A now viral video shows police from Cotati, California forcing their way into a home after a supposed domestic violence call and, after breaking down the homeowners door without a warrant, tazing the person filming their tyranny.
After being posted to both Live Leak and YouTube, the video has gone viral, with tens of thousands of Americans demanding justice for the family who clearly went through a completely unconstitutional attack on their home by what can be described as a well coordinated gang. (the police)
In the video the person filming reacts to one of the officers saying they are going to kick the door in by reciting sections of the 4th Amendment and making it clear that no violence had gone on at their house.
When asked by the officers why he refused to allow 4 heavily armed men invade his house, the person filming replied:
“Because we don’t live in a police state, sir. Martial law has not been established in this country.”
Many have speculated as to why the police felt they needed to unlawfully enter the home, with some claiming they could have felt the children lives were in danger yet the fact of the matter is the children were clearly fine and, if anything, would be psychologically and possibly even physically hurt by police breaking down their door and attacking their parents
Daniel Jackson is a seasoned journalist with a passion for exposing corruption and the lies of the global elite. DJ has a passion for truth and liberty that is shown through his extensive reporting on numerous globally significant topics not normally covered by the corporate controlled media. He is is a writer, researcher and editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
Defense Distributed is complying, DefCad.org back up after removing file
On the Thusday, May 9 edition of the Alex Jones Show, 3D printing guru Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed announced that the US Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) has sent him a letter requesting the group remove all data from public access immediately.
The letter, issued by the US Department of State, says:
“DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.”
USML stands for United States Munitions List, and ITAR stands for the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
According to the letter, “Pursuant to § 127.1 of the ITAR it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DTCC.
Further in the letter, it lists the 3D printable gun files available through DEFCAD.org that the DTCC says violate the ITAR.
“The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:
1. Defense Distributed Liberator pistol
2. .22 el3ectric
3. 125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead
4. 5.56/.223 muzzle brake
5. Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly
6. Sound Moderator – slip on
7. “The Dirty Diane” ½-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter
8. 12 gauge .22 CB sub-caliber insert
9. Voltlock electronic black powder system
10. VZ-58 front sight”
The letter goes on, “Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled,” meaning the files must comply with the UN . “This means that all such data should be removed from public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.”
Defense Distributed recently garnered major attention after they were able to produce a complete firearm, titled the Liberator, solely using 3D printed parts. Data for the Liberator files have reportedly already been downloaded over 100,000 times.
It’s clear that it was this milestone that inspired the Department of State to pursue compliance orders.
The mandate is in line with the United Nations International Arms Control Treaty which has attempted to regulate firearms by exploiting import-export laws. According to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty “is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.”
The following now appears at the top of defcad.org:
View the take-down notice sent to Defense Distributed: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3
More on this story as it develops…
Below is Alex Jones’ January interview with Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson on the Infowars Nightly News.
In the case of the IRS, the head of the agency said last month that they would abandon their policy that claimed the authority to read the emails of Americans without a warrant. However, the agency did not say that they would extend the new policy to all private electronic communications.
The new documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are excerpts from the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) of 2008 and 2012.
The fact that the two guides both say that FBI agents don’t need a warrant for unopened emails or other electronic communications if they’re over 180 days old is incredibly important.
Between the time the two guides were published, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the United States v. Warshak case. That ruling states that the government has to obtain a probable cause warrant before they force email providers to hand over messages to law enforcement.
Unfortunately, as the ACLU points out, that decision only applies in the four states covered by the Sixth Circuit.
Therefore, the ACLU filed their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request “to find out whether the FBI and other agencies are taking advantage of a loophole in the outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that allows access to some electronic communications without a warrant. Distressingly, the FBI appears to think the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement doesn’t always apply.”
The 2012 guide, which was published two years after the Warshak decision, does not so much as mention the ruling nor does it mention that the Fourth Amendment might in fact require a warrant before any email can be read.
“In enacting the ECPA, Congress concluded that customers may not retain a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in information sent to network providers,” the 2012 DIOG states.
“[I]f the contents of an unopened message are kept beyond six months or stored on behalf of the customer after the e-mail has been received or opened, it should be treated the same as a business record in the hands of a third party, such as an accountant or attorney. In that case, the government may subpoena the records from the third party withoutrunning afoul of either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment,” the guide continues.
However, the FBI claimed that they’re just following the law and the guidelines set for them.
