U.N. Triumphs by Destroying Patriarchal Family

Headline: United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights "...high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births...represent...the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”

Why would anyone seriously applaud the breakdown of traditional family? Could there be an ulterior motive? Of course there is, it's the U.N.

One of the difficult hurdles to overcome in their desire to establish world government is the family who believes and teaches self governance according to laws higher than that of any government.

The purpose of "free" government education by central bureaucracy is not so much to teach the basics, but to create an ever-growing class of automatons who look to government to solve all of life's problems.

What are human rights? In reality they are those inherent in everyone at the beginning of life.

According to the United Nations, your rights are your rights unless they conflict with the stated purpose and goals of the U.N. If that's the case, then according to the most corrupt bureaucracy on earth, they were never really rights, were they?

Rights cannot be removed by statute nor the ravings of "One World Order" lunatic minds like UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman. I would say "send the U.N. to Haiti", but I would not wish that poisonous bureaucracy on any country. Maybe Antarctica, but I like penguins, too.

It should be clear by now that government (federal and global) eventually (or at the get-go) desires to replace your mommy and daddy -- in this case, globally. Perhaps, the only thing keeping that from happening in toto here in the U.S. is a population willing to hold its government to the limitations enumerated in the Constitution.

At the moment it's not looking too promising. Paging Dr. Paul. Your country is on life support.

Raw Milk Renegade from Mennonite Moo-Cows

Headline: The Criminalization of Raw Milk -- A Mennonite Farmer is Hauled Away "...he is not going to stop [selling raw milk] til he is ready to stop. He is the equivalent of that little black lady in Alabama who wouldn't go to the back of the bus. He is doing the same thing, he won't go to the back of bus." I wonder what Rosa Parks would think of the government denying a constitutionally proficient law-abiding citizen the right to enter into contracts with his neighbors and friends?

One of the key rights supposed to be protected by our government is the RIGHT to contract. Or is that now lost in a haze of collectivist protectionism coming from the elitists in BIG GOVERNMENT? Yes, that includes you Hillary Clinton. The brave Mr. Nolt is a threat to no one (except Monsanto and Big Government) and he understands what is at stake in his stance against government encroachment on the freedom to enter into private agreements.

"Mr. Nolt contends that the regulations have not been approved by the legislature and shouldn't apply to him because he is selling directly to consumers, via private contracts that are outside the purview of the state, making a privilege out of a right he believes he has - the right to private contracts."

It is rare to find many Americans which truly understand the difference between a right and a privilege, but I am privileged to know that the number of freedom-lovers is growing.

Often, we do not appreciate something until we have lost it. I feel that this is what is happening as more of our brothers and sisters awaken to an American terrain so overburdened with government regulation that the oxygen necessary for breathing may be available shortly only if you have a permit. Is it really "kooky" to desire freedom over false security? If it is, then consider me major-league-kooky and proud of it. I do not need nor desire a bureaucratic oligarchy on any level keeping me from raw milk just to fulfill their desire for raw power over the populace.

In this scenario, what is the difference between the U.S.A. and the old U.S.S.R.? At least in the Soviet Union, the people KNEW they were not free. You may claim you love liberty, but if you ain't got "raw" milk, it may be because you are not free to buy and sell raw milk without government permission. Then, ipso facto, you are not free.

I wonder if the Iraqis are free to have raw milk without first acquiring permission from government officials? If so, then George Bush should be applauded for making the world safe for raw milk, except for those left in the "homeland" under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture.

Is the Department of Agriculture now a subsidiary of the Department of Homeland Security? Why not go all the way and make the Constitution a sub-department therein as well? Or did they already do that with the passage of the misnamed Patriot Act? Got freedom?

I'd rather have a glass of nice cold raw milk AND freedom.

Eminent Domain and Property Rights of the King

Hollywood can use eminent domain on downtown property, court rules "Hotel and historic preservation is an acceptable reason for a government to take private property, the court said in a 3-0 ruling." What has private property to do with anything when local government can increase its tax revenues by turning "your" land over to private developers? Without private property, there can be no constitutional republic known as the United States of America.

With U.N. Debt for Nature swaps, reliance upon sub-prime mortgages and fiat money, the lack of allodial title, "we the people" already exist in a state of artificial reality. Oh sure, you can own "real estate" which you do not really own, as evidenced by the tax bill on it every year.

So who truly owns property anymore? The state even claims that it can force your children to accept vaccines and drugs whether or not you agree. In California, you can't home school without credentials approved by the state. Or maybe you can. Or maybe California state government is strangely schizophrenic. What else would you call a government of the people, by the people and for the people that treats the people as if they were subjects subservient to a monarchy?

If you never really owned it, what is the controversy with eminent domain? It's the government merely taking back what it allowed you to have the illusion of ownership over, that's all. Do you know anyone who owns property in allodium? Ask them if they pay property taxes. Direct taxation was specifically prohibited by the Constitution. So how did they get around it? I know that it's horrific to say, but they merely forget to tell you that you do not really own you.

Accept certification and numbering by the state and your status at law is magically transformed from sovereign to subject. What you do matters, even in ignorance. Accept the "benefit" and they get to make the rules. In this artificial reality, government only takes what you allow it to take, or you give to it voluntarily.

Property rights? Until the people of this nation understand what a RIGHT is, I think that the property issue is a moot point. Without property, there can be no RIGHTS. They are intricately linked and cannot be torn asunder unless you allow it. You want your rights back? Start by reading Chapter 2 of Michael Badnarik's book Good To Be King and understand the difference between a RIGHT and a privelege...