Guns and Weed – The Road To Freedom

February 25, 2013 by  
Filed under US News


(GUNS AND WEED)   A stunning and entertaining examination of Constitutional and voluntaryist issues. Covers abuse of authority by police, the War on Drugs, self-defense, States’ Rights, Natural Rights, Austrian Economics, the problems of a two-party system and taxation.


A idea for a cap bill that would effectively deter lobbying by special interest groups

September 30, 2012 by  
Filed under Featured Stories

Author: Silence DoGood

A new bill that can become law is needed to effectively end corruption in most levels of modern government. There are good politicians still in government even though there are also bad. Part of what has led to the downfall of respect and approval of politicians in the Congressional, General Assembly, and even county level is what we all call lobbying that is a new form of bribing, some states do this which is called pay-to-play form of representation.

In a regular job, the better of a job you do you can get promoted to get more money and benefits for the quality job you’ve done. What we need is to reward the Congresspeople and Legislators for good behavior and following the Constitution to a T. This is the idea that will go viral nationwide to end most of the political corruption and police brutality that has plagued our nation because of special interest groups all connected to the Bilderberg Group and other crooked interest groups.

With US Presidential candidate Virgil H. Goode he stated that he would not accept campaign contributions more then $200. The legal way this bribery goes on is using a loophole that even if you can’t bribe a politician directly you can provide financing to his/her political campaign and even offer complementary trips in a way that the lobbyists get the bills they want through the Congress without technically violating the laws against bribery. The way to combat all of this is to impose a national and even statewide general assembly type of cap on all political campaign contributions. Even if the politicians scream at a bill like this, if the people back it then it can be passed, it can be done. It is as Jesse Ventura stated on The Alex Jones Show with saying “If you bribe in the private sector you go to jail, but yet I see it all the time in the public sector” (If the quote is a little off then comment below and I will correct any mistakes).

First of all the bill would have a purpose of limiting all campaign contributions to $200 or another capped amount per person per election campaign. What makes corporate lobbyists very powerful and have a lot of pressure on the Senators and Representatives is how much money they can contribute to each politician which is usually anywhere from thousands of dollars on local politicians to the top branch of government known as Congress all the way up to millions per bill to lobby. With a small cap on all lobbying, they will be forced to rely on their constituents to be able to pay their campaign costs.

As these corporations will have to use proxies to lobby high amounts which is very difficult, most of the people can afford lobbying low amounts therefore this will level the pay-to-play playing field to where we all can contribute to have our say in our government. This would also effectively nullify the eugenics efforts by Planned Parenthood and other horrible legislation that damages the general public from other corporate psychopaths that want to see the peasants harmed, enslaved and killed. Even put caps on all vacations and gifts given to Congresspeople, Legislators, and even local and county politicians.

A nationwide and even statewide efforts to put caps on all contributions would not take away liberties but allow better representation for the majority of the people and protect minority rights since money won’t decide the vote and what bills are created and passed. Since courts have ruled that corporations are to be treated as people, then an entire corporation would only be able to lobby $200, and also the bill can deter using corporate employees/staff as proxies to deter the caps. Even Mitt Romney said that corporations are people my friend! so why not use the Bilderberg corporations own legal weapon against them. Even if they are passing laws in the special interest groups favor, laws can be used against the lobbyists that helped put them in.

It’s lobbying that is helping to destroy our civil liberties like with helping the NDAA, naked body scanners and forced molestation grope downs, allowing ISP data caps that would violate net neutrality with no factual basis to support the need of capping the data download/upload, restarting the eugenics cult, passing laws to force vaccinations while vaccine makers are immune to lawsuits from damages caused by vaccines, and other horrible legislation passed that benefits the elite while harms the rights of the people. Congress should be listening to the facts, experts, proper and valid documentation, and best represent We The People.

As long as unlimited lobbying exists there will be endless corruption and usurpations of law making power. With caps on the value of gifts, campaign contributions, and even vacation trips there can be better representation for the general people untainted by special interest groups working with eugenicists and psychopaths. With a cap on all type contributions to politicians, it will give even poor and middle class people, their chance to have a voice by supporting their local US, statewide, and regional politicians and actually being listened to instead of being kicked out the door and given a automated formal letter.

Also another issue that should be looked at is making the districts smaller so that Congresspeople and Legislators aren’t frustrated with representing a large amount of people that it attracts following the ideas from small special interest groups instead of the large districts of people. It will make their jobs easier and have the system run more smoothly not to mention making it more difficult to ram bills through Congress without a a chance for review and debate.

If you think this article is factual and is a very good idea then send this article to your local media, national media, or even alternative outlets such as Infowars and Drudge Report. This isn’t coming from a democrat or even a republican but a concerned American that has experienced corruption at the state and national level which is why this article should be a great and moral concern. With Congress having a 9% approval rating, there is no representation for people at this moment due to special interest lobbying.

