2010510

<> Hijacking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
<> Jolly Rancher lands Brazos ISD third-grader in detention for a week
<> Killing The Food Supply: The Dangers of Genetically Modified Food
<> Obama Bemoans Alternative Media, Rise of Tea Party
<> Standoff over near NSCC; suspect was never home
<> How the Illuminati Create Unlimited Money

In an editorial yesterday entitled “Obama Administration Owes Answers on How It Handled Times Square Suspect,” the Washington Post wants to know whether the Obama administration was too hasty in treating accused Times Square terrorist Faisal Shahzad as a criminal suspect rather than an “enemy combatant.”

“The administration rightly came under fire for its handling of the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen who tried to ignite explosives on a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day. In that case, the Justice Department … rashly embraced a law enforcement approach without fully considering other options, including holding Mr. Abdullmutallab as an enemy combatant.” (Emphasis added.)

“The Shahzad case is different, primarily because Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen.”

The Post’s editorial exemplifies how corrupt America’s federal criminal- justice system has become as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

We begin with a fundamental principle, one that even the Post implicitly acknowledges: Terrorism is, in fact, a federal criminal offense. Let me repeat that: Terrorism is a crime under U.S. law.

Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that suspected terrorists have always been subject to the rules, guarantees, and protections that relate to the federal criminal-justice system. Grand-jury indictments, jury trials in federal court, criminal-defense attorneys, the presumption of innocence, the exclusion of incompetent and irrelevant evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to remain silent, the right to call favorable witnesses, and so forth.

So, what does the Post mean when it wonders whether the Obama administration should have considered treating Shahzad as an “enemy combatant” instead of as a criminal defendant?

The Post is referring to the alternative, competing system of criminal justice that the Pentagon established in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. It’s a system that is totally unlike the federal court system. Yes, there are still criminal prosecutions for terrorism, but in the Pentagon’s system the defendant is treated in an entirely different way.

The Pentagon’s system, for example, encompasses the power to waterboard and otherwise torture people who the feds suspect are guilty of terrorism. The defendant is presumed guilty and treated as such. There is no right to a speedy trial, and defendants can be held forever without a trial. If a trial is ultimately held, the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined by a kangaroo tribunal consisting of military officials, not by regular Americans from the community. At the trial, evidence acquired by torture can be admitted against the accused. The defendant does not have an absolute right to cross examine witnesses, and hearsay evidence can be admitted against him.

In other words, ever since 9/11 the United States has had two separate and distinct competing criminal-justice systems, one that is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the other that is governed by brutal, arbitrary, and ad hoc procedures, ones which, by the way, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to prohibit.

Obviously, it makes a world of difference which system a person is subjected to. As the Post editorial implies, that decision — which system to employ against a person accused of terrorism — is entirely arbitrary and ad hoc. Federal officials have absolute and total discretion to make the call. There are no set standards.

Let’s assume that Shahzad did, in fact, try to set off the Times Square bomb and that he did it with the active participation of a partner. Under America’s post-9/11 criminal justice system, the feds could treat one of the partners as a criminal defendant and the other one as an enemy combatant, notwithstanding the fact that they allegedly committed the same act.

It would be difficult to find a better example of a violation of equal treatment under law and the rule of law than that. When the life and liberty of people turns on the discretionary judgments of government officials as to whether criminal defendants should be accorded due process of law or kangaroo courts, that’s not a system founded on justice but rather a system that makes a mockery of justice.

Where did the feds acquire this omnipotent post-9/11 power to completely circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in federal criminal prosecutions through the arbitrary, discretionary, and ad hoc power to label people accused of terrorism as either criminal defendants or as enemy combatants?

They made it up. Out of whole cloth. They knew that terrorism is a federal crime. They knew that terrorism is listed in the U.S. Code as a federal criminal offense. They knew that accused terrorists, including Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, had always been prosecuted as criminal defendants in U.S. District Court.

