Anti-Government Sovereign Citizens – Patriots or Terrorist… A Citizen Tells All.
By: Nathan Scheer
Below this comment you will find a very interesting yet very ill report of what a “Sovereign Citizen” really is. This is a classic example of how media is used to twist the truth, they will take one wing nut that takes shit way to far and throw it on everyone who wishing to have more transparency in Government more control over what is voted on, and more of a voice in congress.
When you have a situation like we do in government there will be patriots who stand up and say no, those who take that precious document the Constitution seriously and will defend it at all cost. I fully support those who have taken themselves all the way through the court system to defend their right to NOT have to pay taxes!
This is their constitutional right not to! The 13th amendment was never ratified … Remember?
Either way, this is just another attack on people who are professional at standing up for whats right, and blowing the whistle on the situation at hand. To label Patriots as home grown terrorist is a weak attack and will clearly be blown out of the water yet again, their symantical games will only get them so far, and will only really effect those who are mindless zombies to the media game.
Those individuals powers are much weaker then those who wake up to their own universal power and stand up for whats right. One person can make a difference. In this case, I do not support Kane below, his arguments come from lack and limitation, from fear! The people I talk about are those who come from a place in their heart, a place of authentic originality and place of caring and love.
So be it, that by the media’s symantics I would be called a home grown terrorist as well.. But really it is those like Obama who is serving as President illegally, and many Congressional men and woman who have nothing but Big Pharma, Big Agrabiz, Big Medica and the like’s interest at hand.
A Sovereign Citizen in my eye’s as long as they are acting professional and resisting the systems push with love and strength in their heart are a group of people that are more so Patriots even then those who blindly serve in the military and risk their lives. A big claim, but when you have a family such as the Rothchilds creating war and playing two sides from the middle… a WORLD not so not a country needs people all over the world to become a Sovereign Citizen and stand up and say “Enough is a Enough!”.
The only way a true revolution will take place is if these individuals continue to support each other in peacefully resisting tyranny!
With that said I would strongly suggest watching David Icke’s newest documentary “The Lion Sleeps no More” by clicking HERE
Sovereign Citizens: Anti-Government Group Files Liens, Some Embrace Violence
The FBI considers them one of the nation’s top domestic terror threats. Their members include cop killers and a convicted Oklahoma City bomber. They call themselves “sovereign citizens,” and have taken various measures to fight the U.S. government. But now, the government is fighting back.
Sovereign citizens are a loosely organized group of people who claim they are not subject to government laws. Estimates suggest there are as many as 300,000 sovereign citizens in the U.S. Sovereign citizens have been known to oppose taxes, file liens against public officials, sign documents with a red thumbprint, and use homemade license plates.
Some sovereign citizens focus on the role of government, a relatable, much-debated issue in the U.S. Alfred Adask told “60 Minutes,””I think the government has gone far beyond its Constitutional limits.” The problem is where they draw the line. Adask once said, “We have the right to keep and bear arms in order to shoot our own politicians.” The violence used by some sovereign citizens is cause for serious concern.
“60 Minutes” recently reported on Jerry Kane Jr. and his 16-year-old son, Joe. A divorced, out-of-work truck driver, Kane and his son began pushing a debt reduction scam around the country. At one seminar, Kane spoke out against members of authority, saying, “I don’t want to have to kill anybody. But if they keep messing with me, that’s what it’s going to have to come out, that’s what it’s going to come down to is I’m gonna have to kill. And if I have to kill one, then I’m not going to be able to stop.”
On May 20, 2010, Kane and his son were pulled over on a highway by police officers. A dashboard camera shows that his son then shot and killed both officers. “60 Minutes” reports that the men were hit with a collective 25 bullets. One of the dead officers was Sgt. Brandon Paudert, West Memphis Police Chief Bob Paudert’s son.
Following his son’s death, Chief Paudert has become fixated on sovereign citizens. Paudert told “60 Minutes” correspondent Byron Pitts, “They’re willing to die for what they believe in. These international terrorists that bombed the twin towers, they were willing to die for their beliefs. The sovereign citizens, the Kanes, are the exact same thing.” Since the shooting, Paudert has traveled the country, educating law enforcement officers on sovereign citizens.