“In all investigations, the FBI obtains evidence in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States, and consistent with Attorney General guidelines,” the FBI said in a statement, according to CNET. “Our field offices work closely with U.S. Attorney’s Office to adhere to the legal requirements of their particular districts as set forth in case law or court decisions/precedent.”
“Our FOIA request was the FBI’s chance to produce any policy documents, manuals, or other guidance stating that a warrant is always required, but they failed to do so,” the ACLU states. “Instead, the documents we received strongly suggest that the FBI doesn’t always get a warrant.”
Interestingly, the ACLU notes that the fact that the FBI is reading some emails without a warrant has been confirmed in court.
Hidden within an opinion issued by a federal magistrate judge in Texas dealing with the FBI’s attempt to secretly infect a target computer with spyware is a statement which proves that this email surveillance indeed occurs without a warrant.
“[T]he Government also sought and obtained an order under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 directing the Internet service provider to turn over all records related to the counterfeit email account, including the contents of stored communications,” the opinion states.
That means, “as recently as March of this year, the FBI went after emails without a warrant. This is an affront to the Fourth Amendment,” according to the ACLU.
The IRS’s policy was sharply criticized in a letter signed by a dozen Republican and Democratic senators last month. “We believe these actions are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures,” the senators said.
Will similar outcry be heard now that we know the Department of Justice thinks similar activities are permissible under the law? Only time will tell.
On top of the FBI documents, the ACLU obtained records from six offices of U.S. Attorney sin California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and New York.
They also obtained documents from the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, which gives legal advice to both federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, the Criminal Division actually withheld more documents than they released to the ACLU.
The documents from these offices revealed “a confusing picture of federal policy,” as the ACLU puts it.
The ACLU only received two paragraphs from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The paragraphs are from an unidentified document with no cover page or any contextual information, making it impossible to know if it reflects current policy.
However, the document states that law enforcement can obtain “opened electronic communications or extremely old unopened email” without a warrant.
Excerpts from an October 2012 document from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois states that a warrant is indeed required for text messages, voicemails, emails, Facebook communications and “private tweets” on Twitter, showing that there is a clear difference between offices.
However, the document does not have explanatory information or a cover page, making it impossible to know if it is considered binding policy for prosecutors or how broadly the procedures are applied.
While the ACLU states that the “six U.S. Attorneys’ offices also told us in this email that since Warshak, they have not authorized a request to a court for access to the contents of electronic communications without a warrant,” the Texas magistrate judge’s opinion shows that at least one U.S. Attorney’s office authorized such a request this year.
Suffice it to say, even with the documents obtained by the ACLU, “the government’s actual position is far from clear.”
Indeed, it is rife with contradictions and policies that vary from office to office with no clear federal policy holding to the Fourth Amendment.
The ACLU and manyothergroupscontend that Congress needs to reform the ECPA in order to make it abundantly clear that a warrant is indeed required for law enforcement to access all electronic communications.
“Reform legislation is making its way through the Senate now, and the documents released by the U.S. Attorney in Illinois illustrate that the law can be fixed without harming law enforcement goals,” the ACLU states. “If you agree that your email and other electronic communications should be private, you can urge Congress to take action here.”
Indeed, even though the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed the ECPA reform legislation, much is left to be done. Without taking action, no one can have any legitimate expectation of any change whatsoever.
I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
Would you dial up a known criminal, like a murderer or rapist, to come help you after you’ve been the victim of a crime? No? Then why in the world would you call the police after you’ve been assaulted, robbed or otherwise violated?
The police do not consider their job to protect you. They used to at least pay lip service to “keeping the peace”, but nowadays in the USSA it is clear their job is to enforce the law. In fasco-communist America, the law stopped being about your protection decades ago. The law is about the expansion of state power and control. That’s why there are so many of them, with more coming all the time.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of reasons in the Federal Code for the police to arrest you. That’s the very essence of a police state. Everything is literally a crime. As Lao Tsu said in the 6th century, BC: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished…The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be…”
In an environment like this, police cannot merely be keepers of the peace. They must be enforcers of the law. And enforcers use force, of course—intimidation and sudden and shocking violence in order to make you obey. And compliance is exactly what the police expect. They long ago stopped being “public servants” and became more akin to plantation overseers. Rapper and philosopher KRS One pointed out the similarities in his track, “Sound of da Police”:
“The overseer rode around the plantation
The officer is off patrolling all the nation
The overseer could stop you what you’re doing
The officer will pull you over just when he’s pursuing
The overseer had the right to get ill
And if you fought back, the overseer had the right to kill
The officer has the right to arrest
And if you fight back they put a hole in your chest!”
