Awake

-Are you a God?
- they asked the Buddha.
- No.
- Are you an angel, then?
- No.
- A saint?
- No.
- Then what are you?
-
I am AWAKE.



Einstein

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure of
the universe"-Albert Einstein-


Om Mani Padme Hum

Matthew 25:40

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 7 1-6


1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Our Broken System: Lessons from Ferguson

I came across this article at Personal Liberty Link to Personal Liberty and it says many things that need to be said, many things I wish I said first. But the author Ron Lee as a professional writer and author has more credibility. So here's the article read it for yourself and see what you think.

Lee Murray

PS  The emphasis is mine...

Our Broken System: Lessons from Ferguson


This article was published originally by the US~Observer. Link US Observer

We, the people, lost in Ferguson, Missouri — not because the people took to the streets and smashed and burned and shot and looted, however mindless those activities were and made humanity seem. It was a greater loss, the further erosion of our rights and just superiority as sovereign citizens above government officials who are nothing more than our employees. In a system of justice that I know — and report on regularly — that lies and steals and cheats to get its man, I know, too, it protects its own with the same vigilance. And the lack of an indictment was, to me, no exception. It was a reminder that the system is broken and the media manipulative, that the world we live in is controlled — and not fairly or justly.
What I personally took away from the explanation of how and why the grand jury came to its decision to not indict Officer Darren Wilson is that had he been anyone other than a police officer, he would likely be facing charges.
Let’s be real. A grand jury isn’t a magical group of people who know all and see all; it is a group of people who get to see only the evidence the prosecuting attorney decides to show them. So if the prosecutor has an agenda to not prosecute, the evidence will reflect that agenda. And the grand jury will come back with the corresponding ruling. It’s that simple, and everything is supported by the government’s own statistics. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in only 11 of them.
It really is an “us” and “them” thing now. And no matter what your ethnicity, we as citizens just got reminded that to be them means they get treated differently than if they were us.
It’s sad. And what is worse is you have the mainstream media out there promoting this as either right (Fox News: a triumph of a system that you can trust in) or wrong, but both sides are calling it a race issue and not seeing it for what it really is — a miscarriage of justice, pure and simple.
Police agencies have paid out millions of dollars in civil liability claims across this country where bad police officers have killed, maimed or otherwise harmed the citizens they are supposed to protect. But few, if any, ever face criminal charges for their obviously criminal actions. If they are held civilly liable, they should be held criminally liable as well.
Every day, there is more evidence of corrupt police officers overstepping their bounds and abusing their authority. And there are more people facing false charges, stacked by scum-sucking prosecuting attorneys who just want a conviction. What a joke.
So what is the solution?
In our day and age of technology, there is no reason that every police officer shouldn’t be mandated to wear a personal recording device to ensure that all of the unadulterated evidence is available to the public.
Also, we have to eliminate the immunity prosecutors and judges enjoy. With their protections gone, bad police officers will have no one to protect them. The system will be taken back by the public it is supposed to serve.
We have to ensure our justice system blindly seeks justice and the corruption that now plagues it is extinguished.
I invite all righteous prosecutors, police officers, public defenders and truly unbiased judges to join me at the US~Observer as we continue our fight against everything that is wrong in the system. Join us as contributors and expose those who violate their oaths and harm the citizens.
We have to make sure that what happened in Ferguson, and in every other city where the system has overstepped its bounds, doesn’t ever happen again. That is something I am sure we can all agree on.
Read my last article, “Obstruction of Justice.”
–Ron Lee


Sunday, November 16, 2014

Death Visits Ferguson, Missouri in the Guise of Darren Wilson


I'll keep this short as I've been told by commenters, as well as friends that I post too much about police brutality, the problem though isn't me, it's the increasing frequency of murder by cop. I deliberately had stopped posting on this subject but it keeps happening, it seems every day.
In the case of Michael Brown, the cop, of course, Darren Wilson claims that Brown was trying to take his gun and had "beat him up" in the attempt. But frankly, even if that's true, all it shows is that he was a coward who killed Brown out of pique or revenge, as Brown was unarmed, and no where near Wilson when murdered. 
If I, or anyone else without a badge, i.e. a cop, had been beaten up, allegedly, and then had shot his alleged attacker, emptying the gun a minute or so later, they'd have been locked away no question. So why hasn't Wilson? Or any one of the thousands of other perpetrators of murder by cop? Why is all they get the proverbial slap on the wrist, if they get anything at all, and then go on as though nothing ever happened, while their victims, and the families of their victims, don't get to go on at all?
End of lecture.