But they also knew that the fear-laden crisis of 9/11 gave them an opportunity, the opportunity to make up an entirely new and false doctrine, one that they claimed now entitled them to call a federal crime either a crime or an act of war, one that enabled them to completely circumvent the procedural protections in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That’s what they did with the federal crime of terrorism. They didn’t repeal the U.S. Code provisions on terrorism. Those still remain on the books, which is why many suspected terrorists are still prosecuted in federal court. What they did was say, “We now have another option — the option to treat accused terrorists as enemy combatants instead of criminal defendants. We now wield the total and absolute power make that call.”

The Post is being disingenuous when it states that “the Shahzad case is different because Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen.”

Different in what respect? Is the Post suggesting that there should be one form of criminal justice system — the constitutional one — for Americans and another form for foreigners — the military system? Never mind that such a dual criminal justice system flies in the face of more than two centuries of U.S. history, one in which all persons, not just Americans, accused of federal crimes are entitled to the same criminal-justice system and to the protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Moreover, Americans had best get used to the fact that the feds now possess the power to treat American citizens as enemy combatants. That’s what the Jose Padilla case was all about. In other words, what they did to Padilla when they were treating him as an enemy combatant — indefinite incarceration, torture through sensory deprivation and isolation, denial of due process, presumption of guilt, and the like — they now can do to all Americans.

And this revolutionary transformation of criminal justice, one in which the military now wields omnipotent power over the citizenry, was effected without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. It’s just another part and parcel of America’s war on terrorism and the U.S. government’s foreign policy of empire and intervention. Not only are the American people being economically bankrupted by that war and that foreign policy, they’re also having their Constitution and Bill of Rights hijacked and circumvented.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

“I think it’s stupid to give a kid a week’s worth of detention for a piece of candy,” said Amber Brazda, the girl’s mother. "The whole thing was just ridiculous to me."

Leighann Adair, 10, was eating lunch Monday when a teacher confiscated the candy. Her parents said she was in tears when she arrived home later that afternoon and handed them the detention notice.

According to the disciplinary referral, she would be separated from other students during lunch and recess through Friday.

Jack Ellis, the superintendent for Brazos Independent School District, declined an on-camera interview. But he said the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned “minimal nutrition” foods.

“Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,” he said.

The state, however, gives each school discretion over how to enforce the policy. Ellis said school officials had decided a stricter punishment was necessary after lesser penalties failed to serve as a deterrent.

Ellis said failing to adhere to the state’s guidelines could put federal funding in jeopardy.

According to the Texas Department of Agriculture’s website, “The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.”

Brazos Elementary Principal Jeanne Young, said the problem, in this instance, was that the candy was provided by another student – not the girl’s parents.

The girl’s mother said the incident has taught her daughter a lesson, but not the one her teachers intended.

“I told her, ‘Leighann, unfortunately you’re learning very young that life’s not fair,'” Brazda said.

Genetically modified food has entered the food supply through secrecy and deception. Some claimed that genetically modifying the food supply could even put an end to world hunger. At first glance, genetic modification really does look like a great idea. It allows for larger crops, enhanced growing seasons, and even bigger animals. The truth of the matter is that genetically modified food has been shown to sterilize the population, lead to infant mortality, and exacerbate the usage of pesticides on a global scale.

The world is quickly realizing that there is no benefit to consuming and producing genetically modified food. The consumers are speaking out, and their voice is being heard. Food free of genetically modified ingredients is the fastest growing retail brand.

As the information surrounding GM (genetically modified) food rose to the mainstream media, the people began to anger. They were looking for someone to blame for allowing this atrocity occur, and they had to look no farther than Monsanto.

The Monsanto corporation is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is responsible for producing and selling genetically engineered seeds.

These are the seeds that yield genetically modified crops. Monsanto has such a grip on the industry, that it produces 90% of the United State’s genetically engineered seeds. This is the same company responsible for the development of bovine growth hormone, which incited mass controversy over its effects. It was determined by many health experts to be extremely dangerous, with many linking it to cancer and other life-threatening conditions.

