pbsBlog.com: LOTS OF MOVIES About Things You Won't See on TV. Original content and political artwork. Come on by for a visit.

On Feb. 7th, in response to the criticism that the USA is trying to impose democracy on Iraq, Ms. Condoleeza Rice said, "Democracy doesn't have to be imposed. Tyranny has to be imposed." I couldn't agree more. I have never felt so imposed upon in my life by this government. I think it's a huge imposition to lose my right to not be searched or arrested without a warrant, and to lose my protections under the bill of rights. It is all being done without my consent, it is not my choice. I am emphatically against the invasion of Iraq, yet I don't have the right to refuse to support it financially. People go to prison for that. People who gather and assert their right to publicly protest anything this government does often feel the blows of billy clubs and the sting of pepper spray and they spend time behind bars. I find all of that to be one hell of an imposition. Ms. Rice is correct, democracy does not have to be imposed. But tyranny does.

How much more of an imposition can a system of government be? Taxes, fees, licenses and state imposed value systems. If they don't like the way you educate your children, they'll come take your children. If they don't want to promote justice, they don't. Innocent people are sitting on death row and I think that's one hell of an imposition. Do we care more about freedom or about punishing somebody, even if they aren't guilty of doing anything wrong? It's a choice our nation once made easily, keeping the point of all of this foremost in their minds. Freedom is what matters above all else because without it, nothing else matters at all.

The state is not comprised of representatives who are our equals. No citizen has the access, power and privelege our elected officials do. No citizen has secret weapons laboratories or the right to declare war on perfect strangers. No citizen could use other citizens as unwitting victims for chemical weapons testing or mind control experiments. No citizen can imprison another citizen for some small slight that didn't affect anyone else, or for what they do in the privacy of their own homes. What is the government doing in your living room anyway? Why are they concerned with your child's grades? What business is it of Uncle Sam what you decide for your child, yourself and your family? It isn't any of their business. Your next door neighbors don't have the right to interfere in your private life, and neither does the government but they do anyway, every day. In the process our citizenry is punished and stripped of rights; their bank accounts and properties are seized without justification, and people are used, abused and reduced to powerlessness. Nothing about that is remotely related to "democracy". Everything about it is an imposition. Is this a free republic? Or is this something else entirely?

This week pbsBlog is pleased to introduce you to someone you never heard of in school. He is an American who stood for what he knew was right and the government didn't like him very much. We hope you'll take the time to peruse his words and when you see that it's all an accurate description of what's going on in American government today you'll be surprised to find that these words were written in the 1800's. While you'll see an obvious pattern of the same concerns and problems we face today in struggling to retain our rights and freedoms, what Mr. Spooner is so amazing at is explaining in no uncertain terms what freedom really is. We hope you are enlightened by his words.

You can read more of Lysander Spooners works at this website: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/ ,which has been banned in China. (Now there's a clue for you.)

Comments and excerpts from

"A LETTER TO GROVER CLEVELAND" By Lysander Spooner

Let me bring you up to speed. When President Grover Cleveland gave his inaugural address he described his intention to do "equal and exact justice to all men". Lysander Spooner pointed out the hypocrisy of such an intention stating that justice is a natural thing and is self evident. He stated that justice is something that everyone already knows and can take care of for themselves. People understand what feels just and no body of men can come together to decide what they want justice to be and write laws to bring that imposed justice into existence. Justice is pre-existing and it needs no "laws" to be written.

Spooner says that justice is a natural thing and it is a science that can be studied and understood better, but it cannot be created by the will of men.

He is talking about common sense and that thing most of us have inside that makes it perfectly clear what is fair and what is not fair. Even very young children understand what's fair and unfair. Justice is very much a natural law that isn't affected by any kinds of laws that government can write.

An example of this would be the government passing a law to make it legal for things that go up, to come down again. Things that go up are going to come down whether the government says it legal or illegal. That's just the way reality is and writing any laws to decree it are ridiculous. It is not any written law that makes things that go up, come down again. Justice can only be figured out but it cannot be created to fit the desires of the government. Interestingly, Spooner also says that when the government writes laws that defy natural justice, they are simply unjust. It would be very much like passing a law that makes it illegal for things that go up to come down again. No matter how you cut it, legal or otherwise, it 's not up to the government to decide.

Frequently the government passes laws that force or allow certain people to do things that are not just, and they often write laws that prevent citizens from doing things that natural justice would otherwise allow. Because there is no justification for any of this, the laws the government imposes on us are, as he put it, "utterly and palpably false, absurd, and criminal".

He has a point. Here is an excerpt in his own words to explain what justice is and where it comes from:

"This science of justice, or natural law, is the only science that tells us what are, and what are not, each man's natural, inherent, inalienable, individual rights, as against any and all other men. And to say that any, or all, other men may rightfully compel him to obey any or all such other laws as they may see fit to make, is to say that he has no rights of his own, but is their subject, their property, and their slave.

For the reasons now given, the simple maintenance of justice, or natural law, is plainly the one only purpose for which any coercive power --- or anything bearing the name of government --- has a right to exist.

It is intrinsically just as false, absurd, ludicrous, and ridiculous to say that lawmakers, so-called, can invent and make any laws, of their own, authoritatively fixing, or declaring, the rights of individuals, or that shall be in any manner authoritative or obligatory upon individuals, or that individuals may rightfully be compelled to obey, as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences, as they see fit, and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them, instead of conforming them to the mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences of nature.

Lawmakers, as they call themselves, might just as well claim the right to abolish, by statute, the natural law of gravitation, the natural laws of light, heat, and electricity, and all the other natural laws of matter and mind, and institute laws of their own in the place of them, and compel conformity to them, as to claim the right to set aside the natural law of justice, and compel obedience to such other laws as they may see fit to manufacture, and set up in its stead."

Continued

Spooner was not playing soft ball with these people. Either we are free or we aren't, and as you can see, we really aren't We have all heard the idea that taking justice into one's own hands is always wrong and that it should be left up to the government. Spooner believes that we should be able to take justice into our own hands, it is our right to do so. In some ways that makes a lot of sense but he also says that the only reason for our government to exist is to maintain the natural laws of justice. It might not really be a good idea to let people loose on each other when they're out to get justice.

Authorizing the government to ensure that justice is done in a sober manner that protects everyone's rights seems reasonable. But what happens when the government decides that it can make up justice as it goes along to ensure it's own aims or to cover itself when it acts criminally; or to harass and punish people it sees as it's enemy. This is where the whole idea of corruption comes from and there is corruption in our government's policies and departments. It isn't the ordinary government employee that should concern us because they can't do that much damage. It is the simple, unpleasant reality that the real damage from corruption can only happen at the top - where the people have the ability and power to do serious damage with great big crimes, and then pass laws and put people into positions of power that enable them to get away with every bit of it.

The government has passed laws that say it cannot be held responsible for it's actions or for any harm it causes people, even when they did the harm knowingly. Is that just? Can our government pass a law to make it legal to break the law for itself, but not for us? Is it justice that the most powerful people in the country can do whatever they like without worrying about it? No person can escape being responsibe for their own actions, it goes against common sense and natural law. It's actually not possible. The president has the benefit of laws which say he can't be held criminally liable for anything he does. If that was the case for all of us, how much would we care about whether or not we broke the law? It seems laws like this only encourage the president to act outside of what justice demands and it leaves you and I holding the bag - a bag full of damage and costs. It also weakens our constitution. The laws they make bind us in no uncertain terms but those laws are being mocked by those we expect to uphold the laws, not break them.

Lysander Spooner saw things that most of us don't quite know how to put our finger on. It is clear that the law has entered our homes and our private lives and it has no "right" to do so. Just because they say they can do it and it's all right or even necessary, doesn't make it all right or necessary. I highly recommend reading the rest of Spooner's letter to Grover Cleveland for a great many more highly enlightening ideas about justice and freedom. These are the most important things we have and they define what it means to be free.

It's one thing to throw the words "freedom" and "democracy" around, but it's another entirely to really understand what they mean. To the extent that we let government define these things without questioning them or having a firm grip on what they mean in our own right, then it's not likely that there really will be any freedom or democracy being created in all of the millions of laws on the books today. It begs the question, what is all this for? Are these laws about the simple thing called justice that allows us all to live in freedom? Or are they really pretty words used to disguise a system of keeping us all under ever tightening government control?

It's not a wrong question to ask, it's a fair question. And it should be asked. Have you ever asked it before?

There's no time like the present.

"A Letter To Grover Cleveland"

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm

It wasn’t "experts" who figured out that when a canary stops singing and starts teetering on his perch, its time to get out of the coal mine. Not surprisingly, the "experts" claim they cannot determine conclusively why reports from all over the world describe flocks of birds dying by the thousands. The forensic sciences have improved to a point that causes of death can be accurately determined upon autopsy—if the death is not political. Recent bird kills have been reported in Idaho, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Australia, Turkey, SE Asia and Africa. Though the dead birds in SE Asia, Turkey and Africa have been blamed on "bird flu," the causes of death remain mysteries in the U.S. and Australia.

"THOUSANDS of birds have fallen from the skies over Esperance and no one knows why. Is it an illness, toxins or a natural phenomenon? A string of autopsies in Perth have shed no light on the mystery," reported The Australian Jan. 10, 2007.

Last month, IO reporter Ingri Cassel talked to Idaho Department of Fish and Game veterinarian Mark Drew who stated that the 2,500 mallard ducks found dead in southern Idaho died from ingesting grain contaminated with aspergillus fungus. Cassel described to Drew how ducks have probably been eating fungus-infected grains for eons without dying from the dining experience and how exposure to toxins, particularly synthetic chemicals, can depress immune function, leaving organisms (such as ducks) vulnerable to the development of infections that would not ordinarily be lethal.

Drew did listen to Cassel, who explained that the state of Idaho is dumping millions of gallons of herbicides into its lakes and rivers ostensibly to poison invasive aquatic plants. Cassel’s theory could be proved or disproved upon autopsy. Instead it was ignored because the results would have severe political implications.

Remember the 70s when millions of fish were turning up dead in polluted lakes? Remember the 80s when it was being reported all over the world that amphibians were developing severe deformities? Remember in the 90s when it was being reported that wild bees in North America were becoming extinct due to a species of mite that was affecting their eyes and causing blindness?

Call them canaries. The corporate-compromised "experts" may not be smart enough to detect gas in our earthly mine shaft, but we are. See the Interview with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (The IO, March, 2006) in which the relationship between toxic levels of synthetic chemicals in the tissues of plants and animals and illness is explained. If you want to see what happens when one pulls together the world’s scientific literature on the subject, the bar of what us "miners" can know about toxic chemicals and sickness was established by Dr. Tenpenny in her book, "FOWL: Bird Flu—It’s Not What You Think (see page 7)."

~~~

2,500 mallard ducks drop dead in south Idaho

State officials have determined that a massive duck die-off near Oakley, Idaho, was caused by epidemic fungus infections. The question is "What toxic burdens were the ducks carrying to ripen their bodies for lethal fungal infections?"

On December 13, 2006, national news reported that over 2,000 mallard ducks were discovered dead along a remote creek outside of Oakley, Idaho, which is about 180 miles southeast of Boise and just north of the Utah border. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) has determined that the cause of the birds dying, which included one American Widgeon and one pintail duck, was aspergillosis, a fungal infection that may have resulted from the ducks ingesting grain or water contaminated with the aspergillus fungus. On December 14, Idaho state workers cleared up the remaining carcasses and brought them to a nearby incinerator.

The Wildlife Center in Madison, Wisconsin, had obtained eight mallard carcasses from the Idaho die-off. Testing resulted in finding fungal plaque in the lungs typical of aspergillosis and negative for H5N1, the Asian bird flu virus.

A similar die-off of mallard ducks occurred last year at a pond near Waterloo, Iowa. It was also determined that the cause was aspergillosis. Iowa happens to be the state that grows a lot of genetically modified corn and is the number 1 producer of corn in the U.S. Iowa farmers also apply bio-solids liberally to their farmland.

A chemical connection?

Wildlife experts are trying to determine the food source of the mallards in the recent Idaho die-off. Officials are currently assuming the source to be discarded grain that became moldy in melted snow. Although there are no factories in the area, a cattle feedlot and farmland surrounds the area where the birds were discovered.

Officials from IDFG and the Dept. of Homeland Security are awaiting test results from water samples and grain from nearby farms. It should be noted that scavenger birds such as eagles, magpies and crows have been feasting on the dead ducks and do not appear to be affected.

The Idaho Observer called IDFG veterinarian Mark Drew to find out what kind of other tests are being conducted on the dead birds. The IO was told that tissue samples from at least nine of the birds are being tested at a laboratory operated by the IDFG and they are testing next for agricultural pesticides.

Continued on Page 2

Part Two

FOWL! Bird flu—What it’s really all about

We’ve all been hearing the news about bird flu. Daily reports tell us that this "so-called" deadly and dangerous strain of influenza is going to jump the species barrier and cause millions of people around the world to get sick and possibly die.

In this enlightening interview, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny will forever change the way you view environmental policy, the pharmaceutical industry and the government’s role in the dissemination of public health information. Dr. Tenpenny looks beyond the hysteria and exposes the vested interests poised to exploit the fear being generated about bird flu.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is an osteopathic physician from Middleburg Heights near Cleveland, Ohio. She is widely known for her work regarding the dangers and health risks associated with vaccines in her two DVD presentations, "Vaccines: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal" and "Vaccines: The Risks, the Benefits, the Choices." Dr. Tenpenny’s research makes it clear that, according to government documents and published medical literature, many of the nation’s leading public health officials know that vaccines are neither safe, nor do they prevent infectious diseases. In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated to be true: Vaccines are unsafe and have been linked to epidemics of chronic illnesses and developmental anomalies currently plaguing Americans.

About a year ago, Dr. Tenpenny turned her attention to reports that an outbreak of "avian flu" could suddenly jump species into humans and quickly spread around the world, possibly killing millions. She became suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry and government agencies developing vaccines to "protect" people from bird flu. Taking into consideration her knowledge of communicable diseases and the self-evident failure of mandated vaccination programs to prevent diseases, Dr. Tenpenny has uncovered amazing links behind the bird flu hype not previously discussed. Her research will be published in her new book, "FOWL! Bird Flu—It’s Not What You Think," which will be available in April, 2006.

At this time, the people of the world are being prepared for the inevitability of a coming avian flu pandemic and avian flu propaganda is reaching a fevered pitch. Because Dr. Tenpenny, a practicing physician, has dedicated so much time to the study of this issue, people will have the opportunity to discover what is really happening and why the sick birds of the world are being wrongly blamed for spreading the disease. The following interview with Dr. Tenpenny will give our readers a heads up on how to read between the lines of bird flu hype.

Harkins: Dr. Tenpenny, I want to personally thank you for your dedication in getting this important information out to the masses and devoting the many hundreds of hours it took to get your research into book form in such a short period of time. Before getting into what you discovered about avian flu after spending months reading hundreds of scientific articles and news reports, it is important to start out by describing for our readers the bird flu theory as it’s being hyped by public health officials through corporate news sources.

Tenpenny: In essence, "bird flu" is caused by a specific version of influenza type A virus thought by researchers to be particularly aggressive. Influenza A subtypes are designated as either "mildly pathogenic," meaning they cause minimal or no disease, or "highly pathogenic," meaning their presence has been associated with widespread death among birds.

Influenza A viruses are divided into subtypes based on different combinations of two surface proteins called antigens. One is called "hemagglutinin," signified by the abbreviation (H) or (HA); the other is called "neuraminidase," identified as (N) or (NA). Fifteen different H antigens (referred to as H1 to H15) and nine different N proteins (referred as to N1 to N9) are commonly known to exist; all combinations of (H) antigens and (N) antigens are known to exist in birds.

The virus of current concern is H5N1, considered to be a "highly pathogenic" type. Nearly 100 people have died worldwide, reportedly due to the inflammatory effects this virus seems to have on lung tissue.

Scientists are concerned that H5N1 will evolve into a virus capable of human-to-human transmission (a characteristic not presently associated with the H5N1 virus) and lead to an influenza pandemic.

Continued on page 2