The most egregious example of this switch from protection to abuse is the so-called War on Drugs. The heightened prosecution of drug use (which was entirely legal a century ago in the US and in fact widely used in many products) has been right at the heart of the state’s increased monitoring and intrusion into personal life.
Do you want protection from theft and physical aggression? Or do you want “law enforcement”? Law enforcement is what allows the police to bust down your door and arrest you on suspicion that you may be using a plant that the state doesn’t like. Protection from theft and physical aggression is something that could be much better provided by free market transactions. You could simply buy yourself an alarm system or weapon. Or you could pay for bodyguards and remote ’round-the-clock monitoring and dispatch from a firm who will send people to actually help you and not gun you down. These people would also never bust down your door, kill your pets and hold automatic weapons to the heads of your children on suspicion that you might own plants that some politicians and voters don’t like. In every way, the private market protection option seems much better than the public option.
CALL THE COPS AT YOUR OWN RISK
An 83-year-old grandmother recently learned the hard way of the dangers of calling the police. Debra Towler of Altavista, Virginia, called 9-1-1 and hung up without making a report. This triggered an automatic officer dispatch to her home. The police claim to have heard gunshots from inside Mrs. Towler’s home. But even if that’s true – and police regularly lie to cover up their mistakes – odds are that Mrs. Towler fired those shots for the same reason she called the police: she thought her home was being invaded. That would explain why she ran out the back door to her sister’s house when officers tried to get in the front door. It would also explain why this church-going octogenarian wouldn’t drop her gun when the police started barking orders at her from afar. They responded by gunning her down.
This woman would have been alive if she’d simply defended herself instead of calling the publicly funded police. If there really had been intruders, she probably frightened them off by being armed. In any case the police would not have arrived in time to save her from being robbed or assaulted. All the police can do is show up to ask a few questions and interrogate the victim or some witnesses in case the victim is dead. Sometimes, apparently, the police themselves cause the victims death.
If just one private protection company did this one time, the typical statist would be calling for that company to be shut down with the murderers jailed. Yet when the publicly funded police botch things up this badly, the typical person finds a reason to blame the victim. A free market protection company – perhaps provided by the same company that insured Mrs. Towler’s home – would have treated Mrs. Towler like a customer whose harm they are paid to prevent. The publicly funded police force is under no such pressure to provide customer service. Their priorities are to enforce whatever nonsense laws are on the books and to use whatever lethal violence they deem necessary to keep themselves out of harm’s way.
Why do people put up with a monopolistic police force? Think about it. You are forced to pay (with taxes) for police who aggress against you for personal behavior that’s not anybody else’s business.
Again, the police cannot stop a criminal from harming you or from stealing your property. They can only show up to “investigate” the crime after it’s been committed. The only way police can be truly proactive is when it comes to enforcing intrusive laws about personal behavior that doesn’t harm anyone else, like driving faster than the ridiculously low posted speed limits, or not wearing a seat belt or bicycle helmet, or using plants that politicians and your neighbors don’t like.
I HAVE NOT NOR WILL EVER CALL THE PUBLIC POLICE
In my 41 years I have never once called the government (9-1-1) for any type of emergency. I’ve always instinctively known it was immoral and, in most cases, useless. Here in Mexico no one would ever consider calling the cops for anything—they know what the Americans are now learning. Here, the police are far more like tipsy Barney Fifes than they are like robocops.
A month ago my wife called. She was with our $10-a-day bodyguard, but he didn’t have his pistol on him that day and she said three very large men were following her in Walmart. I told her to go to the very back of the store and tell some staff what was happening and wait for me.
I arrived in less than 5 minutes on my scooter with my gun and sprinted to the back of the store. I saw my wife and bodyguard safely standing there and was relieved. We then went to the kitchen area of the store and got both my wife and my bodyguard some sharp butcher knives. We then went through the checkout and cautiously exited the store, with everyone well-armed (not to mention my bodyguard is a professional boxer and my wife takes kickboxing and Kung Fu lessons each week and is a powerlifter —and I’m a former amateur boxer).
