscale community maintains its right to regulate the area’s aesthetic. Vegetables are fine as long as they’re out of sight, said the community’s attorney at a hearing in June.

A ‘blow to property rights’

The only recourse the couple has is to ask that the ordinance be revised or vote in new council members, said the judge.

“They can petition the Village Council to change the ordinance. They can also support candidates for the Council who agree with their view that the ordinance should be repealed,” wrote Gordo.

“If Hermine and Tom wanted to grow fruit or flowers or display pink flamingos, Miami Shores would have been completely fine with it,” said the couple’s lawyer, Ari Bargil, a representative from the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm.

“They should be equally free to grow food for their own consumption, which they did for 17 years before the village forced them to uproot the very source of their sustenance.”

The firm called the ruling a “blow to property rights.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

MiamiHerald.com

OffTheGridNews.com

FoxNews.com

NaturalNews.com

What Freedom Of Speech?: Social Media Censorship Is Out of Control! Here’s One Solution

Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
August 10, 2016

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=19542

We all know by now that the tech giants of Silicon Valley are in bed with the government and they’re not afraid to censor posts they disagree with from their social media platforms. So what if there was a decentralised, open source, blockchain-based social media alternative? On today’s thought for the day we talk about the censorship problem and the Steemit solution.

University Of Chicago Accidentally Proved That Gun Control Laws Don’t Work

Criminals don’t follow the law, and they especially do not follow gun control laws.


Source: AmericanPatriotDaily.com
August 4, 2016

The city of Chicago has some of the toughest and strictest gun control laws on the books out of all the major cities in the entire country.

But every day the newspapers and TV stations of Chicago fill the airwaves with devastating reports showing innocent Americans being murdered by criminals carrying guns.

The city is a shining example of how gun control doesn’t stop criminals from obtaining and using guns to commit robbery and murder.

Instead of allowing law abiding Americans the chance to easily acquire a firearm for self-defense, politicians and public officials in Chicago call for harsher anti-gun measures almost daily.

The anti-gun crowd refuses to accept reality and the fact that criminals don’t obey gun control laws. They would rather disarm law abiding citizens who accept and obey the law.

A recent study by the University of Chicago proved this point after conducting a study to figure out how criminals in Chicago were acquiring their firearms.

Not surprisingly, administers of the study quickly learned these criminals do not acquire their guns from licensed dealers, private sellers, or even the Internet.

The study looked at inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who face gun charges or who have a history of firearm related convictions.

They learned zero criminals have used gun shows or the Internet to purchase their weapons.

The reason why?  The method is too easily traceable by law enforcement.

Instead, the preferred method for criminals was to purchase firearms available on the streets, where they are harder for law enforcement to track.

Harold Pollack, University of Chicago’s Crime Lab co-director, also said criminals, “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

Basically, the University of Chicago admits that the city is so dangerous, criminals would rather risk going to jail than not being able to effectively defend themselves.

The study also showed:

“The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.

As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”

Gun rights groups have long claimed universal background checks are nothing more than a step towards a federal registry of all gun owners – which gun rights groups also argue would consequentially lead to outright confiscation of all firearms in America.

So while the anti-gun crowd pushes a purely fictional narrative that background checks stop bad guys from getting guns, the actual statistics and facts say their argument couldn’t be further from the truth.

Read More At: AmericanPatriotDaily.com