Lee Murray


Daily Mail Article
NBC News Article
Wikipedia Article




Friday, October 24, 2014

Either Praise The Police Or Shut Up - Says NYC Police Union Commissar Patrick J. Lynch

Zipped mouth

Found this article on Personal Liberty, Original article on Personal Liberty

The only thing I'd add would be that police corruption, and brutality has been going on as long as there've been police. But lately American police have started moving in the direction of the Russian Cossacks who at the orders of the Czar or his minions made a habit of riding down and killing crowds of innocent citizens for instance during Bloody Sunday on January 22, 1905. Witness what happened  to the demonstrators in the Michael Brown demonstrations after he was murdered by a local Ferguson cop. True he, according to subsequent, after the fact, and under police protest, investigation may have attacked the cop, but at the time of his murder was far away and UNARMED, thereby NO threat to the cop, who of course used the most time tested, excuse of all cops, "I was in fear for my life."

Lee Murray

Article on Bloody Sunday

Time Article On the Michael Brown murder in Ferguson Missouri 

Either praise the police or shut up

This article originally appeared on Pro Libertate
Following Alexander the Great’s conquest of Persia, members of the Persian elite were required to prostrate themselves before their new ruler. Polyperchon, one of Alexander’s generals, sternly rebuked one of the Persians whose self-abasement was seen as inadequate.
“Come on, don’t just touch the floor with your chin,” demanded Alexander’s arrogant underling. “Bang it, man! Bang it!”
Police union commissar Patrick J. Lynch displays more than a hint of that attitude in dealing with a public that at long last has become disgusted with routine and impenitent criminal corruption on the part of the state’s consecrated dispensers of violence.
For Lynch (whose views are very commonplace in law enforcement), any attitude toward police other than abject, servile gratitude is unacceptable and perhaps even criminal. This is true even of those who preface modulated discussion of unambiguous criminal misconduct with the familiar disclaimer: “Not all cops are bad.”
“Proclaiming that `not all cops are bad’ implies that rational people might somehow believe the opposite,” Lynch whined in a recent column for the New York Post. “It lends cop-haters a credibility they don’t deserve. And it minimizes the dedication and professionalism that police officers display, day in and day out, by implying that it’s the exception rather than the rule.”
From Lynch’s perspective, sycophancy toward the licensed purveyors of violence is a civic obligation, and the public has a duty to sustain the pretense that every single police officer is a divinely commissioned instrument of justice and the distillate of valor.
Lynch demands that the public accept the proposition that “all cops put their lives on the line to protect all New Yorkers.” The New York Police Department formally repudiated that claim in its official reply to a lawsuit filed by the heroic Joseph Lozito, who was cut to ribbons while taking down crazed serial killer Maksim Gelman in a subway car as officer Terrance Howell cowered behind a glass partition.
Howell was hailed as a “hero,” and the NYPD deflected Lozito’s lawsuit by insisting that “under well-established law, the police … have no special duty” to protect an individual citizen.
For cops, “officer safety” is always the prime directive. Lynch would contend that the public must embrace Howell as a hero because of his occupation — or, failing that, stifle any criticism of his behavior. Extolling him as a heroic exemplar is acceptable; describing him as an anomalous “bad apple” is not.
According to Lynch, police are victimized by an invidious double standard. After all, “when a patient dies on the operating table under dubious circumstances, elected officials don’t rush to reassure the public that not all surgeons are incompetent. If an airline pilot is caught drinking before take-off, TV talking heads don’t remind us that the majority of pilots are sober.”
Leaving aside the fact that the mechanisms of professional accountability for surgeons and pilots are much more demanding than those that exist in law enforcement, the most obvious problem with Lynch’s desperate analogy is that people in those professions are actually rendering a service to the public. Police have no enforceable duty to do likewise.
Doctors help their patients; pilots safely convey passengers to their chosen destinations. Private security personnel defend persons and property. For people in those professions, success is measured in terms of positive outcomes for paying customers, and failure is recognized as either unavoidable misfortune or culpable incompetence.