Numerous studies have proven genetically modified foods to be an extreme health hazard, but one must only look at how it is created to realize how unsafe GM food really is.

The bioengineering process itself is quite ridiculous. Billions are spent each year to genetically modify the food supply, tainting it with genetically modified frankenfood. Genetically modifying foods requires one to tamper with the very genetic coding of the crop and/or seed. The process entails the transfer of genes from one organism to another, such as taking particular genes from a pig and transferring them to a tomato. Not only does this defile nature, but it leads to a host of health problems.

Due to the complexity of a living organism’s genetic structure, it is impossible to track the long-term results of consuming genetically modified food. Introducing new genes into even the most simple bacterium may cause an array of issues, highlighting the complexity of even the simplest organisms. Introducing new genes to highly complex organisms such as animals or crops is even riskier.

When introducing the gene to its new host, it is essentially impossible to predict the reaction. The genetic intelligence of the host could be disrupted with the introduction of the new gene, creating an adverse reaction. There is truly no way of knowing the long-term effect genetically modified food, as there are too many variables. There is simply no room for science when Monsanto is involved.

What the world is beginning to see is a swift call to action against not only genetic modification of the food supply, but against the contamination of our food supply worldwide. The people are beginning to demand that high fructose corn syrup be taken out of their food, and that aspartame be removed from products like diet soda and chewing gum. Big corporations love to push such food abominations upon us, but sooner or later the citizens demand action.

India has recently begun to recognize the dangers of genetically modified food, calling for a multitude of scientific studies to determine whether or not the food poses a threat. The people of India had been calling for a change that the government was forced to recognize.

“Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach,” said Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.

Even in the United States, Monsanto is currently under investigation by seven states. Since so many concerned citizens are demanding something to be done about genetically modified, the government of your nation is forced to respond. Through activism and spreading the word, genetically modified food can easily be made a sad mistake of the past.

During a speech at Hampton University in Virginia, Obama griped about blogs and talk radio. The anointed one said “some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction” on the internet. “All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

Obama made his comments during a speech at Hampton University in Virginia.

Crazy claims? Like UFOs and Big Foot? No, crazy claims like the fact a cartel of international bankers control the banking system, the corporate media (where real distractions such as perverted football players predominate), and the educational institution where Obama delivered his speech.

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” Obama said.

Obama said the alternative media does not have the best interests of the people at heart. “What Jefferson recognized… that in the long run, their improbable experiment — called America — wouldn’t work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy to those who didn’t have the best interests of all the people at heart.”

Thomas Jefferson was opposed to democracy. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine,” he said.

Obama understands America was established as a constitutional republic (he is after all supposedly a constitutional scholar). Democracy as defined by our rulers and the corporate media is preferred because it tricks citizens into voting for their own slavery and impoverishment. Obama urged students in Virginia to ignore the truth-seekers and embrace the corporate Borg collective.

[video here on source site]

Obama tells students globalism cannot be stopped.

Mob rule “could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged, if we held our government accountable, if we fulfilled the obligations of citizenship,” Obama declared.

In other words, each of us must believe the lies and fairy tales spun by the government propaganda media masquerading as a free press and become “engaged” in a political process that invariably produces the same result every four years, as insider Carroll Quigely noted. Government is not accountable to the people. It is accountable to bankers and corporatists (who Mussolini defined as fascists).

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter,” Obama said.

Only the government version of the truth meter is worthy of consideration, according to Obama and his speech writers.

Obama also said resistance to globalism is futile. “We can’t stop these changes… but we can adapt to them,” Obama said, adding that “US workers were in a battle with well-educated foreign workers,” according to AFP.

