This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our freedom. County, State, and National Assemblies are forming across our world nullifying the corrupt corporations. Watch and become AWARE! Participate and be a part of making history!
62 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH
Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.
On April 27, 2011, just months prior to Extortion 17 - the worst loss of life in the Afghan War, America suffered the greatest US Air Force loss of life in the War on Terror at the hands of Afghan Air Force Colonel Ahmad Gul. Now, a major bombshell has emerged regarding this incident, which has been labeled the deadliest "green-on-blue" attack in the war in Afghanistan. Investigative reporters have determined that the Pentagon covered up the fact that an Air Force colonel, who murdered several American Air Force personnel and a civilian contractor, was paid to do so. Patrick Poole of PJ Media reports:
Multiple Air Force and CENTCOM investigations claimed to find no motive for the attack, leaving the families of those killed with no answers. Now, a senior U.S. official has gone on the record claiming that a United Nations team tracked substantial payments to the killer and his family made days just prior to the incident. … For the past year, I have worked as a consultant with the For The Record documentary investigative team looking into the Kabul airport massacre and the Pentagon's handling of the matter. Last November, I appeared on an episode of the program noting that the Pentagon's multiple explanations for the attack didn't match their own forensics. Here's a trailer for that For The Record episode, "Insider Attack"
Thomas Creal is a top US official who was commissioned by the Pentagon as the lead forensic accountant for Task Force 2010, provided documents to For the Record, which revealed payoffs to Col. Gul.
Creal told For the Record, "Since the mid-70s, I've been tracing 'black money' all around the world." He said the purpose of the Task Force was "to gain visibility on the illicit monies over in Afghanistan." Creal concluded that "money was the driving force behind the shooting" by Col. Gul. "His family received money in the family bank account, his gambling debts were paid off and his loans were paid off." He then revealed that the total of those pay offs was approximately a quarter of a million dollars. Creal then said that everyone in the upper levels of military and political life in Afghanistan knew exactly what was going on. "Mullah Omar would instruct his lieutenants to pay certain people and they explained that to me as being 'that's our investments,'" Creal said. "An investment means a 'marker.' So, I pay you and I own you for a future attack. It was common practice." image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/pentagon-300x172.jpg When For the Record approached US Central Command for an interview, they were turned down and provided a statement which read, "At the time of CENTCOM investigation, there were no known investigations into Afghan corruption and we are not aware of any such investigations since, but I would refer you to the Afghan government for additional details." "There was extensive corruption inside the Afghan military and investigations were cut short, hampered by ranking personnel at the State Department and military," Creal said. "The insider killings don't need to continue. We can take steps to mitigate these suicidal hits but we can't do it if evidence is ignored." Poole adds, "The Pentagon cover-up began almost immediately after the massacre, most likely to avoid embarrassing revelations of rampant corruption by our Afghan 'allies.' The initial report had to be followed up by a second and third report after the lies in the first began to be challenged — including the first report's claim that Gul had committed suicide after the attack, but was later found to have died from gunshot wounds to the chest from two different weapons." "Despite overwhelming evidence to the effect found in their own reports, the Pentagon claimed to find no conclusive evidence of Taliban involvement — even though the terror group immediately claimed credit for the attack," he concluded. "This resulted in bizarre reporting on the Pentagon's findings, such as an Air Force Times article entitled 'Motive in Kabul shooting deaths remains elusive.'" Yet, since that time, the Pentagon has maintained that they don't know what the motive was behind the attack by Col. Gul. Since Creal and investigative reporter Sara Carter have the information, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Sally Stenton says that the Pentagon is either inept, which I'm not buying for a moment, or they are lying. Perhaps the payments to Col. Gul are the very same methods that led to such things as Americans killed aboard Extortion 17 or even the countless and growing trend of green-on-blue attacks that continue to this day in Afghanistan.
Russian Rossiya-1 TV channel aired a documentary titled "The President" dedicated to the 15th anniversary of Vladimir Putin's accession to the presidency on April 26.
The documentary is based on an interview by Russian TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov with Putin and focuses on landmark events in Russia's modern history over the past 15 years.
North Caucasus
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a documentary that the leaders of foreign states had told him that in the 2000s they had believed that Russia would stop existing in its borders after the situation in the North Caucasus had intensified.
"I read various documents while being the head of FSB [Russian Federal Security Service], including the interception of international terrorists' conversations, they wrote to each other 'It is a unique historical moment — we have an opportunity to rend the Caucasus off from Russia — now or never,'" the Russian president said.
"My colleagues, many presidents, prime ministers, told me then that they had decided for themselves that Russia would stop existing in its current form. The only question was — when it would happen and what would be the consequences. Meaning that it [Russia] is a major nuclear power."
Russian intelligence services once uncovered direct links between US intelligence and militants from the North Caucasus, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.
"Once, our intelligence services registered direct contacts between militants from the North Caucasus and representatives of the United States intelligence services in Azerbaijan."
The Russian leader added that then he had informed his American counterpart about this fact, however, in ten days Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officials received a letter from their colleagues in Washington that the US would continue to maintain contact with all opposition forces in Russia.
"No way, one should never even try to use terrorists to solve his short-term political or geopolitical goals. Because if you support them in one place, they will raise their heads in the other and will certainly hit those who supported them yesterday," Putin said.
Geopolitical Worldview
"Someone there [in the US], especially intelligence agencies of the Western countries, apparently thought that if someone acted in order to destabilize the main geopolitical rival, as we now understand they considered Russia, this move was for the good. It turned out that it was wrong."
Putin said that after the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia hoped that the West would treat the country differently, however, "there are also geopolitical interests that are not connected to any ideology."
"Our partners should have taken into account that a country like Russia has and cannot afford not to have its geopolitical interests, and that it was necessary to try to find balance and look for mutually acceptable solutions while treating each other with respect."
Russian Army
The Russian leader expressed gratitude to the Russian Armed Forces for their contribution to the fight against terrorism in North Caucasus in the beginning of the 2000s.
"If we did not have the military-industrial complex and the Army, we would not be able to overcome all the problems associated with the fight against international terrorism. Even in the most difficult times for our economy, in the early 2000s, we did not just get an army of a total of 1,300,000 people together, we got 50,000 combat-ready units together," he said.
What is it Like to Be the President of Russia?
Putin who has been serving as Russia's President for about 11 years said that a person does not have a normal everyday life if he is a head of a state.
"It is impossible to live like this, like a normal person lives. You cannot go to watch a movie, you cannot just go to the theater, you cannot go shopping. Well, that is not without a certain meaning and some pleasure."
He noted that "this is a small loss compared to what the fate and the people give those who are in my place, this is to make a maximal contribution, to do all that depends on me or on those who have the same job for the country and its people."
Putin said that he can imagine his life after the end of his presidency.
"If a mancanreturn to living in an ordinaryapartment, then, I believe, he hadnotlost touchwith the outside world. I can imagine my life without this post."
Vladimir Putin answered a question when does he feel absolutely happy.
"I would say that in general I am more or less satisfied by what we have done. Especially taking into consideration where we were. Well, let's start with the country, we have kept [the integrity of] the country and the GDP has grown twofold," the president said.
Putin also noted that the demographic situation in Russia has improved significantly since the times he had come to power.
"In 1999 and in 2000, the natural decline in the population was 929,000 people, that is almost a million. A million of people more died than it was born. If we had continued losing a million a year, Russia … would have gradually stopped to exist. We did not only stabilize the situation, but we changed it. For two consecutive years now we have natural population growth. Nobody believed it is possible," he said.
Vladimir Putin stressed that Russia could not leave the Crimean people who were seeking to return to Russia and did not want to be ruled by extreme nationalists who had come to power in Ukraine.
"I told them [the Western leaders] that the people are a vital issue for us. I do not know what interests do you protect, but we are defending our [interests] until the end. And this is an extremely important thing," Putin said.
"I believe that we did the right thing, and I do not regret anything."
Russia and International Law
Putin is convinced that Russia is not violating any rules and is acting in accordance with the international law.
"But the so-called rulers, political and economic elites of these countries love us only when we are poor and are begging with an outstretched hand. As soon as we begin to speak about our interests, they feel geopolitical rivalry."
"I am deeply convinced that we do not violate any rules of the game. When I say the rules of the game, I mean, first of all, international law, the Charter of the United Nations, and all that is connected with it. This refers to our relations with Ukraine, it refers to the situation in Crimea, it refers to our efforts with regard to the fight against international terrorism in other regions of the world," Putin said.
Sanctions as an Attempt to Contain Russia
Sanctions are an attempt to contain Russia, Vladimir Putin said.
"We see these attempts during all the history of Russia since the Tsarist-era. This attempt to contain Russia is known for a while, for centuries. There is nothing new in this. We do not have to worry."