For police officers, by way of contrast, “success” results when those targeted in displays of government-sanctioned violence either submit or are subdued, often with lethal consequences — even when the recipient of that violence did nothing to warrant such treatment.
According to Lynch, the death of Eric Garner — who was suspected of selling untaxed cigarettes — at the hands of an NYPD thugscrum was a “success.” Once the officers had decided to abduct Garner, “failure” — meaning successful resistance by their victim — was no longer an option.
What should police do, Lynch complained in a recent press conference, “when we’re faced with a situation where the person being placed under arrest says, `I’m not going. I’m not being placed under arrest.’ What is it we should do? Walk away?”
If the arrestee wasn’t involved in an actual crime — and there’s no evidence that Garner had done anything other than embarrass plainclothes officers by breaking up a fight — then the inescapable answer is: Yes, the police should walk away.
“We don’t have that option,” Lynch asserts, which means that officers are entitled to “use necessary force to make that arrest.” In the case of Garner, this included the use of an illegal chokehold by officer Daniel Pantaleo, which resulted in a criminal homicide.
“There is an attitude on our streets today that it is acceptable to resist arrest,” grouses Lynch. “That attitude is a direct result of a lack of respect for law enforcement.”
Actually, that attitude is in large measure a reflection of the ever-escalating lawlessness of the government employees represented by Lynch and his comrades. It may also reflect a growing appreciation for the fact that resisting unlawful arrest — while considered a crime and prosecuted as if it were — is an ancient, venerable, and indispensable right of free people. Under the still-valid Supreme Court precedent John Black Elk v. U.S. (1900), a citizen has a legally recognized right to use lethal force to prevent the consummation of an unlawful arrest, and bystanders likewise have a right (and perhaps a moral duty) to intervene on behalf of the victim.
Like other agencies of its kind, the NYPD is well-stocked with the kind of privileged bullies who have mastered the art of simultaneously swaggering and simpering. Thus, anonymous NYPD sources described anti-police graffiti to the New York Post as “a disturbing hate crime.”
Through video surveillance, the NYPD identified 36-year-old Rosella Best as the culprit. Best tagged police vehicles and a public school with graffiti expressing such eminently defensible (if grammatically awkward) sentiments as “NYPD pick on the harmless,” “NYPD pick on the innocent,” and — in a display of familiar but increasingly justified hyperbole — “NAZIS=NYPD.” (Assuming that Best used only “public” property as her canvas, it’s difficult to identify an actual victim in this case.)
Best was charged with “criminal mischief as a hate crime.” Under Article 485 of New York Penal Law, a “hate crime” must involve “violence, intimidation [or] destruction of property” inspired by animus toward people on the basis of “race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation.”
Absent from that inventory is any mention of occupation as a “protected category,” which means that the NYPD must consider itself to be either a tribe, a cult or perhaps even a sexual orientation, most likely one that fetishizes sadistic mistreatment of the helpless.
The statute also specifies that the offending act must be intended to “inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage” and be intended to “intimidate and disrupt entire communities.” By filing a hate crimes charge against Best, the NYPD is certifying that its rank and file consists of people who are wounded and intimidated by public criticism. If the bold and valiant badasses of the NYPD must be protected from hurtful words, they’re obviously not the kind of people who “put their lives on the line to protect all New Yorkers,” as Lynch would have us pretend.
All police officers embody “selflessness and courage,” Lynch maintains. But there is one “nightmare” that burdens their waking thoughts and holds sleep in abeyance: accountability.
“We have watched in disbelief as the worst nightmare a police officer can have comes true,” wailed retired Jersey City Police Officer Robert Cubby in a post at LawEnforcementToday.com, referring to the prospect of criminal charges against Pantaleo for killing Garner. “An NYPD officer applied what was falsely called a choke hold. Moments later, the perpetrator gasped for air and died in the hospital.”
These two developments, Cubby would have us pretend, were not necessarily related. It’s not that Garner’s government-employed assailants killed him; he just chose that particular moment to die.
Now that the death of Garner — who was not a “perpetrator” of any sort, once again, but rather a man who had just broken up a fight — has been ruled a homicide, the “career of those involved from the NYPD dangles from a thread,” moans Cubby. “The officers face the worst possible nightmare; loss of their career and being thrown in jail for a good portion of the rest of their lives.”
The same would be true of anybody else who fatally assaulted another human being without cause. Cubby and people of his ilk assume that police officers must be beyond accountability for such actions and that the loss of their exalted station as dispensers of lethal force is a fate worse than death.
“While these officers now become defendants and have to, somehow, gather enough emotional strength to get through this horrible accusation [and] gather all their financial resources to defend themselves, stay out of jail and retain their jobs, it is time for the LEO family to support our NYPD brothers and sisters,” insists Cubby. He suggested that members of the state’s armed enforcement class display their solidarity with Garner’s killers through a “United We Stand with NYPD” social media campaign: Law enforcement officers and their friends were urged to change their Facebook profile picture to an upside-down NYPD flag. That green, white, and blue banner, which was adopted by the department in 1919, is draped over the coffins of officers who are killed in the line of duty.
After all, if a costumed tax-feeder can’t kill without consequence, what’s the point of living?
Cubby’s suggestion, it should be pointed out, was made before the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, in August — which led to protests, riots and a Fallujah-grade crackdown by fully militarized “local” police. The well-publicized conduct of the police in Ferguson finally forced the public to confront what the police have become. This, in turn, helped propagate an epidemic of institutional self-pity within law enforcement, and Lt. Daniel Furseth of Wisconsin’s DeForest PD came down with a particularly severe case.
“Today, I stopped caring about my fellow man,” begins Furseth’s Oct. 14 essay in American Police Beat Magazine. “I stopped caring about my community, my neighbors, and those I serve. I stopped caring today because a once noble profession has become despised, hated, distrusted, and mostly unwanted.”
Furseth, like Lynch, is disillusioned not because of what their profession has become, but because of how it is perceived by an ungrateful public that is proving itself unworthy of their sanctified overseers. Furseth also seems deaf to the implications of his own overwrought, self-fixated rhetoric: If he stopped “caring” about the people he “serves,” shouldn’t he resign? Or is he admitting to being a state-licensed sociopath with permission to inflict violence on a public he now views with unfiltered scorn and unalloyed resentment?
“I stopped caring today because parents tell their little kids to be good or `the police will take you away,’ embedding a fear from year one,” complains Furseth, offering a variation on Lynch’s complaint that even people who respect the police understand that they are agents of violence. He likewise condemns those who quite correctly describe the police as “just another tool used by government to generate `revenue.’”
In offering that particular complaint, Furseth reveals himself to be either incurably disingenuous or a stranger to the concept of irony.
DeForest, Wisconsin, is a town of about 9,000 people located not far from Madison, the state capital. It is roughly 91 percent white and has a crime rate less than one-third the national average — and a violent crime rate so low it doesn’t make the needle twitch. Revenue collection through traffic enforcement and OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) “saturation patrols” are the chief functions of that police department.
Furseth proudly describes himself as the creator of the Capital Area OWI Task Force, which regularly conducts patrols for the purpose of “pulling over drivers as often as possible in a friendly show of force,” in the oxymoron-infused language of a local news account.
The DeForest PD’s 2013 Annual Report smugly observes: “One individual stated the following on a social media site: `Dude, I refuse to drive into DeFo with anything remotely illegal in my car, it seems like there’s a cop on every street.’”
That’s a sensible precaution, given that the “friendly” people responsible for that state of affairs are not only doing everything possible to wring revenue from visitors, but are also obsessively monitoring social media.
“We represent a `Police State’ where `Jackbooted badge-wearing thugs’ randomly attack innocent people without cause or concern for constitutional rights,” laments Furseth. “We are Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Rodney King all rolled into one….”
Notably absent from his jeremiad is any acknowledgement, however qualified or tentative, that the perception he laments could possibly be justified. If he possesses so much as a particle of principled concern for the rights of innocent people, Furseth will reach beyond his privileged peer group and offer support to a local family who suffered horribly “without cause or concern for constitutional rights” in a 3 a.m. no-knock SWAT assault.
DeForest is about a half-hour from Madison, which is where the family of Bounkham Phonesavanh — more commonly known as “Baby Bou-Bou” –resides. The 20-month-old child was nearly murdered by police in Georgia on May 28 during a 3 a.m. no-knock SWAT raid. Acting on the basis of purchased intelligence from a petty criminal, the raiders attacked the home without warning, hurling a flash-bang grenade into the living room. The infernal device exploded in Bou-Bou’s crib, blowing off his nose and ripping open his chest.
The Phonesavanh family was residing temporarily with an aunt in Georgia. The parents weren’t suspected of any criminal conduct; but that didn’t prevent the invaders from assaulting the father, leaving him with a permanent shoulder injury. No drugs or other evidence was found at the home, nor was the relative suspected of drug dealing.
The tiny victim was still in a medically induced coma when Habersham County Sheriff Jerry Terrell officially exonerated the officers who had nearly murdered him: “I stand behind what our team did. There’s nothing to investigate, there’s nothing to look at.” Public outrage eventually led to a grand jury inquest, which did little more than ratify the sheriff’s claims.
Following a six-day investigation, the grand jury declined to indict the law enforcement officers who participated in that atrocity.
The prologue to the grand jury’s “Presentment” is five pages of frothy self-justification and pious persiflage emphasizing the public-spiritedness of the panel and extending sympathy to both the victims and perpetrators of this atrocity.
“Nothing can be more difficult and heart-wrenching than injuries to one’s child,” the document asserts, before suggesting that inflicting such injuries can be just as traumatic to the exalted instruments of state coercion who nearly killed Bou-Bou. “[W]e wish to extend our sympathy also to the law enforcement officers involved… [W]hat has not been seen before by others and talked or written about, is that these individuals are suffering as well.”
That “suffering,” like the nearly fatal injuries to Bou-Bou, came after an investigation that was “hurried, sloppy, and unfortunately not in accordance with the best practices and procedures.” This wasn’t “criminal negligence,” mind you, but simply the regrettable result of “well-intentioned people getting in too big a hurry, and not slowing down and taking enough time to consider the possible consequences of their actions.”
This assessment might be appropriate in describing the distracted and inattentive cook who sets fire to a stove. Applying it to people who carried out an unjustified 3 a.m. military-style assault that left an infant fighting for his life is an obscenity.
The most abhorrent passage in this document comes on page 13, where “the parents and extended family” of the victim are cut in for a share of the blame, because they supposedly “had some degree of knowledge concerning family members involved in criminal activity that came in and out of the residence.” Bou-Bou’s parents had taken refuge with relatives in Georgia after their home in Wisconsin was burned down. They weren’t implicated in the alleged wrongdoing of their relative; they were simply desperate for a place to live.
Bou-Bou’s parents, who moved back to Wisconsin in July, have been saddled with more than $1 million in medical bills. After initially promising to help defray those expenses, Habersham County officials — displaying the selective, self-serving fastidiousness for “law” that is so typical of tyrants and bureaucrats — now insist that it would be “illegal” to do so.
Daniel Furseth is a neighbor to the Phonesevanh family. He ends his essay with a self-dramatizing flourish: “Yes, I stopped caring today. But tomorrow, I will put my uniform back on and I will care again.”
If the compass of his caring extends beyond his comrades in the coercive caste — and there is videotaped evidence that he has a soft spot for small children — Furseth really should extend his sympathies to the Phonesevanhs, perhaps by organizing a fundraising effort to help those innocent people pay the costs of restoring their mangled baby to health.
By doing so, however, Furseth would acknowledge that decent people have abundant reason to look upon the police with fear and suspicion. And that is a concession he probably cannot bring himself to make.
–William N. Grigg

Saturday, August 30, 2014

It's Just A Movie... But Is It?

My friend and fellow blogger Bill McDonald aka Morongobill, said in reference to a comment I made about some movie once while riding down to Sammy's Camera, "it's only a movie." But is it? Isn't it more? You could also say, it's just a book. A lot of people over the centuries have said just that. Bill has a preference for books, but none for movies. Like most people he sees movies as nothing but entertainment, like a fictional book, just a story, with no value beyond that. But is that true? Think about it. Non-fiction is easy basically it's history. But, let's look at fictional books for a moment. In fiction, the writer has a tougher job than a non-fiction author, he must create a world that we the readers recognize, understand, and accept, at the very least as possible, if not being our own world. He must create characters that fit the same parameters. For this reason the job is at the very best difficult, at the worst impossible as illustrated by thousands of bad books. For instance regarding bad books,  I started reading a book called  "A Game of Thrones," a fantasy which with the others in its series is the basis of a TV show. It was recommended by a guy I work with, who watches the TV show.  So far I'm about 30 pages into it and the ignorance and violence, the psychotic nature of the characters is disturbing and unreal. It's set in a supposed time I suppose similar to the middle ages.
But, you can't say it's just a book, I'd like to, but a lot of people enjoy and believe the story it tells, and see the characters in themselves. See the fantasy world disturbing as it is as possible.
To me most movies, and books, are windows into worlds I'll never experience or into the past. But some like "Game of Thrones," and its ilk, like a lot of video games are windows into worlds most of us could not, or would not, or should not recognize.
Thinking about it I have to add: It seems that all of it, movies, TV and books of all kinds are descending to the lowest common denominator at the speed of light, as are people themselves and life in general in many ways. I'll leave the how and why to your imagination.

Lee Murray      

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Senator Read vs Rancher Bundy - Reid Reeks Of The Smell Of Corruption Like a 10 Day Old Corpse

Found this article about a theory for why Reid is trying to force a rancher whose family has been ranching there for well over 100 years out at Original Article: Personal Liberty .  This article details a great deal of the corruption in the Reid regime, if not done in his own name it's his family and friends.  Like the Godfather he seems to be running a protection racket among other crimes. Read this article and watch the video it'll start to open your eyes to the criminal corruption running rampant throughout our government from Washington down the line to our smallest village.
The only people that need to turn out an armed response like what happened at the Bundy ranch, and Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and dozens if not hundreds of other places are Emperors, Tsars, Dictators and those who believe they're Emperors, Tsars, or Dictators. They use the military and militarized police to hold those that they think they rule, those that they believe they're better than, those that they consider scum and terrorists, in other words people like us, you and me, because we dare to stand up to them. Well, I've got news for them, this country was built by people like us and betrayed, corrupted, and on its way to destruction because of people like them, like Obama who has expressed his hatred and contempt for this country publicly, by the Bush's George I and II, together with their minions.
(The pictures are my addition, and didn't come from the article.)

Lee Murray






















Government Assault On Nevada Ranch?
April 18, 2014 by                                        





Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. I live in Las Vegas. I live and breathe Nevada politics. Something is very wrong. Something smells rotten in the Nevada desert. And Senator Harry Reid’s fingerprints are all over it.
I am, of course, referring to the Bundy ranch siege. This was a dispute between a Nevada ranching family with rights to the land in question for 140 years and the Bureau of Land Management. The government claims they haven’t paid grazing fees for 20 years. The result was a government assault on the ranch, including snipers with assault rifles, SUVs, helicopters, airplanes and more than 200 heavily armed troops. No matter whether you come down on the side of the government or the ranch family, I think all of us can agree this was excessive force.
But forget all that. I believe the more important question is: Why is this case so important to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Reid, and what was his involvement in this controversial assault?
Let’s start with Reid’s obsession with the case. Just on Monday evening he weighed in again, promising, “This isn’t over.”
Doesn’t it strike anyone as strange that the U.S. Senate Majority Leader is so obsessed with a small rancher who hasn’t paid grazing fees? Does New York Senator Chuck Schumer get involved publicly when a New York company is late paying rent to the U.S. government?
Doesn’t the Senate Majority Leader have anything more important to think about? There are almost 100 million working-age Americans no longer working. More Americans are today on entitlements than working in the private sector. More Americans are on food stamps than the number of women working in America. Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Russian jet fighters are threatening American ships. Yet Reid obsesses about a rancher late on his rent? Something smells fishy, folks.
There are other questions raised about Reid’s involvement. Why did this assault become the No. 1 priority of government only days after a senior political adviser to Reid took over BLM? Coincidence?
Government appeared completely uninterested in backing down for days on end… and completely unconcerned with instigating a deadly confrontation like Waco or Ruby Ridge. Then suddenly, Reid’s involvement was brought up by conservative websites across the Internet. Instantly, out of the blue — within hours of Reid’s name being attached to the raid — the BLM decided to back down, pack up and walk away. Don’t you think that this timing was a tad too coincidental?
It has been pointed out by journalists intent on covering for Reid that a $5 billion Chinese solar project backed by Reid was recently shelved. But what they forgot to mention is Reid’s involvement in multiple solar and wind projects across the Nevada desert. Only days ago, Reid was featured in a photo at a groundbreaking ceremony for a new solar project. Where is that project located? Thirty-five miles from the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville, Nev.
Reid’s fingers are in virtually every solar and wind project in the Nevada desert. Green energy is his obsession. Green energy is his baby. His vision is turning the Nevada desert into the “Green Energy Capital of America.”
Who benefits from that vision? Democratic donors who run green energy companies. Who stands in the way of that vision? Nevada’s ranchers, farmers and property owners — almost all of whom are diehard Tea Party conservatives and patriots, who despise Reid.
Reid and the BLM needed a “cover story” to take the land away from the ranchers. So they claim it’s about protecting the “endangered” desert tortoise.
But if the protection of the desert tortoise was so important to the BLM, why did the same BLM kill hundreds of desert tortoises last fall?
If protecting the tortoises was so important, why has the BLM constantly waived rules protecting the desert tortoise for multiple solar and wind projects? If cattle are a danger to tortoises, why are solar panels and wind turbines not a danger?
There’s much more to this story, folks. My educated guess is that someone in the government already has big plans lined up for the Bundy ranch. Someone is going to make a financial killing with this forceful land grab. Someone powerful in government wants the Bundy family off their land (after 140 years).
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It was Reid who famously made a guess about Mitt Romney’s taxes. He guessed wrong. No one seemed to mind. So now it’s time for all of us to ask questions about Reid’s involvement in this scandal and government land grab. It’s time for the media to investigate.
I’m only guessing, but something smells very rotten in Nevada.
I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. God bless America

Friday, January 24, 2014

Was What Is Now Undersea Once Above Ground???

They're now saying there's as much or more oil available for deep drilling than what was available in on land oil pools. Oil allegedly comes from organic material from thousands of years ago that disintegrated and pooled into petroleum deep underground, and apparently underground miles under the ocean. It suggests that what we now see as ocean was once dry ground with an abundance of the organic material that becomes oil, and long enough ago that as it became oil thousands of feet of ground formed over it, before it sank or was covered over by the sea.  It makes me wonder how many times this earth has been terra-formed between civilizations or even species? It also suggests that in this world as long as oil is necessary we'll have oil, once we no longer need it, it'll go away.

Lee Murray

Monday, January 20, 2014

Civilization???

I was watching a program on TV today about Jericho, you know "Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and the walls come a tumblin' down," yep that's the one.
In this program they talked about the archeology of discovering that old Jericho. It seems that in the time of Joshua's attack on Jericho, the city was perhaps in its third incarnation with a population of 1200. They said that at this time it was surrounded by a mud brick wall built 15 feet high and 6 feet deep, and this city was built on top of another, which was built on top of another, creating a mound that put the Jericho of the time 50 feet high. the lower wall was also mud brick, but the lowest was made of cut stone.  Which suggests that whoever built the lowest stone wall had superior technology, that both of the mud brick walls were built by inferior civilizations. Of course today we're still using mud brick
(The term brick refers to small units of building material, often made from fired clay and secured with mortar, a bonding agent comprising of cement, sand, and water. Long a popular material, brick retains heat, with-stands corrosion, and resists fire. Because each unit is small—usually four inches wide and twice as long, brick is an ideal material for structures)  Link to Article about brick , but of better construction. But the first wall was stone, meaning that they possibly knew more. The program suggests that Joshua's battle took place somewhere around 1400-1500 BC, the city was rebuilt on top of the one that went before, but how long before, how and why was it so covered over with dirt that they couldn't just rebuild it, or possibly didn't even know it was under there. The same question applies to the stone walled city. That was the first question that came to mind. The modern city of Jericho sits there in the valley and on the outskirts a mound that's said to be Joshua's Jericho, where they're exploring and have found the walls.
If you think about it, if entire cities have been covered and built over here, why not anywhere, everywhere? It's been said there are underground portions of many cities that few of us know about, London, New York, Rome, and others I'm sure. How does it happen?
More important is if there were civilizations in the distant, distant, distant past, with steel skyscrapers, freeways, computers, cars, trucks, airplanes, all the things that we're sure make ours the greatest that ever existed, perhaps they're buried, buried far below in the ground and built over. Something to think about.

Lee Murray