By that point the three men had left. Whether it was a real threat or not is anyone’s guess. But this form of self-protection beats government protection any day. Not only was my response time certainly faster, and my “skin in the game” meant I’d fight anyone to the death to protect my wife, whereas government police will almost always choose their own safety over yours. But a really interesting thing happens when you stand up for yourself and don’t depend on others for your protection. It feels great.
Plus, there is the fact that the government police who we could have called likely would have tried to beat, rob or kill us. This happens all the time, worldwide—not just in the USSA. In Tunisia, for example, women are charged with indecency for being raped by cops. In the US, beatings and shootings by cops are the issue, not rapes (usually). Look at this recent thug scrum in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York. After watching police pile on and abuse this young man, even the guy who called the police wishes he hadn’t called to report the young man sleeping in the community center.
“I regret making the call,” says the caller, “I should have let him sleep.” I believe a lot more Americans are going to be expressing similar sentiments in coming years. They will learn the hard way that calling the cops is most likely to make a bad situation worse. Your average person in the USSA still probably labors under the illusion that the police are actually there to help them, and that the public police option actually is superior to the customer-service based private options. That’s a very dangerous illusion. In fact, it could easily cost you your life. Just ask Mrs. Towler. If you’re stuck in the dangerous USSA police state, then TDV Homegrown can help you understand how to survive unscathed.
Rule #1: Never call the cops. Just like with health, prevention is a far best treatment for criminal acts. Check out TDV Homegrown for more details. (If you have the option of getting free of the USSA police state entirely, then try out a TDV Weekly Basic subscription for some great insights on expatriating.)
DON’T EVEN TALK TO THE POLICE
The police cannot help one bit once the crime is committed. They are unlikely to figure out who committed the crime. And they care more about somebody getting convicted for the crime than they are about the right person getting convicted for the crime. Police will lie in court. They don’t care about finding the culprit. They just want a conviction. And any patsy will do. So don’t talk to them. Ever. They will happily see innocents carted off to jail as long as they get to look like they’re doing their jobs.
Their own safety is far more important to them than your safety. After all, they are the sacred praetorian class, defenders of the law and the lawmakers, while you’re just a subject who is forced at gunpoint to pay for their salaries. You’d be far better off being a voluntarily paying customer.
When the government acts beyond the law, like in the recent Fast and Furious scandal, don’t “we the people” have a right to ask questions of our government? Is asking questions of your government a crime?
Why is the government now labeling people anti-government just because they ask legitimate questions, on specific issues to hold the government responsible?
Now in Florida they are asking citizens to turn people into Law Enforcement if a person appears to be anti-government, why? What is the definition anti-government?
To answer some of those questions, you will want to watch this.
A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) training video depicting DHS agents in a fake news reel arresting “militia” extremists for “illegal possession of firearms.”
That’s right the depiction is about the militia, those mentioned in the Second Amendment, and it further spoke about illegal firearms. Nothing illegal about any firearms in the Second Amendment. What they failed to have for a training video was Islamists and pressure cookers.
This video, along with a cache of training video at the DHS website, which can be found here and an introduction here are just another step towards training the minds of men and women serving in federal agencies to think that gun owners and militia are the bad guys.
Interestingly enough this is under DHS’ FEMA website and the program it promotes is called Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). Yes, I thought maybe they misplaced some letters there and were thinking more along the lines of SHEEP.
Exercises play a vital role in national preparedness by enabling whole community stakeholders to test and validate plans and capabilities, and identify both capability gaps and areas for improvement. A well-designed exercise provides a low-risk environment to test capabilities, familiarize personnel with roles and responsibilities, and foster meaningful interaction and communication across organizations.
The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) provides a set of guiding principles for exercise programs, as well as a common approach to planning and conducting individual exercises. This methodology applies to exercises in support of all national preparedness mission areas and ensures a consistent and interoperable approach to exercise design and development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning.
The video seen above is used to help train all of the deputized agencies during a crisis, including hospital administrators, media faces, and everyone that would be involved in such an event.
When the video was created is not entirely clear. However, documents have been uploaded between 2009 and 2012.
In the video the fake news reel has the anchor saying, “Reports of possible illegal activity by a local militia group appears to have spurred law enforcement into action.”
The video then cuts to the front of the house where firefighters and SWAT team members are all over the place.
“This is the scene of an intensive investigation into the operations of an extremist group reportedly planning a series of terrorist attacks on U.S. cities,” the fake reporter says. “Details are sketchy, but allegedly the militia was using this house to store a cache of military weapons.”
All sorts of agencies are reported to be on the scene, including the FBI and that the house being raided belongs to two men. The house was being raided for “illegal possession of firearms, but they apparently found more than they were bargaining for.”
Near the end you see a SWAT officer attempting to remove the cameraman while another officer is heard shouting “Get him out of here!”
The video ends with the officer running towards the cameraman shouting “backup, backup, backup!”
A few things to consider from this video. As I mentioned, militias are perfectly legal under the United States Constitution. Keeping and bearing arms is supposed to be protected under the Second Amendment of the Constitution as well and as we’ve taken the time to point out, the federal government has no authority to regulate or restrict arms.
They just aren’t given that authority in the Constitution. Therefore, the claim of “illegal possession of firearms” causes one to wonder, are these men felons and shouldn’t have a firearm? Are these men in possession of illegal guns and if so, upon what basis are they declared illegal? Federal legislation or state legislation?
One thing you don’t see in the list of videos is Islamic terrorists taken into custody. That may appear somewhere else, but not in this video section. I’m highly cautious if there are training videos with Islamists, who, frankly, are the ones that continually are the ones we deal with in terrorist threats.
I would be surprised if there were some considering DHS produced a study titled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008 in which for the most part they omit any reference to Muslims or Islam and instead focus on Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and reverent of liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
We can already see where the mainstream media get their assumptions about “right wing extremists” being responsible for the Boston Marathon, even though it is painfully clear who was involved. It wasn’t right wingers. In fact, the Obama administration pulled all references to Islam from its training manuals. Now they are focusing our Armed Forces on Americans; specifically they are targeting the enemy of Islam, Christianity.
Audio feeds suspicions brothers may have been set up
Video footage from the scene of the shootout with the alleged Boston bombers appears to contain audio of the suspects screaming out, “We didn’t do it!” as police fire on the two brothers.
Although by no means clear, the words below appear to be shouted by the suspects as they come under police gunfire.
Despite being described as a “shootout,” the audio suggests that shots are only being fired in one direction by police and that the brothers are not returning fire at this point in the exchange.
The tape offers little proof as to the Tasrnaev brother’s guilt, but it follows a number of other intriguing caveats which some have offered as evidence that the suspects were framed and had no actual involvement in the bombings.
- A Facebook post attributed to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev although not authenticated reads, “This will be the last message before the police get me. I never done it. They set me up. Father please forgive me. I am sorry it has come to this.”
- Tsarnaeva also claims that the FBI “were controlling his every step,” referring to Tamerlan Tasrnaev, and that both the FBI and the CIA were following the brothers since 2011.
- The aunt of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, claims that the footage which emerged of police arresting a naked uninjured man was her nephew, contradicting the official narrative that Tsarnaev was critically injured in a shootout and suggesting he may have been killed while in custody.
- Eyewitnesses to the shootout contradict claims by authorities that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ran over his own brother in a car, stating instead that he was run over by police.
- Despite numerous images of other suspects with large black backpacks at the scene of the bombings, the FBI insisted that these photos not be deemed credible and that the Tasrnaev brothers were the only possible culprits.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
Police in Sacramento California have helped the CPS abduct a completely healthy child from his parents after they sought a second opinion on their child’s diagnosis by a local hospital.
“Right now CPS has taken charge of the baby, they have literally kidnapped this child away from really good parents.”
You can watch a heart-wrenching interview with the parents below:
Daniel Jackson is a seasoned journalist with a passion for exposing corruption and the lies of the global elite. DJ has a passion for truth and liberty that is shown through his extensive reporting on numerous globally significant topics not normally covered by the corporate controlled media. He is is a writer, researcher and editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
Canada’s Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has targeted rare heritage sheep at Wholearth Farmstudio owned by Montana Jones for years now. Shropshire sheep are among the rarest – and CFIA could aid in their extinction with their recent eradication efforts over unfounded fears of a sickness called scrapie.
They killed her pregnant ewes to find out if they were healthy. ???? Worse yet, after a house raid, CFIA is convicting her and others in the same boat like Michael Schmidt for conspiracy among other criminal offenses. She faces 12 years in jail and $1.5 million in fines!
The above incidents stem from a CFIA claim three years ago that a ewe she sold years further back had scrapie. Hearsay. No signs, no symptoms, for a disease that poses no harm to humans – but they killed her ewes anyway. After death, tests came back negative as Montana knew they would.
Heritage breeds experienced a major reduction after the introduction of large-scale industrial farming.
In the past 15 years, 190 breeds of farm animals have gone extinct worldwide, and there are currently 1,500 others at risk of being wiped out. Within the last ten years alone, 60 breeds of cattle, goats, pigs, horses and poultry have become extinct.
Apparently, there are only less than 100 of these sheep left in Canada! Montana is actually doing a great service to Canada by preserving their bloodline for no profit, but CFIA seems intent on wiping them off the earth and erasing biodiversity.
Calling out a disease or bacteria (like crying “Wolf!”) is a common M.O. of the FDA and previous cases of CFIA where they killed hundreds of rare goats and sheep – that of course later tested healthy. Why do they kill first, ask questions later?
Why are small farms expected to fork over years of hard labor and valuable animals when large-scale corporate farms get the green light even if caught abusing animals or when their food sickens a lot of people? In fact, they lobby Congress for laws to make sure no one finds out negative practices and to paint animal activists as terrorists. Unfortunately, when word gets out for testing, people don’t want to do business with the farm – at least when it comes to scrapie, a rare occurrence. No income for quarantined farms.
Well-known farmer activist Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms lent his support by submitting a letter for CFIA to read:
I have been apprised of your intent to annihilate the Wholearth flock of Shropshire sheep owned by Montana Jones and it is deeply troubling. Without credible tests that empirically prove the existence of scrapie, to proceed with the planned extermination is both unscientific and tyrannical.
Agenda-driven extermination tactics have been used throughout history to purge alternative genes, both human and animal. This deprives future generations of traits that may provide salvation from yet-to-be-revealed diseases. Please follow reason and real science as you approach this rare flock of sheep.
She can’t take the destruction and harassment. The loss and the legal fees for her upcoming criminal trial will put her out of her farm and home – she reaches out for help (see below). In just a few days an outpouring of support helped her reach $35,000 of a $50K goal. She continues toupdate and thank those that have helped her, adding:
Many years ago I had a vision of creating a sustainable farm not just for animals and vegetables but for people too. They would discover the importance of rare heritage breeds, feel organic soil under their feet, learn to grow real food in an heirloom garden and work with the wonder of animals. I imagined an educational demonstration farm where one could just breathe, wander the fields, create art and music, share amazing meals and slow down enough to appreciate.
Isn’t it also interesting that right around the same time America targets their heritage breeds, Canada places theirs in the cross-hairs? Mark Baker of Baker’s Green Acres is a well-known American example.
The DNR working with other Michigan agencies (and obviously the Pork Producers) went on a heritage pig rampage (Kill the pig…kill the pig) but Bakers wouldn’t destroy them or let them. So the USDA and DNR made sure that they could do nothing with them by blocking them from taking them to slaughter. So friends had to come over to do it and it was given away to the hungry. And of course, feeding the homeless in America is a big no-no now.
As always, it’s never about public safety – it’s always about control – and oftentimes collusion. A woman with an indoor lemon tree gets threatened with a SWAT raid because her healthy lemon tree might be under quarantine. Bureaucracies uproot or try to force homeowners to destroy their gardens.
The FDA dumps raw milk and cheese in landfills calling it unfit for dogs (yet deems Pink Slime safe for humans although it was originally fed to dogs). They pour bleach on picnic food andblue dye in bulk milk tanks. Agencies trespass on small farms and slaughter, shoot or euthanize healthy animals senselessly. If those aren’t full-blown discriminatory war tactics – what is?
Keep careful watch of this “quarantine” business…
Montana is joining the ranks of those who are tirelessly fighting to keep their farm and animals so that government destruction doesn’t spread to others. That’s where we need quarantine.
It’s up to all of us to change the unreasonable policies that prevent our food and farming freedom. – Montana Jones
How you can help her – and please spread the word:
Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.
The Natural Blaze team is dedicated to the path of natural health and wellness. But we’re not just believers, we’ve experienced the healing properties of natural remedies first hand. That is why we are so deeply passionate to report natural health news, share wellness tips, and provide proven natural products to you.
Home
RSS Feed
Newsletter
Bookmark Us
Facebook
Twitter