[video here on source site]

If Obama was sincerely interested in telling the truth, he would have pointed out that these “well-educated foreign workers” (many educated in the United States) are essentially slave labor drones living under authoritarian regimes established and encouraged by the global elite. Bankster David Rockefeller, after all, praised the butcher Mao Tse-tung who slaughtered over 40 million people. Rockefeller idealized the “national harmony” (slaves obeying dictators) of China and said Mao’s murder campaign was worth it.

For the elite, this “battle” between U.S. workers and Chinese slaves comes down to one thing — college graduates and workers will have to accept diminished expectations and lower standards of living in the Brave New World now unfolding. Fed mob boss Bernanke admitted as much the other day when he said money does not ensure happiness. He meant to say Americans will have to adapt to life with less money and dismal standards of living as the bankers consolidate their wealth and steal everything that is not nailed down.

Obama’s speech today reeked of desperation. The “pressure” he eluded to is the pressure of political reality as defined by the patriot and Tea Party movements. Obama and his handlers know that come November the Tea Party movement will displace a large number of One Party political hacks and grocery clerks. The process of taking the government back from the elite and their hand-picked political class opportunists and careerists has begun. It will not be rolled back by speeches delivered by the teleprompter reader Obama.

We live in dangerous times. The globalists will not settle for admonitory speeches delivered to captive college graduates (who will soon discover reality first-hand as they attempt to find careers), but will use more draconian methods to secure their hold on power.

It is not yet clear what these draconian methods will be but we will almost certainly find out before November.

Submitted by Ray Marcham

Seattle police were involved in a standoff at a home near North Seattle Community College that lasted since the early morning, but the person they thought they were looking for wasn't home.

Police have closed off College Way between 92nd and 97th while the standoff is underway. It was believed that a man with a gun had barricaded himself inside a home north of 92nd on College Way and had told his mother that he was going to kill himself, and negotiators were trying to talk him out.

But after 10:30 a.m., officers went to the home and found it empty.

Mark Dice - Infowars.com

The Knights Templar were the first international bankers.

Perhaps you have noticed that frequently the largest and most extravagant buildings in most cities (and even small towns) are banks. It’s fascinating how banks make money off interest, which is one of the most lucrative businesses known to man. While most businesses build a product or provide some kind of service involving manual labor or specialized knowledge, banks make enormous profits through the seemingly magical practice of lending people money and collecting interest on the loans.

When one really looks into how money is created and used, and how interest is generated from loans, it becomes clear that the banking industry is one of the pillars of the New World Order and is at the core of the elite’s ability to control people, politicians, and even governments of large countries.

You’ll often hear people familiar with this issue say that the banks “create money out of nothing, and then loan it out at interest.” Such a statement is hard to grasp at first, but conveys just how big of a con the banking industry is involved in. Such a con game goes back thousands of years and is often blamed on the Jews due to their money lending practices in Biblical times.

In the 10th century the Knights Templar figured out this amazing strategy and became the first international bankers in Europe and the practice contributed greatly to their wealth. On October 13, 1307 (Friday the 13th) the leadership of the Knights Templar were arrested in France for allegedly practicing strange and satanic rituals, a charge most prominent occultists admit was true. Surviving Knights Templar went underground and are believed to have started Freemasonry which they used as a cover for their occult beliefs and practices. Freemasons then continued to operate (and still continue) as a Mystery School which the Illuminati was able to graft onto. Besides functioning as a place to learn occult theology and mysticism, other areas of life are also taught and nurtured in these Mystery Schools such as science, business, and banking.

Because the business of banking is extremely profitable, and the banks owners don’t have to build any products or really provide any services involving extensive manual labor, cunning businessmen saw the potential for virtually unlimited easy money and became involved in the industry. People like Paul Warburg, J.P. Morgan, and others monopolized the industry, thus securing their wealth for countless generations and giving them the ability to buy politicians and fund their personal plans for a global government.

All articles presented are either penned by editors to The RockyView or presented with permission or reposted here as a matter of fair use.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you may need obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Related: