Food freedom/sovereignty is sweeping the country. It started in Italy, has infected Maine, parts of Tennessee, soon Indiana it looks like, and now Webster County Missouri.
Go check it out!
Do you see what’s alarmingly wrong with this picture of the Seymour town hall building?
I venture to guess that those that have limited their philosophical knowledge of government to the propaganda taught in the government schools 1 2 3 (indoctrination centers) , have no idea what I am talking about.
Disqus comments are below:
Not even remotely defensible.
The Roman emperor Constantine picked Sunday because it was the pagan god day of worship that the Roman citizens were used to. Nothing at all in scripture about Sunday. No “Christian” that I have ever asked has ever been able to show me where the sabbath was changed in scripture….
“Christian ” has become synonymous IMHO with dumbed down non thinking people…..
Not even sure Saturday is the Sabbath as the 7 day week was not even invented when God gave the tablets to Moses.
Something to think about..eh?
As a long standing member of the state sanctioned Missouri Militia, I find that just like the general public, militia members, as a rule do not understand the Constitution nor the principles that this country was founded upon. Ironically many are past members of the one organization that the militia is there to protect us from if necessary: A standing army as the founders called it. The US military. None seem to realize this. Most have a strange infatuation with the US military, and want to emulate it regardless of whether it makes any sense whatsoever for the militia to do so.
They sell the Militia to the public, and to it’s members as something that it primarily is not! They sell the milita as “Disaster Relief, State Defense & Community Service”. I have never heard anyone delve into what they mean by “state defense” because most don’t even know what it means, and those that might, don’t want to go there. We have a politically correct militia that IMHO is close to useless because they do not even know why they exist, nor understand our founding documents.
Most also do not recognize the other standing army that is in our midst, one that I think the founders would be very alarmed about. We now have a standing arm of soldiers that wear blue uniforms, and proudly proclaim that they are “order followers”. Just like their brothers at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Nazi Germany. They will, and brag about it, enforce any “law” that the psychopath in the legislature commit to paper.
We were never meant to have neither standing army. A free people should not be lorded over by standing armies. As envisioned by the founders, you and I, the militia, are and were “the police”. And during times of peace we were the only military on the continent. (Spare the Navy which is authorized by the Constitution during times of peace)
In his book Eagle and Sword: The Federalists and the Creation of the Military Establishment in America, 1783–1802, Richard Kohn writes:
“No principle of government was more widely understood or more completely accepted by the generation of Americans that established the United States than the danger of a standing army in peacetime. Because a standing army represented the ultimate in uncontrolled and controllable power, any nation that maintained permanent forces surely risked the overthrow of legitimate government and the introduction of tyranny and despotism.”
While many defenders of private gun ownership recognize that the Second Amendment was written to provide some sort of counterbalance against the coercive power of the state, this argument is often left far too vague to reflect an accurate view of this historical context surrounding the Amendment.
After all, it is frequently pointed out that private ownership of shotguns and semi-automatic rifles could offer only very limited resistance to the extremely well-equipped and well-armed United States military.
It is often, therefore, just assumed that the writers of the Second Amendment were naïve and incapable of seeing the vast asymmetries that would develop between military weaponry and the sort of weaponry the average person was likely to use.
Was the plan really to just have unorganized amateurs grab their rifles and repel the invasion of a well-trained military force?1
The answer is no, and we know this by looking at the wording and reasoning behind the Second Amendment. The text, of course, reads “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Gun-rights advocates often fixate on the second half of the amendment, claiming that the phrase about a militia is just something that provides a reasoning for the second phrase. Many opponents of gun control even suggest that the only phrase here of key importance is “shall not be infringed.”
Looking at the debates surrounding the Second Amendment and military power at the end of the eighteenth century, however, we find that the authors of the Second Amendment had a more sophisticated vision of gun ownership than is often assumed.
I am sure you are aware of the Nazi, book burning like censorship going on at facebook.
Just now they censored 3 articles in a row that I posted. Logged me out, and locked my account!!!
What are they so afraid of? Perhaps the truth, because before the Internet they did a pretty good job of hiding it from us.
Look at the articles below and see if you think that they somehow broke the nebulous , undefined, “community standards”.
I would really like to see criminal prosecutions of the heads of Facebook, Amazon, and Google, for starters…
Here are some screen shots:
Freaking (real) nazi pukes. I want to see jail sentences.
USC title 18 sections 241 & 242:
Of course they do not enforce this law, because if they did 90 percent plus of congress could be put in jail for passing laws that clearly violate our rights! ( I have never seen anyone suggest that we apply it to the psychopaths known as congress, but it does apply to them)
The 3 articles that FaceBook does not want posted or you to see:
Let me play devil’s advocate, for a minute, by pointing out my concerns about the statement: “law abiding gun owners” made on the above “about” page: (FWIW every gun group , and owner, almost without exception, accepts this anti liberty “group-think” slogan , so I am not picking on MGC in particular.)
This is the text that I have a concern with:
1.) “While professed pro-gun legislators have a majority in both chambers, Missouri lags behind many other states in protecting the rights of law abiding gun owners.”
Why do people that claim to be educated in the concept of liberty, assert that if someone is not “law abiding” (such as maybe being a christian in some countries) that somehow your right to self defense disappears? Do any of these people think before they type? Doesn’t this imply that law breaking gun owners have no rights? (It’s foundational in Western law that everyone has rights, all of the time. Even “lawbreakers”)
If these group thinkers carry their logic forward they would also use terms like “law abiding parents”, where they believe that if a parent breaks a law, that they would forever lose their right to be a parent or to conceive children. Aren’t they saying the exact same nutty thing about gun owners? I guess a law breaking food shopper would perhaps be banned by law for life from entering a grocery stores. Think outside of your normalcy bias and group think and you will clearly see how nutty all of these assertions are to anyone that believes in inalienable rights.
Let’s continue, if a gun owner is not law abiding, to the extent that he is incarcerated, his weapons, are kept from him, by the fact that he can’t bring them into the prison. However the day this person gets out, even if a convicted 1st degree murder, he get’s access to his guns back that very same day. At least that is the way this country worked, and was supposed to work, until the US Congress, instituted the Nazi gun Control Act in the US and renamed it the “1968 Gun Control Act”. Americans up to that point understood that the right can ever be taken away (or regulated for that matter) as that is the very definition of a right. Close to 100 years of government monopoly schooling has produced individuals that have no clue as to what their rights are, or the proper function of government, according to the founders and our founding documents. That is how over the top, disgusting slave-speak like: “law abiding gun owners” get into the lexicon. Isn’t this an oxymoron of the highest level? What does following the law have to do with a right, since a legitimate law can not take a right away)
2.) “In 2015 year alone, numerous states signed Constitutional Carry into law and made progress in advancing Stand-Your-Ground law – yet both of these bills died again this year in Jefferson City.”
“Laws” do not give us our rights. The second amendment recognizes the fact that we had and still have a pre existing right of self defense. We need no “laws” to tell us this. Further “Laws” can do nothing but restrict this right. People that speak and act like this, are again very clearly illustrating that they do not even understand the basic concept of a right. This is scary, when the more educated of us, are still missing the philosophical elephants in the room.
The solution IMHO, the only real one that will get us off of the hamster wheel of trying to enact legislation is to educate the public as to what their rights are. Passing legislation is nothing more than licking your masters boot, for a few permissions, as government can not grant rights.
Think about it, and I welcome your comments below.
Lastly please contact this group with your thoughts, and if their answers convince you that they are philosophically on firm ground, then buy a membership, and support them.
While I despise the machiavellian compromises, that they are making, perhaps it is necessary, but that does not mean that we should not have a less myopic, longer term goal and methodology planned out.(Like educating the public about their rights perhaps)
I plan on purchasing a membership, even if we may have a difference of opinion. These are not the times for a house divided. Not at all, and after all they are keeping the wolf from the door for the time being, as expedient as the method may be.
Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy to say that we are a free country, yet we accept to being lorded over by what the founders I am sure would see as a standing occupying army in blue uniforms? To those that know any real history, we the people, the militia. literally guarded our own freedoms in this country, and we should consider getting back to that sane, efficient, just, and lawful system.
Why isn’t it the creed of ALL Americans, to dislike men in blue uniforms that are sworn to violate your rights, because they are sworn “order followers”?They swear to follow the illegal orders of the deep state that are often referred to as “law” What a joke. Disdain for these Satanically controlled soldiers in blue should be a most admired American trait, (and I am not sure that it isn’t) and would be the sure end result of a people knowing history and capable of logical thought and reason.
After WW2 we hung many Nazi order followers. I see no reason why these contemporary US order followers should be given any quarter. We do have laws that could be used against millions of these thugs, but the law never seems to apply to the powers that be. Check out the law I refer to:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
The only downside is the lack of energy, but I think that is temporary. Our bodies are very insulin resistant because of years of overdosing on carbohydrates, and it takes a few fasts to get the body to repair the damage and start working correctly.
There is a recurring thought in my head. That is the comparison of what could be thought of as the “inconvenience” of fasting, compared to the downright living-hell of going through chemo. As few as two, 5 day fasts a year dramatically cut one’s cancer risks across the board. But teaching people to fast does not make your doctor or big pharma any money, so you see where that goes….. They would rather have you undergo chemo than fasting. It sounds like a criminal enterprise to me. Perhaps proof that the AMA medical monopoly is really a thinly veiled eugenics movement, at least on the chronic care side of the house.
I usually do not not post pictures of myself on the web, much less a selfie of me with my shirt off. But I Just had to make the point of how diet, nutritional supplementation, and life style can make unbelievable changes in your health. If you knew me 5 years ago you would not think that this is the same person.
What are your thoughts on this topic? Comment below if you want to flesh some of these thoughts out with me.
Americans are so utterly dumbed down, that instead of demanding that the government protect their innumerable rights, they go to the government, “licensing office” & jump through any requested hoops, just like a trained monkey, and pay an extortion fee, in order to be allowed to exercise a God given right.
Among other things this is an example of moral relativism, as I do not have the right to charge my fellow human beings a fee in order for them to exercise a right. It amazes me how many so called “Christians” sit idly by, and support a government office that is based upon a major plank of the church of Satan, that major plank being “moral relativism“.