Health Epidemics, Germ Warfare & Civil Liberties

Read more

Down The Rabbit Hole w/ Popeye: Mark Passio on True Freedom

(FEDERALJACK)   On these two episodes of DTRH (06/15/2012 & 06/22/2012) Popeye and Mark Passio discuss what true freedom really is. Collective reality, personal accountability,  universal law, natural law, and more. Mark and Popeye get to the root of the problems and show there is a solution to the madness. In part two they recorded an hour of extra audio not heard on air due to lack of time and available here for the first time.

Read more

Smoke Screen 2012 *** MAKE THIS VIRAL ***

May 22, 2012 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, US News

(FEDERALJACK)   This is a powerful production by Tim Watts, the co-host of The Freedom Link Radio broadcast on The Orion Talk Radio Network. A great informational and inspirational video to present to people who you want to pull out of the Matrix! Spread this far and wide and lets give the NWO a black eye!

Federal Judge: Citizens Need Not Ask Permission to Exercise 2nd Amendment Rights

March 13, 2012 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, US News

(THE NEW AMERICAN)   A federal judge struck down a Maryland law requiring individuals to prove that they have “good and substantial reason” for seeking a handgun carry permit from the state.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” wrote U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

The suit was brought by Navy veteran Raymond Woollard, who lives on a farm in rural Baltimore County. On December 24, 2002, Woollard’s son-in-law, Kris Lee Abbott, on a drug-induced high broke into Woollard’s house during a family gathering in search of his wife’s car keys so he could go buy more drugs. Woollard momentarily stopped Abbott by aiming a shotgun at him, but Abbott wrested the gun away from him, only to be halted again by Woollard’s son, who also had a gun. Woollard and his son then kept Abbott at bay until the police arrived two-and-a-half hours later.

Abbott was convicted of first degree burglary and put on probation. He was later incarcerated for violating his probation.

Woollard, who now knew that he could not count on the police to come to his aid in an emergency, applied for a handgun carry permit in 2003. The permit was granted, as was Woollard’s request to renew it three years later, just after Abbott was released from prison. However, when Woollard attempted to renew his permit again in 2009, his request was denied by the Maryland state police on the basis that he had not demonstrated to their satisfaction that he was in danger. His appeals were denied on the same basis.

At that point he sued the State Police Secretary and the Handgun Permit Review Board. He was represented by attorney Alan Gura of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), who has argued — and won — two significant gun rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court: District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), in which the court found that the Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms; andMcDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which the court found that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

Relying in part on those two decisions, Judge Legg held that the Maryland law “impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment” by imposing “a rationing system” that “aims … simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside the home by limiting the privilege to those who can demonstrate ‘good reason’ beyond a general desire for self-defense.”

Legg elaborated:

A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered “reasonably adapted” to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland‘s goal of “minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them,”… is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly. Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself.

He also pointed out that “issuing permits specifically to those applicants who can demonstrate an increased likelihood that they may need a firearm would seem a strange way to allay Defendants‘ fear that ‘when handguns are in the possession of potential victims of crime, their decision to use them in a public setting may actually increase the risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others’” because this policy “puts firearms in the hands of those most likely to use them in a violent situation.” (Emphasis in original.)

Legg’s ruling was far from an absolute affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms. In keeping withHeller and McDonald, he maintained that states have the right to restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms in a variety of ways. The problem with the Maryland law, he wrote, “lies in the overly broad means by which it seeks to advance [the] undoubtedly legitimate end” of protecting the public from crime. In other words, there is nothing wrong with a state’s requiring individuals to obtain permits to carry handguns, but there is something wrong with presumptive denial of a permit unless an applicant can convince the state that he might actually need to use a gun in his own defense.

Of course, giving the government the power to decide who is deserving of his rights is anathema to the original understanding of the Bill of Rights, which held that the those 10 amendments merely codified preexisting, God-given rights and prevented the government from infringing on them. (The Second Amendment specifically states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which presumes that the right already exists.) It is, however, perfectly in keeping with the philosophy of the gun control crowd.

“It’s perfectly reasonable and prudent for Maryland to have law enforcement decide who has a demonstrated need to carry loaded guns in public,” Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Baltimore Sun. Not surprisingly, the Brady Center submitted a brief to the court siding with the state.

Even the SAF isn’t “against the idea of a permit process,” Gura told Fox News. All they want, Gura added, is for “the licensing system … to acknowledge that there’s a right to bear arms.” He therefore declared Legg’s decision “a great boost for the right to bear arms,” according to the Washington Post.

The foundation itself hailed the ruling as “a huge victory,” with SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb saying it is “a monumentally important decision” because “the federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one’s doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be.”

The Maryland Attorney General’s office said it would appeal and request a stay of the decision. The plaintiff’s lawyers, too, vowed to fight on. They also said they hoped it would help them in court battles in other states that grant permits on a discretionary basis.

In the Old Line State, the outcome of the appeal may ultimately be moot if Republicans in the House of Delegates get their way; they have four bills pending to repeal the “good and substantial reason” requirement. Del. Michael D. Smigiel, Sr., sponsor of one of the bills, even got Maryland State Police Lt. Jerry Beason to admit that the language is “impossible” to define, the Post reports. Perhaps Legg’s decision will spur the legislature, which has heretofore been unwilling to address the matter, to pass one of the repeal bills.


Maher defends SOPA, calls piracy ‘Caucasian looting’

January 22, 2012 by  
Filed under Media Fail, US News

(RAW STORY)   The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) maybe placed on the back burner for the moment. But that didn’t stop Bill Maher from providing support for future “anti-piracy” bills Friday evening.

Maher explained that his view is based on illegal copies of his 2008 movie Religulous being downloaded online, calling concerns about SOPA and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) “a red herring.”

“Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this, that this isn’t brought up enough,” he said. “People just want to steal because they can. I call it Caucasian looting. And just because you’re sitting at your computer in your pajama bottoms doesn’t mean you’re not stealing.”

Maher, who admitted he hasn’t read any of the anti-piracy bills, faced strong disagreement from panel guests Bobby Roemer, Jennifer Granholm, and conservative columnist Matt Lewis.

“This bill managed the internet and took the most creative part of our economic world, the Internet, and tried to manage it from Washington D.C,” Roemer said. “It’s a mistake.”

Granholm added: “They need to deal with this with a scalpel and not an ax.”

WATCH: Video from HBO, which was broadcast on January 20, 2012.


Thomas Jefferson Quotes

October 25, 2011 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, US News

Read more

What Did The Founding Fathers Think?

September 13, 2011 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, US News

(FEDERALJACK)   Some quotes from the Founding Fathers that might help you get a different perspective on freedom and knowledge.

Read more

RIP – Joyce Rosenwald at 69 – Legal Researcher

August 4, 2011 by  
Filed under US News

(TOAIP)   Joyce Rosenwald, an extraordinary legal researcher, passed away at 3am July 26th in her home in California. She was 69 years of age. Joyce was hardy in spirit and a vigilant freedom fighter. She will be missed.

Send condolences to (one of the RBN people ?)


(From one of our fellow prisoners)… Joyce was on the James Madison Talkshoe call July 19th the night before her final stroke — she and Patrick Devine met for the first time and she said, “Where have you been all my life ? ! ?” — the call lasted 5 hours and 41 minutes…I listened that night – not knowing it would be the last time she would talk to us…she showed up an hour or two into the call— apparently she was a regular on James’ calls, which I didn’t know about. They had a great meeting of the minds but of course, she interrupted him a lot since she knows so much that her information just pours out… there was so much information and discovery going on…

the following was posted:

 From James Madison:

 Every now and then you meet someone that touches you so that you immediately become friends.

 I’m the sort of guy that tends to see thru the talk and can sense the heart. If someone is complaining about things, as we freedom lovers tend to do, I feel the pain in the heart through the words.

 At times the words sound angry. The pain in the heart is great then. I feel the pain in the hearts of those who love this nation.

 Her pain was greater than anyone I know, as was her love for America. In our last conversation she was so excited. “I figured it out” she said. “I know what all they did and I have the remedy”. Then she asked, “Do you think they will listen? Do you think they will use it and fix this nation before we lose it?”

 For more than forty years she researched the Law, the record, the cases. Often she would call and say, “Mr. Madison, you’re not going to believe what I just found. I can’t believe what these bastards have done to us.” And then she would send me another ton of documents.

 You know, some day I WILL read them all. Every single word. Maybe then I will know the remedy too.

 She had been ill for quite some time. She knew she wouldn’t be around much longer. She was determined to get to the bottom of everything before she left.

 She was headstrong. She was determined to wake the people up, to get them to DO something about what was going on. When she was on the show you couldn’t get a word in edgewise. A few on the last show complained and told me I should shut her up. Maybe they’ll be happy now, but I doubt it.

 On 20 July she had another stroke. Her last one. She’s happy about that. At 6:15 the morning of 26 July she went to be with our Creator. Peace at last eh Joyce? You knew it would take this to find it. You always said you didn’t want to be around to see the country go down.

 Now will you please come and help me put this law suit together? You know I need your help, as always.

 I’m going to miss you Joyce Rosenwald. I love you Dear. Thank you so much for all you have given us.

 Mr. Madison

 The 5 hour 41 minute audio link to the James Madison Talkshoe call referenced above…


One of Joyce’s most famous treatises:

Parens Patriae….Government as Parent

Another famous article…

 To Whom Your Children Belong ?

And, another from 1997…


And, another, not sure when this was written…


Joyce’s website: It says “Under Construction,” but the top menu bar has some articles available…some written by Joyce, some not…

A short audio dose of Joyce … 1:47

 A full dose of Joyce is available here…

Guests: Peter Niece & Joyce Rosenwald,
 Wednesday, MARCH 23rd 2011
…in the 2nd Hour, 49 mins 8 sec

 RIP, Joyce !

« Previous PageNext Page »