Some actions are now being taken against sovereign citizens. The News Virginian reports that sovereign citizen Michael Creath Jones, 31, was arrested and charged with five misdemeanors last week after a state police officer pulled the man over for having a fake painted license plate. Jones allegedly locked his doors, refused to identify himself, and later resisted arrest.
Also last week, a sovereign citizen was sentenced to 21 months in prison after filing hundreds of financial liens against government officials, The Associated Press reports. Ed George Parenteau, 53, said he was trying to fight municipal corruption, but apologized and agreed to cooperate with authorities.
The act of filing liens against government officials as retribution has been dubbed “paper terrorism,” which can ruin a target’s credit, reports “60 Minutes.” Robert Vosper, a small-town justice reports, “I have liens against me in three states in this country for a half a billion dollars.”
Whether it’s paper or physical attacks, “60 Minutes” reports that there has been a noticed increase in sovereign citizen-related violence against police and judges. In light of recent arrests and the actions of men like Chief Paudert, it seems the targets may now be fighting back.
A subject that we don’t hear a lot about anywhere is called Candida albicans, which is also known as the Candida albicans yeast infection or candida overgrowth.
Let me explain this. As you know, I’ve had Dr. Jeff McCombs on the show before, a longtime friend of mine. He is the world’s foremost authority on candida. If you have ever taken an antibiotic in your life, even one antibiotic, the antibiotic kills all the friendly bacteria in your intestine and allows unfriendly bacteria, including candida, to overgrow in the intestine. It begins to burrow itself into the intestinal walls. What this does is now when you eat food, the food can’t go through the intestine very well, so you have constipation. It also makes the food stick there and it turns putrid or toxic, putrefies, and it creates allergies and puts toxins into the bloodstream making you tired, lethargic, spacey, and so on. It also means you gain weight very quickly and your stomach protrudes. It also needs to be fed. The yeast needs to be fed so it makes you crave and have uncontrollable urges to eat pasta, potato chips, ice cream, cake, bread basically, any carbohydrate. And when you eat these carbohydrates, you get gassy, you belch, you get bloated because the yeast is now being fed by the carbohydrates or the sugar, anything that’s sugary, and begins to blow you up and you get very belchy.
Dr. McCombs came up with a cure for this. It’s called the Candida Cleanse. It is the only candida cleanse in the world that actually gets rid of both candida yeast and the candida fungus. Every other candida protocol you do only attacks the yeast. That’s not the big problem. The big problem is the candida fungus. His protocol gets rid of both. When you do his protocol, the first thing that everybody notices within a week is their stomach gets flat. You have no more gas and bloating. You can eat pasta and you don’t get gassy or bloated anymore. You also lose all of your cravings for carbohydrates, your skin, your eyes, your hair, and your nails look better and younger, your breath s mells better, you have much more energy, no more depression, no more spaciness, no more staring out the window with your eyes glazed over, no more confused mind or feeling frustrated emotionally or mentally, you sleep unbelievable, and everyone loses weight.
What’s going to happen is your body is going to shrink because all the bloatiness is going to go away. All your clothes are going to be bigger. You’re going to have tremendous amounts of energy. Your metabolism is going to skyrocket. Your skin is going to come out clear and beautiful. If you have acne, it’s going to go away. Bad breath, the body odor goes away. Fatigue goes away. Your hair is going to look unbelievably vibrant!
Candida is a huge problem! Everyone has it! If you’ve had any antibiotics or fall to any of those categories I mentioned, whether it’s gas, bloatiness, constipation, fatigue, if you feel spacey, have a white-coated tongue, bad breath, body odor, if you’re bloated, if you have gas, belching, acid reflux, any of these conditions, you don’t sleep well, you all fall into that category of having a candida yeast overgrowth.
So, click here to start this protocol today!!
Yours in Health,
Splenda: The Artificial Sweetener that Explodes Internally
If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals – makers of Splenda (sucralose). Manufacturers of Vioxx and Lipitor would tie for a very distant second.
McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side-effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can’t stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side-effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. But not McNeil…
A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose).
Splenda was strategically released on April fools day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded.
The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually. While many people “wonder” about the safety of Splenda they rarely question it. Despite its many “unknowns” and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank.
Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn’t “sugar and calorie free,” here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix…Think April fools day:
Splenda contains a potential poison
Splenda contains the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening.
In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless “ionic bond” to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its’ safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101 – the day they teach “covalent” bonds.
When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a “covalent” bond. The end result is the historically deadly “organochlorine” or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine (RNFOC).
Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorine atoms are a big no-no for the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides – not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It’s therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when they discovered it! It wasn’t until the young Phadnis accidentally tasted his new “insecticide” that he learned it was sweet. And because sugars are more profitable than insecticides, the whole insecticide idea got canned and a new sweetener called Splenda got packaged.
To hide its dirty origin, Splenda pushers assert that sucralose is “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.” Sucralose is as close to sugar as Windex is to ocean water.
The RNFOC poses a real and present danger to all Splenda users. It’s risky because the RNFOC confers a molecule with a set of super powers that wreak havoc on the human body. For example, Agent Orange, used in the U.S Army’s herbicidal warfare program, is a RNFOC. Exposure can lead to Hodgkin’s lymphoma and non-Hodgkins lymphoma as well as diabetes and various forms of cancer! Other shocking examples are the war gas phosgene, chlordane and lindane. The RNFOC is lethal because it allows poisons to be fat soluble while rendering the natural defense mechanisms of the body helpless.
A poison that is fat soluble is akin to a bomb exploding internally. It invades every nook and cranny of the body. Cell walls and DNA – the genetic map of human life – become nothing more than potential casualties of war when exposed. Sucralose is only 25% water soluble. Which means a vast majority of it may explode internally. In general, this results in weakened immune function, irregular heart beat, agitation, shortness of breath, skin rashes, headaches, liver and kidney damage, birth defects, cancer, cancer and more cancer – for generations!
McNeil asserts that their studies prove it to be safe for everyone, even children. That’s little assurance. Learning from the Vioxx debacle which killed tens of thousands, we know that studies can be bought and results fabricated.
Some things are worth dying for. Splenda is not one of them. What people think of as a food is a drug or slow poison – little distinction there. It wouldn’t be wise to bet your health on it. If safe, sucralose would be the first molecule in human history that contained a RNFOC fit for human consumption. This fact alone makes sucralose questionable for use as a sweetener, if not instantly detrimental to our health. Only time will tell. Until then, Ill stick to the safe and naturally occurring stevia plant to satisfy my occasional sweet tooth in 2007.
Be forewarned though, as long as drugs can be legally disguised as sweeteners, watch out for drugs being disguised as vitamins…Oh wait, they are already doing that – think Lipitor.
USA former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is the man that has caused more deaths in the world than no other man. Aspartame has been one of his best Bio-weapon of mass destruction. Everyday and worldwide, people are been affected by the brutal effects of ASPARTAME, but, what is worse, this drug also targets children and new born babies! The FDA has records of the great damage this drug causes in people, but they have been so irresponsible, and had ignored every effort to remove ASPARTAME from all the common products that people consumes everyday. They don’t have the control! we have it! it’s in your hands to stop this MASS MURDER!
FDA DESTRUCTION OF THE DIETARY SUPPLEMENT INDUSTRY
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of “The Rise of Tyranny” and,
“Global Censorship of Health Information”
April 4, 2011
Since the 1960’s the Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly endeavored to regulate dietary supplements out of the market. With the adoption of costly new process controls (current good manufacturing practice regulations) regulating every aspect of supplement production and the recent passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, FDA is poised to cull from the industry 20 to 30% of existing companies, force a rise in supplement prices, and eliminate from the market most, if not all, herbal supplements. The regulators’ decades old dream of ridding the market of supplements and leaving the field to FDA approved drugs is closer now to realization than ever before. The combination of aggressive regulation, an anemic industry in an economic downturn, Congressional encouragement, and less public angst against regulatory excesses by the agency has permitted the agency to place its enforcement knife next to the supplement industry’s jugular. Will the public awaken to the threat and compel FDA to back down, or will the agency succeed in driving from the market all manner of safe supplement products to the detriment of the consuming public?
