Net Neutrality Is A Very Bad Idea

The Net Neutrality regulations, according to our government, will give us a free and open Internet by granting them the power to regulate it. Wait… what? Isn’t the internet already free and open. So just what is this proposed Net Neutrality plan? Well that is the problem. Nobody seems to know for sure. The FCC has made it clear that they will not release the 332 page plan to “regulate” the Internet until after the agency votes on it. does that make you think of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous statement about the Affordable Care Act: Congress had to pass it for Americans to learn what it would do. Trust me when I say this…. This is bad for the Internet! Sooner or later, under FCC regulation of the Internet, there will be “regulatory capture”—large established firms exploiting regulations to suppress the emergence of small, creative startups. Because it will be impossible for the FCC to keep close tabs on thousands of Internet companies, they will find it expedient to limit the number of participants, finding it easier to oversee a few large corporations than countless smaller ones. Think of the investment implications here: Who knows how many would-be startups that might have become the next Facebook or Twitter may be strangled in their cribs by FCC regulators? Think of all the new millionaires that won’t be created. Successful investing in the Internet will be influenced greatly by which companies the FCC’s policies favor, meaning that the homework needed to discover which companies have the best business plan may not be as important as following what the FCC regulators do. Our entire system of government is owned and ran by politicians who pass legislation according to who is giving them the most money. And after seeing how government runs our healthcare, medicare and social security, do you really want them taking over the Internet? They can’t deliver our mail without going broke. Furthermore, imagine the power they have now and times it by a billion. We could easily see content being blocked, regulated and manipulated. Especially if it helps government and their agenda. How about reelection time? They could push whatever agenda they want right to your desktop. They already do this to us on our TV’s. Net neutrality wants to stop companies from assigning priorities to Internet traffic. The problem is, prioritization is the most elementary and necessary feature of economic activity and free markets. In a world of finite... read more

Public Servant or Bully?

Nothing makes me more angry than seeing videos of police using force and intimidation on innocent people. A man driving through an Illinois checkpoint attempted to exercise his Constitutional rights to question officers on whether he was being detained or free to go. The first Illinois State Police officer remained calm, especially considering the driver had informed him he was being recorded from the get-go. But a second officer who walked up to the car after the initial exchange, only to hear the man telling the cop that it was an unconstitutional stop, became so enraged that he yanked the door open and began yelling in his face. This officer doesn’t even know the law he is supposed to uphold. Driving is not a privilege. Travelling is a right, AND LOCK YOUR DOORS! “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. (“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.) “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179. “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293. Just saying he is wrong and a stupid road side thug. Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free and... read more

“I Don’t Answer Questions” Witness The Power Of Remaining Silent

Bringing about change in how our public servants treat us can only take place if YOU start to understand and insert your rights. Civil disobedience is one way to effect this change. It is very important to understand that the 5th Amendment protects the innocent more than the guilty. Knowing how to assert your rights is not only a good idea to prevent from being unlawfully kidnapped or caged, but it is also a successful catalyst for change when applied on a large enough scale. Remember, “Everything you say can and will be held against you.” This video shows how to properly remain silent during police interactions. It is as simple as stating, “I do not answer questions.” Because of the SCOTUS ruling in Salinas v. Texas, you are now expected to know that you have a right against self-incrimination, and unless you specifically and clearly invoke this right, anything you say or do not say, including your mannerisms at the time you stop talking, can be used against you. You actually have to say, “I do not answer questions.” Don’t concern yourself with what kind of interrogation you’re in. Don’t worry about whether Salinas applies in your particular situation. Just invoke your 5th Amendment right immediately, verbally, and clearly. Being stopped by police can be a particularly stressful experience. An innocent individual can easily get tricked into self-incriminating themselves as the police officer badgers and pries for information. Memorizing laws and and statutes can go a long way, however, having a business card handy, that states your rights for you, is much more convenient, especially when under the stress of a police stop. Side 1 “I hereby invoke and refuse to waive all of the following rights and privileges afforded to me by the United States Constitution. I invoke and refuse to waive my 5th Amendment right to Remain Silent. I invoke and refuse to waive my 6th Amendment right to an attorney of my choice. I invoke and refuse to waive my 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. If I am not presently under arrest, or under investigatory detention, please allow me to leave.” Side 2 “Officer, I Assert My Fifth Amendment Rights As Stated On This Card” Pursuant to the law, as established by the United States Supreme Court, my lawyer has advised me not to talk to anyone and not to answer questions about any pending criminal case or any... read more

Police over stepping their bounds

Please watch the video below after you finish reading this blog. You won’t believe the nerve of these police officers. A mother and father were on their way home with their 2 week old baby when they were stopped by police officers. Andre Stockett, the father and the passenger in the vehicle, and the man who took the video, has a good understanding of his rights when dealing with police. And you should as well. Despite the police pulling over the vehicle, for an alleged “traffic violation,” they do nothing to the driver. Her license is run and it comes back valid so they have nothing on them, yet like bullies on the playground they begin ganging up on Stockett. Stockett has committed no crime and has not been suspected of committing a crime, so he lawfully refuses to identify himself. You do not have to identify yourself as a passenger in a car. Period! However, this assertion of his rights does not go over well with the bullies on the playground, so Officer Denny throws a temper tantrum. The K-9 unit is brought in. Remember, K-9’s are not only often poorly trained, they are frequently wrong. They can also be taught to alert on cue. Stockett says that he does not consent to any searches, which is well within his rights. However, Officer Denny knows how to avert these rights; bring in the drug dog. Unfortunately in Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that police do not need reasonable suspicion to use drug dogs to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop and that a drug dog alerting to a vehicle allows them to search it. Can you see how this can go wrong? Stockett could have contended that this was no longer a “legitimate traffic stop” but it seems that nothing was going to stop these jackboots from arresting someone. After the dog allegedly ‘alerted’ to the vehicle, Stockett and his wife are told to get out of the vehicle. When they refuse, because they have a 2 week old infant in the back seat, these thugs threaten to take their baby! At this point in the video, if your blood is not boiling you are not a human being. The police continue to make up new reasons why they were pulled over and why they are being detained/arrested. It is absolutely infuriating. The asininity peaks when officer Denny backtracks and tells the family that... read more

Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccination Claims

Merck is currently facing serious allegations in regards to the efficacy of its MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine. The claims are put forth by two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010, along with a senior Centre for Disease Control (CDC) scientist by the name William Thompson. The complaint claim that they “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.” According to the court documents Merck’s misconduct is occurring in many different ways including: Failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented Manipulated testing methodology Abandoned undesirable test results Falsified test data Failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine Falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling Falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA Falsely certified compliance with the terms of the (Centre for Disease Control) CDC purchase contract Mislabeled, misbranded and falsely certified its mumps vaccine and The suit also alleges: “As the single largest purchaser of childhood vaccines (accounting for more than 50 percent of all vaccine purchasers), the United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck’s fraud. But the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with any level of protection against mumps. Merck’s Dismissal Attempt Denied. U.S. District judge threw out Merck’s dismissal attempts earlier this month, which means that this pharmaceutical giant will have to defend itself in at least two Federal court cases. Something To Consider These whistleblowers gave up everything to share this information – their jobs, their credibility, and their reputation. What would they have to gain from falsifying any of this information? They were directly involved in this cover-up and decided to speak out and share the truth. I think it is very important that we pay attention to what they are trying to say. When you really think about it, these are some pretty serious allegations put forth by former Merck and CDC employees, and this is some pretty big news. Why isn’t this information being reported in mainstream news? The media seems to hold a very one-sided view of vaccinations and they aren’t interested in reporting anything that may appear to delegitimize their... read more