The West starts to antagonize Moscow's attempts to speak about its concerns regarding NATO's eastward expansion and the alliance's military infrastructure near Russian borders, the Russian president said.
"And today it has taken such a form that we see. The so-called sanctions," he said.
Vladimir Putin served as Russia's Prime Minister from 1999 to 2000. On December 31, 1999, he became acting president after his predecessor Boris Yeltsin resigned unexpectedly. Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election and served as Russian president from 2000 to 2008. After serving as prime minister from 2008 to 2012, he was re-elected to the presidency in 2012.
The film will give insights on Russia's policies starting from late 1990s - early 2000s, when Vladimir Putin became president for the first time, up to recent events including the situation in Ukraine. The film will also give a touch of what the the president has personally gone through during the 15 years.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russian Rossiya-1 TV channel will air a documentary dedicated to the 15th anniversary of Vladimir Putin's accession to the presidency on April 26.
The film titled "The President" will be aired at 9:30 p.m. (18:30 GMT.)
The documentary is based on an interview by Russian TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov with Putin and focuses on landmark events in Russia's modern history over the past 15 years.
According to trailers released ahead of the April 26 premiere, the film will give insights on Russia's policies starting from late 1990s — early 2000s, when Putin became president for the first time, up to recent events including the situation in Ukraine. The film will also give a touch of what the the president has personally gone through during the 15 years.
Vladimir Solovyov, who is the author of the film, revealed some details about the upcoming documentary on Thursday.
The TV host said he had an almost two-hour-long conversation with the Russian leader about milestone events in Russia's most recent history, including the Chechen campaign, the terror attacks in Moscow and Beslan in the early 2000s and the Kursk submarine disaster in August 2000.
"The team [of film producers] managed to find a crazy amount of archived shootings, which were forgotten by many. When 15-year history flashes right before your eyes, it arouses such strong emotions. The country went through terrible disasters: wars, terrorist attacks, Kursk — enough for the entire generation."
Solovyov added that the film will not be based entirely on the the interview with the president, but will also include rare documentary footage and remarks by other Russian politicians, making their first public comments on some events.
Vladimir Putin served as Russia's Prime Minister from 1999 to 2000. On December 31, 1999, he became acting president after his predecessor Boris Yeltsin resigned unexpectedly. Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election and served as Russian president from 2000 to 2008. After serving as prime minister from 2008 to 2012, he was re-elected to the presidency in 2012.
The Russian president has repeatedly topped international rankings of the world's most important people. In 2007 Time named Putin its Person of the Year. In 2013 and 2014 the Russian president led Forbes magazine's list of the most powerful people in the world. In 2015, Time included Putin in its annual list of the world's 100 most influential people.
April 24, 2015 — No longer will Montana’s state or subsidiary agencies be armed to the teeth with weaponized drones, grenades, armored vehicles, or many other warrior worthy wares from the federal government. That’s thanks to efforts that led to Governor Steve Bullock signing House Bill 330 (HB330) into law yesterday.
The Tenth Amendment Center, the premier states’ rights and nullification organization, says, “By stripping state and local police of this military-grade gear and requiring them to report on their acquisition and use, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships.”
While the Pentagon’s “1033 Program” is the most well-known source of police militarization, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also offers grants to sheriffs and other local police that are triple the value of 1033.
Both of these sources, the 1033 transfers and DHS grants, are covered by Montana’s new law.
If police desire military-grade, they’ll have to make a public request with 14 days notice for state and local funds to make the purchases in the open.
The only other similar bill signed into law was New Jersey’s weaker version. It requires an extra authorization from the local government before any equipment transfer under the Pentagon’s 1033 program.
Tenth Amendment Center’s Mike Maharrey said, “By making it a local decision, the New Jersey law is a great first step, but the Montana law takes things to the next level.”
Maharrey continues, “It closes loopholes and covers almost all the bases. The next step would be to expand the equipment banned, and we’re hopeful that good people in Montana will work on that next session.”
Is this the beginning of the end for police militarization?
This article is hosted, designed and promoted with the assistance of readers like you. Give a gift to keep VoicesofLiberty moving the message of liberty forward.
Jane Goodall speaks in support of Steven Druker's book, "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth"(April 24th, 2015)
Primatologist Jane Goodall is speaking in Salt Lake City at a sold-out event Friday evening about her work and the future of chimpanzees. But in the afternoon, she lent her fame and clout to a more controversial cause.
Goodall appeared with Steven Druker, the author of a book that aims to wipe out genetically modified organisms from the world’s food supply.
In a talk sponsored by the Pax Natura Foundation, Jane Goodall thanked Steven Druker for writing his book, “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.” She herself wrote the forward and she said the book substantiated her concerns that genetically engineered foods were dangerous.
“We’re poisoning the land, we’re poisoning animals, and I truly believe we’re poisoning ourselves,” Goodall said.
She pointed to superbugs that have become resistant to pesticides, weeds resistant to herbicides, and isolated animal studies in Europe and Australia where she said rats and pigs suffered from a variety of health issues when consuming genetically engineered crops.
“Have we been affected? What about the rise of certain illnesses and complaints in the human community, what about the increase in allergies, what about the increase of some kinds of mental disorders?” she asked.
Randy Parker, CEO of the Utah Farm Bureau Federation, says Goodall and Druker are doing a disservice to the people of Utah and around the world.
“To me this is all about extremism and scaring people,” Parker says. (Another one of those 'fear porn' idiots who get accused for putting out TRUTH) He says without genetically modified crops, we would not have the levels of food productivity that we have today. (Say WHAT!!??)
“I’ve never heard in all of the literature that I’ve reviewed of one single case of a GMO related plant or animal causing a health problem for a human being or for an animal for that matter,” he says. “I think this is an activist, radical viewpoint.” (He hasn't done any research of late.)
The 80-year-old Goodall apologized at the end of her talk for a few stumbles where she lost her train of thought, but she says she’s hopeful that as the young people of today become more aware of the dangers of genetic engineering, they will eliminate GMO’s from the food supply.
WHAT WOULD BE BEHIND 'MAN' ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE ON WHAT THE LORD GOD HAS CREATED FOR MAN? WOULD THE CREATOR NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR HIS OWN CREATION? IS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD A FRAUD?
Claims author: It’s the biggest fraud in the history of science and not the answer to feeding the world.
A line up of test tubes holds genetically altered orange seedlings and the hope of creating plants resistant to citrus greening, a bacterial scourge sweeping through Florida’s citrus groves.
By Simon Worrall, National Geographic
PUBLISHED
An estimated 85 percent of all food consumed in the United States now contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—from the cereal you feed your children to the milk you put in your coffee to the sweet corn you chomp on in summer. But because there’s no labeling requirement, we don’t know which foods have GMOs and which don’t.We also have no hard facts about the possible health effects. In his new book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived The Public, public interest attorney Steve Druker takes the science community, the food industry, and the FDA to task for what he claims are their lax and irresponsible policies.
Talking from a parking lot in Michigan during his book tour, he explains how the debate about GMOs has undermined science and democracy, why the two Bills, Clinton and Gates, have got it wrong, and what advice he would give an African farmer trying to feed his starving child.
In the subtitle of your book, you name three ways that GMOs have undermined society. Talk about the first two.
First, the subversion of science has been much deeper than most people could imagine. There has been a consistent degradation of science and twisting of the truth on the part of numerous eminent scientists and scientific institutions on behalf of genetically engineered foods. The aggregate fraud to promote genetically engineered foods is by far the biggest fraud in the history of science. The corruption of government has also been very deep and multifaceted.
Probably the worst example occurred when the U.S. executive branch became convinced back in the mid 1980s, during the administration of President Reagan, that the biotechnology industry was going to be one of the main ways in which the U.S. economy would come out of its doldrums. A policy was adopted to promote the biotech industry without any new regulations. It was reported to be science-based, but scholars who studied it concluded it was not science based. It was framed and motivated by economic and political considerations. The FDA broke that law and lied about the facts in order to get GMOs on the market.
James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, has called the dangers imputed to GMOs an imaginary monster.” He’s right, isn’t he?
He’s quite wrong, actually, because there have been risks, but from the beginning these risks have been systematically misrepresented by the mainstream scientific establishment in order to avoid regulation by governments and keep control of the research. But the risks have been well recognized, even by the FDA’s own scientists. They did a thorough study back in 1990-92, and the overwhelming conclusion was that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding to a great degree, that the foods it generates entail different risks, and that none can be presumed safe until they have been demonstrated to be safe by rigorous scientific testing. But these tests have never been done.
Between 1856 and 1863, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, experimented with pea plants and developed the principles of heredity, thereby paving the way for the science of genetics.
I never use the term “frankenfood.” I’d rather not throw around names. The other side throws names around, branding people who have concerns about GMOs as “anti-science” or “Luddites.” Instead of talking about middle ground, I think it’s important to talk about the scientific ground and the evidence-based ground. Too many of the proponents of GMOs are not speaking as scientists, but as spin-doctors.
Too many of the proponents of GMOs are not speaking as scientists, but as spin-doctors.
You repeatedly say how dangerous GMOs are. The only known outbreak of a mass infection occurred in Japan in the late 80s in connection with the health supplement, L-tryptophan. Yet the most you claim is that “genetic engineering cannot be ruled out.” It’s a pretty weak case, isn’t it?
That is not actually what I claim. That’s what the FDA has admitted in private. In public, it claims genetic engineering had nothing to do with the incident. But there is a memo in the FDA files, which I uncovered in a lawsuit, in which the FDA’s biotechnology manager admitted genetic engineering could not be ruled out as the cause of that epidemic. I state that the weight of the evidence points towards genetic engineering as the most likely cause of the epidemic.
The agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto has automated the search for genes with desirable traits. A chipper (above, left) cuts samples from corn kernels (above, right); machines then analyze the DNA from each sample.
The father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, altered the genetic makeup of peas by crossbreeding. In what way is genetic engineering different from that?
What Mendel was doing was traditional crossbreeding, not altering genes. Nature is set up to encourage genetic diversity and change combinations of genes. But what the genetic engineers are doing is radically restructuring the makeup of genes and DNA. This is something unprecedented. Nobel laureate and biology professor at Harvard, the late George Wald stated that, “Genetic engineering is the biggest break in nature that has occurred in human history.”
A lot of the horror stories are about bizarre interventions like inserting a salmon gene into a tomato. These are extreme cases, aren’t they?
To my knowledge, nothing like that particular product has been commercialized. But any breaking down of the natural species boundaries is a very radical intervention. Foreign genes can’t express themselves unless powerful, viral boosters are inserted. And these foreign genes are now contained in most of the plants on the market. That’s highly unnatural and in itself entails risks.
The media has not reported the controversy fairly. They’ve almost always presented the pro-GMO side.
Monsanto was driven out of England after widespread protests against seed trials. Why are the Europeans so much more critical of GMOs?
Because Europeans have been better informed of the facts. The media in Europe, up to a few years ago, reported this scientific controversy fairly. People knew many well-credentialed scientists did not agree with the claim that these foods were safe. Adverse research showing harm to lab animals got publicized. As a result, European citizens made it clear they didn’t want these foods. Here, the media has not reported the controversy fairly. They’ve almost always presented the pro-GMO side. As a result, the American public has been systematically deceived.
According to the UN, GM technology enhanced farm income in South Africa by $156 million between 1998 and 2006. But isn’t it true there are few proven cases of potential health effects or economic drawbacks?
Even if we grant there have been some economic benefits, according to U.S. law, it is illegal to offset risks by benefits. Foods have to be demonstrated safe to a reasonable certainty of no harm. And none of them has been. In fact, several well-conducted studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals have demonstrated even severe harm to laboratory animals forced to dine on genetically engineered foods. So there is no reason to think that the risks for us are minimal.
Genetically modified high yield soybeans developed by Monsanto travel on a conveyer belt. The company is a leading developer of genetically modified seeds.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded a GMO banana in Uganda that didn’t get banana wilt, a disease that was decimating crops. Surely, that’s a good thing.
Only if there were not risks that might impact health in ways we don’t yet know. As I said, when it comes to food safety, benefits should not be considered in offsetting risks. Everybody has to eat food and changes to food should not entail new risks, no matter what the purported benefits. Several studies by the UN and World Bank also concluded that genetic engineering is not needed to meet the world’s food needs. One of the directors of these studies was asked, “What role do you see for GMOs in the future of food?” He said, “Actually none. They aren’t needed. They haven’t been boosting yields. Small scale, agro-ecological methods are what’s needed in the Third World.”
Contrary evidence has been suppressed, research showing risks is attacked unfairly, the scientists who did the research have had their reputations destroyed.
For opponents of GMOs, Monsanto is the villain. Yet you say scientists themselves are the main “propagandists.” Why would they do this – if they didn’t believe they are right?
[Laughs] Oh, I do think that most of them believe that they’re right. That’s not the issue. A large percentage of “life scientists” have financial interests, one way or another, in genetic engineering. Either they have helped found biotech firms, or they have consulting contracts with biotech firms. Even those scientists and foundations that don’t have such conflicts of interest, have overlooked many of the risks. Contrary evidence has been suppressed, research showing risks is attacked unfairly, the scientists who did the research have had their reputations destroyed. Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science released a statement calculated to defeat a labeling initiative in California, which had several significant misrepresentations in it. When those misrepresentations were called to their attention, they would not retract them. That helped swing the election and defeated the labeling initiative, by misleading many Californians.
Recently, the tide seems to have turned towards an acceptance of GMOs. The UN, Bill Gates, and President Clinton have all come out in support. Even writer Michael Pollan, a well-known opponent, now believes there is no threat to human health. Surely, these people can’t all be wrong, can they?
They can be misled, yes. Based on the misrepresentations that continue to come from scientists, whom people like Michael Pollan and Bill Gates have a right to trust, I can understand why they think what they think. If you have the National Academy of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science consistently stating that these foods are safe why not believe them? But the National Academy of Sciences’ supposedly “gold standard” risk assessment is a joke. It’s internally self-contradictory, the logic is weak, and it overlooks several key facts. By contrast, a risk-assessment study released by the Royal Society of Canada in 2001, a few years before the National Academy of Science, came out with an opposite conclusion. It said that genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, that you can’t assume the products are safe, and that the current regulatory system is extremely flawed. The scientific establishment here never refuted it. They’ve just ignored it. I challenge any fair thinking, good-willed scientist, or intelligent man or women, to read this book and decide for him or herself where the evidence lies—who has been telling the truth and has not been telling the truth.
A scientist checks on tomato plants in a Monsanto greenhouse. Though the tide seems to have turned in favor of genetically modified crops, not everyone is convinced of their safety.
What would you say to an African farmer who wants to use GMOs to feed his starving child today rather than worry about an imaginary threat tomorrow?
First I would say: Read what the UN and World Bank-sponsored reports have said. You don’t need GMOs. Many organizations are trying to educate farmers in Africa and the Third World on the best, agro-ecological methods. The problem is not that organic methods can’t work, but that farmers often haven’t had the knowledge they need. But there are solutions that do not rely on GMOs, which have been proven to work in Africa. So I would say: Get with the sound science, spend less money, and solve your food problem in a way that will create healthy soil, a healthy family and a healthy Africa.
Are you in doubt that the real original jurisdiction De Jure Republic is being restored? Do you have Questions that you want answered? Do you want to get involved? Visit https://national-assembly.net/ for more information and to participate. Check out the forums as the national assembly is 100% transparent to the public and welcomes public participation. This is the real deal folks. This is our last chance to do it right and nullify the 1871 contract that employed the U.S. Corporation to provide 19 governmental services to the people. This is our right under Article 1 of the Bill of rights. This also nullifies General Order 100 of 1863.
Search This Blog "if this search box is working"
Donation to assist in efforts to restore our republic
The DUKE - Patriot!
Born in 1948 Died in 2015
National Assembly of the people returning to self governance
Join the forums and introduce yourself so your state coordinator can connect with you.
Question -- What is the goal of this website? Why do we share different sources of information that sometimes conflicts or might even be considered disinformation?
Answer -- The primary goal of Nesaranews is to help all people become better truth-seekers in a real-time boots-on-the-ground fashion. This is for the purpose of learning to think critically, discovering the truth from within—not just believing things blindly because it came from an "authority" or credible source. Instead of telling you what the truth is, we share information from many sources so that you can discern it for yourself. We focus on teaching you the tools to become your own authority on the truth, gaining self-mastery, sovereignty, and freedom in the process. We want each of you to become your own leaders and masters of personal discernment, and as such, all information should be vetted, analyzed and discerned at a personal level. We also encourage you to discuss your thoughts in the comments section of this site to engage in a group discernment process.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle
11
Followers
The articles on this blog are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
US Supreme Court, in 1985, “Dowling v. United States”, unequivocally held that allegations of copyright infringement can be prosecuted only under copyright-specific legislation, not criminal law.
When For the Record approached US Central Command for an interview, they were turned down and provided a statement which read, "At the time of CENTCOM investigation, there were no known investigations into Afghan corruption and we are not aware of any such investigations since, but I would refer you to the Afghan government for additional details."
the premier states’ rights and nullification organization, 