Before 1962, FDA regulated drug safety but not drug efficacy. Then in 1961 thousands of deformed newborns began appearing across Europe—victims of the sedative thalidomide. Although existing law included safety reviews that would presumably prevent the sale of thalidomide in the United States, FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and a sympathetic Congress argued for expanded FDA powers based on the thalidomide catastrophe. The Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments became law in 1962. Under the 1938 Act, new drug applications were automatically approved unless FDA acted to deny them. Under the 1962 Act, new drug applications were denied unless FDA acted to approve them. For a new drug application to be granted, FDA had to conclude that the new drug was safe and effective. The new law was a bi-product of drug industry/government collusion, causing its safety and efficacy reviews to lack real teeth. The FDA would defer to the drug industry’s own testing on the questions of safety and efficacy, never testing drug agents on its own. If a drug company did not identify a safety problem, the agency presumed it not to exist. From the start of the Kefauver-Harris Drug regulatory regime, the drug industry carried great clout within the agency. That clout grew over the years, to the point where within the agency political managers overseeing FDA career scientists referred to drug applicants as FDA “clients” and drug approval rates and speed of approvals became ever greater. Before 1995, FDA approved sixty percent of all new drug applications. By the end of that decade and to the present, the agency has approved over eighty percent of all new drug applications.
The same year that FDA acquired vast new powers to regulate drugs, it tried to expand its drug regulation to eliminate a burgeoning new source of competition for drugs, dietary supplements. Evidence began to reveal that dietary ingredients had therapeutic effects. The far sighted in the pharmaceutical industry and at the FDA perceived a competitive threat emerging to drug regulation from the sale of dietary ingredients at above RDA dose levels. To counter that threat, and without the slightest grant of legislative authority from Congress, the FDA published regulations setting minimum and maximum potency levels for supplements. The regulations were withdrawn in the face of enormous public protest.
Four years later, FDA returned to the task of trying to rid the market of dietary supplements. Again without any grant of legislative authority, FDA published a rule that any dietary supplement exceeding 150% of the RDA for a vitamin or mineral would automatically be regulated as a drug. Once declared a drug, the supplement could not be lawfully marketed in the United States without FDA drug approval. The dietary supplement industry challenged the rule in federal court with mixed results. Public outcry against the rule reached a fever pitch. On April 22, 1976, after intense public lobbying against the rule, Senator William Proxmire introduced an amendment to the Heart and Lung Act and the amended Act became law. It prohibited FDA from classifying a vitamin or a mineral as a drug based on its potency.
Undaunted, FDA tried yet again in the 1970’s to rid the market of vitamins by claiming on a case by case basis that they were adulterated based on their potency. The federal courts refused to cooperate with this attempt at an end-run around the Proxmire Amendment. FDA tried another approach in the 1970’s. It declared supplements to be unapproved Food Additives. Under the Food Additives provision of the FDCA, no food additive may be sold unless the manufacturer proves it safe to FDA’s satisfaction. In this way, FDA planned to make proving the safety of supplements so difficult that it would drive them out of the market. FDA’s position was a logical absurdity: Single ingredient dietary supplements were food additives because the ingredients were added to a gelatin capsule which was, FDA said with a wink and a smirk, a food. The federal courts rejected this effort. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit described FDA’s approach as “nonsensical.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit described the action as an “Alice in Wonderland” approach.
Then in 1980, FDA was back at it. This time FDA issued a proposed over-the-counter drug monograph for vitamins and minerals, declaring potencies above the RDA to fall within the scope of the monograph. Substantial public opposition killed this proposal.
With the arrival of Dr. David Kessler at the FDA another effort was undertaken to remove dietary supplement products from the market. Kessler endeavored to declare categories of supplements unsafe and to convince Congress of the need for more aggressive action. As part of his initiative against supplements, Kessler had FDA field agents go to health food stores across the United States, posing as customers. The agents endeavored to induce clerks in the stores to make prohibited nutrient-disease claims for supplement products. With that survey evidence in hand, Kessler testified to Congress that the retail outlets were a market of fraud and abuse deserving a crackdown. In the process of trying to prove the industry rife with those who broke the law, Commissioner Kessler neglected to abide by the law himself. He unlawfully appropriated regulatory enforcement funds for use in this unauthorized survey. Moreover, as specific Senators discovered many of the representations were factually erroneous or were fabricated. The combination of the two factors led those Senators to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution but nothing came of that referral.
With the Obama election sweep enabling the Democrats to take control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, regulators within FDA (long awaiting a chance to revivify efforts to remove supplements from the market) had their green light. Leading companies in the supplement industry and their lawyers in the trade association National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA, since renamed the Natural Products Association (NPA)) miscalculated. They assumed that if they asked FDA to impose extensive process control regulations on their own industry (creating manufacturing practice guidelines that could deem a product adulterated for record-keeping violations even if the finished product were entirely safe to consume), they could so increase the cost of daily operations as to drive from the market small and medium sized companies, an anti-competitive winfall for the larger supplement manufacturers and distributors. They went to the FDA with a proposal for extensive process controls, the agency gladly received the proposal and then promptly offered a rule in the federal register that gave FDA even more discretion to remove products from the market than the industry sought. Indeed, certain companies that advocated the regulations were shocked by the miscalculation and opposed the rule they initially endorsed.
Feeling their oats, industry leaders and lawyers thought they possessed sufficient clout to induce FDA to use the regulations to reduce the size of the industry in ways that favored market leaders. The result, however, was far from expected. The drug industry, not the supplement industry, was the controlling force at FDA. Consequently, the FDA used the opportunity to adopt rules that, by the agency’s own admission in the rule, would likely reduce the size of the supplement market by some 25%, increase the cost of supplements, and decrease the variety of them. The changes, in fact, benefited the drug industry most, not simply from a reduction in the competition for health benefit claims in the market but from the opportunity it gave the drug industry to move into the supplement industry and produce the kinds of large-scale, standardized supplement products that the FDA regulations favor.
Then in 2010, Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act. Suddenly every food and dietary supplement company in the United States became subject to FDA licensure. No such company may now lawfully operate unless it is registered with the FDA. The FSMA permits FDA to suspend the registration if adulteration is reasonably suspected by the FDA Commissioner, inviting abusive use of that power. It also requires those who experience a registration suspension or revocation to pursue redress through the FDA rather than in a court. Administrative hearings are notorious for their failure to protect the rights of the accused. The agency that accuses is also the agency that tries the accused, and a fair trial is likely impossible.
The FSMA permits FDA to create new standards for food safety, “science-based minimum standards,” that can enable the agency to impose new strictures that exclude products long consumed safely. The FSMA requires that FDA hire an army of new inspectors (4,000 new ones in 2011; 4,200 in 2012; 4,600 in 2013; and 5,000 in 2014). It also permits FDA to charge food and supplement companies for every reinspection of a facility, thus creating an incentive for the agency to find errors in initial inspection. That incentive is increased because the money collected from reinspection fees is dedicated to pay for inspectors. FDA expects to generate approximately $100 million in revenue from fees collected under the authority of the FSMA. Those costs will increase food prices and burdens on an already depressed market.
Although in prior years public outcry helped stem the move by FDA to eliminate dietary supplements from the market, that outcry has not reached a fever pitch in response to the latest round of regulatory efforts. That may be because the efforts come under a more palatable public interest coating. The argument that consumers must be protected from potentially unsafe products by permitting FDA to run out of existence those companies it thinks may threaten public health is far more acceptable to the public than the argument that supplements in general should be removed from the market. The lesson regulators have learned, slowly at the FDA, is that the public seems willing to permit all manner of abuse in the name of public safety, even when regulations said to be for safety focus on process controls, record keeping, etc., rather than on proving finished products unsafe to consume.
Without the public outcry against these abuses of power, the FDA proceeds now at a feverish pace, inspecting facility after facility, citing them, and then driving them out of business if costly compliance actions are not taken promptly. Repeatedly as the cGMPs and the FSMA requirements are imposed, company after company incapable of affording the cost will disappear.
Among them will be a large number that have historically manufactured safe food products and for which there is no evidence that their finished products are unsafe. Consumer choice will be sacrificed, as will innovation and speech concerning the potential of nutrients to enhance health. The FDA is determined to make itself a barrier between the consuming public and the food industry, expanding its sovereignty at the expense of freedom of informed choice.
© 2011 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved