“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
There are two main purposes for this aggregation of "hemp" information: 1) for my own quick-reference use (as is the case with my other aggregations, and 2) to radically reduce online research time for any interested people who happen to stumble across this website. By making these kinds of aggregations, I don't have to spend nearly as much time searching for information which I might have forgotten to archive in my system of folders, files and bookmarks.
(DISCLAIMER: America's corrupt police-state government1 would probably want me to repeat the disclaimer I found on another "alternative wellness" website: "All information presented on this web-site is for educational, entertainment, and historical purposes only. It is not intended to diagnose or treat any illness or medical condition. Never forgo seeing a doctor when ill. Most are skilled diagnosticians and know what works to treat illnesses, especially acute ones. Even minor health problems can quickly become life threatening if not treated or treated improperly. It is a lot easier to rebuild from a round of prescription medicine than from unchecked infection. complementary health measures are for prevention, failure of conventional treatment, or as an adjunct treatment with permission of your health professional." "This Web site contains links to Web sites operated by other parties. Such links are provided for your convenience and reference only. We are not responsible for the content or products of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site." Having done my "legal" duty, let me say that I have always despised the type of wannabe-politically2-cutesy immoral scum3 who believe they are somehow entitled to use the coercive/violent power of One Ring "government1" to create monopolies and captive markets with which to artificially, and very fraudulently, increase the value of their own time and labor relative to the time and labor of the rest of humanity. To permanently settle the hash of two such groups of scum3 will, in my opinion, require a Judicial Reform Amendment and a Freedom of Self-Medication Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)
Despite the voters of Colorado making "recreational" marijuana legal via Amendment 64, on January 8, 2015, Grand Junction's MSM newspaper ran a story titled, "Mesa County judge upholds homemade hash oil ban". That story illustrates the point that the fraudulent so-called "War On Drugs" is far from over. The story, which suffers from a serious dearth of pertinent facts, also serves as an opportunity for a kind of tutorial on all the political manipulations surrounding marijuana prohibition. As a response to that article, I wrote a 6-part "comment" which seemed both appropriate and useful to reprint here as part of my hemp-information aggregation.
Although the Sentinel's article is pretty much useless except to demonstrate MSM manipulation, a much-better-written version of the same story titled, "Colorado attorney general says making marijuana oil at home is illegal" was published in the Denver Post.
Because most talk/comment strings limit the number of characters that may be submitted per post, I've found that quite often you can divide a longer comment into parts and submit them in order. Following is the 6-Part comment I posted in response to the Sentinel's article.
PART 1. I have several serious problems with this story, so let's take a closer look at both the facts and the deeper issue, which I consider to be the fundamental constitutional liberty right of self-ownership and self-medication.
I would suggest that any person who wants to understand what is really going on in this case read the Denver Post's 12/30/2014 version of the story titled “Colorado attorney general says making marijuana oil at home is illegal,” (see http://dpo.st/1FBNbmR) written by John Ingold.
My main objection to the Sentinel's version is that it doesn't present enough specific facts to allow interested readers to formulate an informed opinion as to whether or not their public so-called “servants” are doing a good constitution-friendly job, let alone understand the core underlying issue/s.
The headline implies that the accused was violating some kind of “homemade hash oil ban.” The Sentinel said “Christenson has pleaded not guilty to arson and reckless endangerment.” Logic would lead one to believe that the only charges were arson and reckless endangerment, yet according to the Sentinel, the accused's lawyer said his client “isn't accused of possessing more marijuana than Colorado law allows” and filed a motion to have Colorado's statute on unlawful manufacturing of marijuana ruled unconstitutional.
In contrast, the Denver Post said, “Eugene Christensen, is charged with arson, reckless endangerment and manufacture of marijuana concentrate. The last charge is a Class 3 drug felony, punishable by two to four years in prison.” So, why didn't the Sentinel's version mention the class 3 felony charge? Go figure. From what I can glean from superficial MSM reporting, a guy who didn't do his homework well enough had an unlucky accident without the requisite mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) to support criminal charges.
For interested persons, Colorado arson statutes are: C.R.S. 18-4-102 - First degree arson, C.R.S. 18-4-103 - Second degree arson, and C.R.S. 18-4-104 – Third degree arson. Colorado's reckless endangerment statute is C.R.S. 18-3-208, which says, “A person who recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person commits reckless endangerment, which is a class 3 misdemeanor.” The Denver Post addressed John Suthers' highly questionable interpretation of Amendment 64.
(NOTE: The MSM absolutely hates it when you empower the citizenry by making the law accessible to them so they can read for themselves what the controlling statutes and appellate court decisions say. Then the citizenry can judge for themselves whether or not their public so-called "servants" are doing a good and constitution-friendly job. The MSM prefers to leave everything in the opaque area of government manipulation, lying politicians, judges, prosecutors and cops. Sometimes I don't always hyperlink sources on MSM talk/comment strings, but on my websites I try to always do that to make it as easy as possible for the reader to educate themselves.)
Interested persons can find these statutes at the LexisNexis website, and read for themselves both the statutes and the appellate court decisions interpreting them. By doing that, interested persons can judge for themselves whether or not the relevant public so-called “servants” are doing a good, constitution-friendly job of administering the law and the intent of Colorado voters, or whether they should be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.
Part 2. Being a self-ownership “heretic” and free-speech absolutist, it is my view that it is John Suthers' job to enforce the Colorado Constitution, not strategically (my opinion) misinterpret it in such a manner that Judge Gurley can use that strategic (my opinion) misinterpretation as “law” upon which to base his denial of Gordon Gallager's motion. I would like to write more about the motion, but I haven't yet read it.
I suspect John Suthers is an anti-Amendment-64 zealot who is determined to do all he can to alter and weaken Amendment 64 via strategic (my opinion) misinterpretation rather than by due process of law pursuant to Article XIX, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution.
(Full disclosure: I am a 70-year-old teetotaler who smoked enough “pot” in his ignorant wannabe-hippie youth to know for a first-hand fact that the FBI's 1936 propaganda film “Reefer Madness” is a laughable lie designed to help oligarch William Randoph Hearst and his cronies in the powerful Dupont family eliminate competition by destroying a then-viable hemp industry.)
One of the most difficult parts of the overall problem is that, among the proudly and combatively ignorant, even talking about “hemp” “marijuana”, “pot”, "bud", "flower" or “weed” in non-demonizing language is considered taboo. As a result, there is a gigantic society-wide general ignorance on the subject of hemp/marijuana. Another big problem is the lack of standardization of terms. There are numerous terms related to the Cannabis plant which are confusing to many people. The reason I know that to a moral certainty is because I, too, was ignorant and confused until I started to do the research necessary to write a well-documented educational essay on the subject. "Cannabis" is the genus. According to Wikipedia, "Hemp (from Old English hænep) is a commonly used term for high-growing varieties of the Cannabis plant and its products, which include fiber, oil, and seed. Hemp is refined into products such as hemp seed foods, hemp oil, wax, resin, rope, cloth, pulp, paper, and fuel." Also according to Wikipedia, "The Oxford English Dictionary records the earliest usages of cannabis meaning the plant "common hemp, Cannabis sativa" in 1548 and meaning parts of the plant "smoked, chewed, or drunk for their intoxicating or hallucinogenic properties" in 1848."
Just a few of the terms interested people might want to look up are:
Cannabis Sativa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_sativa
Cannabis Indica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_indica
Cannabis ruderalis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_ruderalis
Cannabidiol (CBD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol
Hashish (aka "Hash") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish
Hash Oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_oil
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol
(NOTE: While Wikipedia is by no means authoritative – verify everything -- it is a wonderful time-saving gateway to online research.)
Another one of my major concerns is that Eugene Christenson might not have enough money to take the case all the way through the judicial system, which would result in Suthers and Gurley strategically (my opinion) using a bad case to make bad law for purely political (my opinion) purposes. Conscience will not allow me to simply remain silent and watch that happen.
PART 3. With absolutely no offense or disrespect intended whatsoever, one look at an official photo of Judge Richard Gurley tells me that, as a sufferer from what (from the photo) appears to be clinical obesity, he apparently doesn't know all that much about health and wellness -- at least not remotely enough to be trying to tell other people (such as me) how to run their own lives and make their own decisions regarding homeopathic health alternatives and choices. Accordingly, from an intellectually honest point of view, it seems logical to assume that what we are dealing with in this particular situation are merely the "politics" (aka human manipulation) of money, law, medicine, ad infinitum, which, in over 2000 years of recorded history, has gotten our species (except for the psychopathic 1%) exactly nowhere.
Another main reason the “marijuana” issue is complicated is because, although there are differing strains, notably sativa, indica, and ruderalis, the very same genus (“cannabis”) of plant which produces the so-called “marijuana” which politically cutesy ignoramuses want the “law” to keep their kids from smoking also simultaneously produces the life-saving, longevity-enhancing THC and CBD which fights against (or even outright kills) some kinds of cancer cells, in addition to having other important medical uses. The anti-self-ownership federal government which flat-out lies and says cannabis has no legitimate medical uses is the same government that still lies about the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK among countless other neofeudalistic propaganda lies.
The truth is that the same cannabis plant which produces cancer-killing THC also produces countless other excellent products which are very useful to humans, in addition to putting nutrients back into the soil. Of course, partly because there is a plethora of important information that Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Cancer don't want us to know about, many willfully, even combatively, ignorant individuals don't understand these issues or even want to talk openly about this kind of stuff. They just want to engage in their cutesy little “legal” and “political” manipulations and demonizations to get their spoiled-brat little ways under the fraudulent pretense of “for the children”.
In contrast, I am only trying to heal myself and extend my lifespan with alternative homeopathic remedies. I believe I have a fundamental constitutional liberty right to do exactly that. I believe there are millions of others like me, and I want them to have free access to all the information they need. I also believe I have a fundamental 1st Amendment freedom of thought/speech right to public share as much information as possible and publicly express my opinions about the public so-called “servants” who would try to suppress dissent and keep the public in a state of dependent ignorance and subjugation.
PART 4. Another “marijuana” complication results from the fact that I believe it was primarily so-called “recreational” users whose hard work resulted in the passage of Amendment 64 in the first place. Lots of shallow-thinking ignoramuses have a problem with recreational users. I don't, because 1) I believe in a cause-and-effect material universe where we have to actually LIVE the consequences of our actions (e.g. poison WILL harm your health and shorten your lifespan, thereby functioning as its own most effective punishment/deterrent), and 2) I believe in a constitutional right of self-ownership which allows people the freedom of choice to harm their health by ingesting poisons into their body. The inextricable corollary is that, if I want the right to self-medicate myself with the very same plant, I have to cheerfully extend the exact freedom I desire to the “recreational” users. (Of course various self-righteous and hypocritical control freaks will always ignore the fact that tobacco and alcohol, which do far, FAR more physical and monetary harm than cannabis, are “legal”.)
I'm betting that Richard Gurley and John Suthers are not aware of even the tip of the iceberg regarding corruption in the Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Cancer industries, or that unpaid medical debts (via inflationary health care costs) are a leading cause of bankruptcies.
I'm also betting that Gurley and Suthers are both unaware (or do not care) that thousands of people know from firsthand experience that the THC kills certain kinds of cancer cells, most notably Basal Cell Carcinoma (a type of skin cancer), and that so-called "hash oil" (contains THC) – which must be contrasted from so-called “hemp seed oil” (does not contain THC) which is used in cooking and nutrition – has flat out "cured" Basal Cell Carcinoma in many people.
I myself have two little suspected spots of Basal Cell Carcinoma on my body and was researching into the possibilities of "legally" growing the plants to make the medicine I need without unnecessarily confronting the politically-cutesy Flat-Earth control freaks in Big Government, Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Cancer. So I think I can safely guarantee you this issue is not going to go away any time soon. As a matter of fact, the more people discover the truth about how they have been duped and raped by Big Pharma, et al, the louder and more persistent the public outcry will be.
The key to solving America's health care problems lies in education. I am working on a “hemp/marijuana” aggregation to accomplish just that, and I am seriously researching self-medication. I find the subjects absolutely riveting. I will post the URL when I finish the essay (which contains copious links to relevant videos, books, articles, websites, etc).
PART 5. America is supposed to be a free county, but over a mere two centuries it has devolved into a full-blown “obey or die” police state where the U.S. Constitution and Rule of Law are de facto dead. The list of major government lies, OKenyan usurpation, battleship Maine, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, 9-11, OKC, TWA800, JFK, RFK, MLK, Ruby Ridge, Waco, to name but a few, is literally endless. As Antonin Scalia himself has noted, judges lie constantly about the historical meaning and intent of the social contract. I, for one, don't want to remain silent and let pandemic judicial lying interfere with my fundamental constitutional liberty right of self-medication.
In simple terms, the bottom line for me is this: since, according to America's social contract (and also the Colorado Constitution), I am supposedly living in a so-called “free” country and “open” society where we can freely speak publicly to issues which concern us, I have a FUNDAMENTAL constitutional liberty right to grow naturally occurring Creator-made plants in my back yard, and then process those plants into wonderfully effective medicine which I can then rub on my Basal Cell Carcinoma spots and heal myself without signing my home and land over to the government-licensed allopathic guessers in white coats and their central bankster patrons to pay unconscionably high Big Pharma and Big Medicine expenses.
In defense of Suthers, Gurley et al, it doesn't help when pro-home-remedy folks either don't know enough about what they are trying to do, or don't exercise enough care in manufacturing the product/s they are trying to produce. In committing said failure, they open a gigantic hole for anti-self-medication zealots to work their wannabe-clever manipulations and demonizations against the public's right to life-saving, money-saving information and policies.
According to the Denver Post, Suthers said, “To decriminalize dangerous and unreasonable behavior in which people are getting hurt and houses are blowing up defies the intent of the voters." What a load of manipulative, opportunistic crap!
The Sentinel doesn't help by failing to say whether or not Christenson was a recreational user or a medicinal user, and there IS a huge “political” difference. The Sentinel also doesn't say whether or not the property Christenson's concoction exploded on belonged to him. If it did, according to my interpretation of Colorado's arson statutes, Colorado's arson law does not apply to the reported facts of the case. Sort of like “felony menacing” didn't apply to pointing a banana at the cops in the infamous “Banana Man” case.
PART 6. Lastly, ladies and gentlemen of the Mesa County public opinion jury, I want to borrow from the syntax of the Declaration of Independence to explain why “a decent respect [for] the opinions of mankind requires that” I “should declare the causes which impel” me to such blunt language in presenting my case and demonizing various anti-constitution, anti-self-ownership, anti-self-medication cutesy pies.
I like to ask the question: “If you and your criminal cronies could legally counterfeit money, how long would it take for your group to own everything real in the world?” Unfortunately, most “normal” people don't understand the ramifications of allowing an anonymous cabal of transnational central banksters to create infinite amounts of fraudulent interest-bearing digital legal-tender “money”. The oligarchs and their political-class toadies can (and do) create whatever amounts of computerized musical-chairs monetary numbers it takes to buy whatever amounts of corruption they want at whatever levels of government they need it to stay in power and control and “engineer” society to their liking and personal financial benefit – and to everybody else's detriment. This type of dangerously psychopathic criminal scum are self-evidently anti-constitution, anti-self-ownership, anti-self-medication.
To combat such an extreme level of political manipulation, it is necessary to polarize society around an issue. For example, blacks-as-chattel slavery was not abolished until John Brown said in effect, “we are going to start killing slave owners until slavery is abolished.” Of course he was hung for his moral courage and insight. According to Wikipedia, "After the Civil War, Black leader Frederick Douglass wrote, 'His zeal in the cause of my race was far greater than mine — it was as the burning sun to my taper light — mine was bounded by time, his stretched away to the boundless shores of eternity. I could live for the slave, but he could die for him.'" Brown was an expert in polarizing politics. As a result, the Civil War was fought, an estimated 750,000 Americans died, and blacks-as-chattel slavery was abolished.
The embarrassing fact is, true progress in medicine has always, without exception, been violently resisted by medical “authorities” who cling to the erroneous beliefs of their time. For example, there were huge fights about whether or not doctors should wash their hands before assisting in childbirth right after they had worked on some bacteria-laden autopsy.
The sad fact is, in defense of freedom, SOMEBODY has to speak up and “tell it like it is” in blunt, transparent and accountable language before any political candidates will have the courage to run for office using the same blunt, transparent and accountable language to publicly discuss the important issues of the day and affect meaningful political change.
Lots of world-class doctors and scientists know that what I have said is true, but lots of them are too afraid to say anything because they will lose their funding and/or medical licenses for daring to go against the Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Banking establishments. So they tolerate the lies in deference to retaining their livelihoods.
Therefore, I made a fully-informed decision to say exactly what I have said to stimulate free and open public discussion of the crucial core issues of self-ownership and self-medication. The idea is to polarize the politics of the "Big Pharma/Big Medicine vs the fundamental constitutional right of self-medication" struggle. Hopefully a violent civil war can be avoided with sufficient polarization of the issue.
COMMON CONFUSION OF TERMS:
Maybe the most confusion exists around the word "oil". Solvent-extracted "hash oil" (aka "medical marijuana oil"or "cannabis oil") has a high content of THC and is made by soaking high-THC-content cannabis buds from a female cannabis sativa plant in some kind of solvent such pure naphtha, isopropyl alcohol, or ethanol, straining the mixture through a sieve, cloth or coffee filter and then reducing the resulting THC-laden liquid down to a concentrated oily substance (THC resin) taking care not to set the highly flammable mixture on fire. Ether and butane will also work for THC extraction, but are HIGHLY flammable -- (to the point of explosiveness) -- and are best not tried at home by amateurs. The resulting explosions can be, and are, very opportunistically used politically by prohibitionists as an excuse for criminalizing self-medication -- a highly UNdesirable result of trying to make your own homemade cancer-killing medicine.
In contrast, mechanically cold-pressed (not solvent extracted) hemp seed oil contains only tiny traces of THC and is used as a food in things like cooking, dressings, and dipping. There are useful explanations of the hemp seed oil and its remarkable health benefits at places such as "Guide to Hemp Seed Oil", "Hemp Oil Canada".
THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM:
The crux of the problem is the fact that the genus of plant, Cannabis, the plant significant numbers of "useful idiots" deficient in parenting skills want to ignore the U.S. Constitution and use "law" to keep their children from smoking, is simultaneously the very same plant which also contains THC which kills certain kinds of cancer cells, and which other people want to exercise their fundamental constitutional liberty right to use as medicine to heal themselves. These facts create an irreconcilable political conflict between two factions in society both seeking to use the violence/coercion of inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring "government" to impose their will. The crucial difference is the "anti-marijuana" contingent wants to impose their will on everyone else, while the contingent of self-medication advocates merely wants to exercise their fundamental constitutional liberty rights to be let alone and to medicate themselves. The former group, many of them belonging to the so-called "religious right" are a pack of liars who pretend to revere the U.S. Constitution, while simultaneously depriving everybody else of the fundamental constitutional liberty rights to be let alone and to self-medicate. I have little empathy for the former group because I probably have researched and studied the Bible every bit as much as most of them and, as a result, very much prefer the Ex 1:17, 1 Sa 8:5-20, Jg 8:22-23, Jg 9, Ne 9, Ps 118:8-9, Ps 146:3, Isa 5:20, Isa 10, Isa 28:13, Jer 17:5, Jer 20:10-11, Jer 23:40, Da 3:18, Ho 4:6, Am 5:15, Mt 17:24-27, Mt 23. Lu 11:52, Acts 4:19, Acts 5:29, Ga 5:1,14,18-23, Php 3:20, 2 Tim 3:5, Jas 2:25 Kingship of God to their Ro 13:1; Tit 3:1; Heb 13:17; 1 Pe 2:13; 2 Pe 2:10 kingship of man. I belong to the latter pro-self-ownership, pro-constitution group, but, at the same time I would like to believe many of the former "low information" (LI), anti-constitution group are capable of having their minds open to more information. Hence the purpose of this essay/aggregation.
THE RELEVANT LAW:
When the level of evil in an irreconcilable political conflict is so extreme that violence seems inevitable, plain, direct, blunt, transparent and accountable speech is necessary if there is to be any rationally realistic hope of avoiding violence. Hence this brief discussion of speech-related law. The idea is to polarize the politics of the "Big Pharma/Big Medicine vs the fundamental constitutional right of self-medication" and the "Police-state-control vs free speech" struggles. Hopefully a violent civil war can be avoided with sufficient polarization of the issue. I believe the most extreme rhetoric which is still "legal" is necessary to effectively combat the Hegelian-Dialectic manipulations of the alpha psychopaths who own and control the world and who, being anti-self-ownership, anti-constitution, do not want the peasantry to self-medicate and/or to restore the U.S. Constitution to its rightful place as Supreme Law of the Land. Hence the rough language and rhetorical brinksmanship.
The neofeudalistic Hegelian-Dialectic scum (aka "alpha psychopaths") who own and control the world, and who constitute the elite of the transnational debt-as-money oligarchy, are so evil, and so intransigent in their evil, that there is no way they will voluntarily give up their criminally usurped power. Under those sad circumstances, it is necessary to discuss AS AN ABSTRACT IDEA/PRINCIPLE the subject of political violence. However, corrupt deserving-of-death government scum are daily attacking the fundamental 1st Amendment rights of free thought and free speech. They pretend that speech is "sedition", "threats", "hate", "disorderly", "obstruction", etc. In the historic 200-500-year cycle of violent human revolutions and "civil wars" (an oxymoron), the so-called "little people", less well-educated in the skills of deception, manipulation, demonizing and Hegelian dividing-and-conquering, just get frustrated and angry and want to pick up their pitchforks and baseball bats and "storm the Bastille". The reason for this phenomenon is the truism that the powerless destroy their enemies by shooting them, while the powerful destroy their enemies by using their corrupt courts and police to do the job.
So, what is the law about what you can and cannot say when abstractly and hyperbolically discussing the sorts of Hegelian scum who need to be killed before the U.S. Constitution can be restored to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the Land and peace and prosperity on Earth can be at long last realized? Precisely because there are so many political prisoners who were not "nuanced" in their understanding of the law regarding the limits of free speech in America when addressing the political issue of deserving-of-death scum, I thought a brief tutorial on Free Speech 101 seemed appropriate.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 1st Amendment protects advocating the violent overthrow of government AS AN ABSTRACT IDEA. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).
In a free society, there must of necessity be a bright, inviolate line between ACTION/BEHAVIOR and THOUGHT/SPEECH. Government may deal with the former, but if the society is to be free, the latter must forever be beyond the power of the dominant members of the human pecking order who love to deceptively call themselves "government". Government, for its own nefarious purposes, always and inevitably tries to increase its own power by muddying and obfuscating the clear line between speech and actions. Citizens who wish to remain free will vigilantly combat such "legal" obfuscation.
The Founders were very well experienced with tyranny and the alpha psychopaths who implement/impose it on the various citizenries of the world. As a consequence, the core purpose of the 1st Amendment is so that citizens can gather and publicly say in effect, "the king is a corrupt piece of garbage who needs to be killed", without being attacked by the king's corrupt politicians, judges, prosecutors and police. What you are not allowed to do is to speak or "conspire" in such a way as to constitute a "clear and present danger", per Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) (See also Goldman v. U.S., 245 U.S. 474 (1918), Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919), Frohwerk v. U.S., 249 U.S. 204 (1919), Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211 (1919), Pierce v. U.S., 252 U.S. 239 (1920), Schaefer v. U.S., 251 U.S. 466 (1920), Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)). In other words, you can't say something like, "let's all meet at Joe's house at midnight, pick up our guns and go over to Mr. Politician X's house and kill him." The current state of 1st Amendment case law does not protect that type of speech -- of course it does pretend that burning a flag is "symbolic speech". Go figure. I guess if you are intellectually dishonest enough you can pretend that some speech is action and some action is speech. If you happen to be alpha-psychopathic oligarchical scum, I guess you need that "legal" flexibility to make controlling the peasantry easier.
Naturally, the king's corrupt lying politicians, judges, prosecutors and police will always label freedom lovers as "haters", "racists", "terrorists", "bigots", "homophobes", "cop haters", "anti-government", "tax resisters", etc. The idea is for the corrupt king and his corrupt vassals to use the "justice" "system" to suppress dissent and destroy effective political opposition with wannabe-clever slogans, jingles, platitudes and public relations manipulation and control without every getting to the specific facts/merits of any given situation. It's quite clever, actually.
A case in point is that of Kenneth Royal Wheeler, a Grand Junction man who expressed his anger and frustration in poorly chosen words on Facebook. Unfortunately for Wheeler, he was neither sufficiently nuanced nor well enough researched in the subject of Free Speech 101 to avoid persecution. As a result, he was convicted and sentenced for his speech. Of course, the MSM's deliberately strategic use of Wheeler's stupidly "snarky" Facebook photo (above right) definitely facilitated corrupt (my opinion) police-state government's anti-constitution railroad job. The "blood of children" hyperbole, well, chalk that up to a lesson in Karma, I guess.
According to the office of the U.S. Attorney for Colorado, "Wheeler was found guilty of two counts of sending interstate threatening communications." "In one post Wheeler said: 'the americans cant punish me for what i say here in rome italy on facebook. so. kill cops. drown them in the blood of their children, hunt them down and kill their entire blood lines.'" Obviously, that was an extremely impolitic thing to say. Ignorant constitutionally-illiterate duopoly "the-cops-are-always-right-no-matter-what" lemmings/sheeple tend to worship cops and don't think cops' kids should be killed so their parents can be drowned in their blood. So Wheeler was railroaded (my opinion) in a purely (my opinion) political prosecution. Let's look at the law of the case. As any good lawyer knows, the facts of any given case determine what law applies to that case. See "Courts On Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice", by Jerome Frank.
U.S. Attorney John Walsh said, “The defendant thought that he could threaten people from afar, and return without consequences. He clearly learned that is not the case.” Kumar C. Kibble, special agent in charge of HSI Denver, said, “Individuals who make threats of violence overseas are not immune from prosecution in the United States”" “Anyone who threatens law enforcement officers or their families is a serious threat to everyone.”
Notice how John Walsh arrogantly presumes to speak to Wheeler's intent. If he can do that, as one of the employers of these arrogant (my opinion) and manipulative (my opinion) public so-called "servants", I can speak to the intent of Walsh and Kibble.
The real FACTUAL issue the police-state "system" has no desire whatsoever to address or clarify is whether or not a Facebook post which expresses anger and encourages a small and ostensibly politically impotent group of Facebook "followers" to engage in violence constitutes a viable "clear-and-present-danger" level of "serious threat" to anyone. Yeh, I agree with the grand jury lemmings/sheeple that cops shouldn't be drowned in the blood of their children. But that emotion-based perception is irrelevant to the law governing speech. I'm not talking about cutesy-pie political manipulations and prosecutions. I'm talking about specific detailed FACTS as those fact determine which constitutional law applies to those facts. I fail to see how an impotent and uneducated Facebook post from Rome, Italy to a bunch of ostensibly (or they might not even be on FB) impotent, politically apathetic Facebook "followers" LEGALLY constitutes a "clear and present" danger to professionally trained and armed policemen and their families. I see Wheelers remarks as anger-driven hyperbole. Walsh and Kibble pretend (my opinion) that it's a legitimate threat.
What conveniently (and unjustly) gets strategically (my opinion) overlooked and/or ignored by anti-constitution government operatives and the anti-constitution MSM is whether or not the police behavior which so outraged Wheeler violated the U.S. Constitution or not. Of course, that just happens to be logically relevant to the level of outrage contained in Wheeler's hyperbole, which is why it is strategically (my opinion) unaddressed.
Let's take an even closer look at the facts. Wheeler thought free speech meant just that. He was not sufficiently educated to understand that if he had prefaced his rant with the four words "AS AN ABSTRACT IDEA" his foolish and ill-advised rants would have been clearly protected by the 1st Amendment as being OPINION. In other words, if Wheeler had spoken/written the following sentence: "AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, it is my opinion that people should kill cops who violate the U.S. Constitution, drown them in the blood of their children, hunt them down and kill their entire blood lines," ACCORDING TO LAW, his speech would have been protected by the 1st Amendment as being OPINION (regardless of how repugnant it may be) because there is no possible way an abstract idea/opinion can be cleverly spun by professionally-skilled cutesy-pie manipulators (my opinion) such as Walsh and Kibble into a LAWFULLY legitimate "clear and present" danger/threat. So, in a nutshell, Wheeler got sentenced to 40 months in prison and 3 years of probation because he didn't know about four simple words and how to string them into a coherent sentence. That's how evil, anti-self-ownership and anti-US-Constitution the so-called "justice" so-called "system" and its operatives are.
Let's look at the other side of the argument. If Wheeler had intended his Facebook rant as some kind of indirect threat -- it sure as hell was not direct, because Wheeler did not communicate it directly to the specific cops involved -- he obviously did not understand that you cannot intimidate constitution-hating cops. It's a total impossibility. Anti-Constitution (and/or Constitution-hating, Constitution-violating cops) cops are a criminal (my opinion) gang very much like the Bloods and Crips or the Mafia, except FAR more dangerous and deadly because they are professionally trained, professionally-armed, and have the full might and resources of the U.S. Government and its military forces supporting them 100% regardless of how deliberately lawless, deliberately criminal or grossly negligent their behavior might be. So the Wheeler case was obviously not about threats. It was not about the types of emergency split-second law enforcement decisions which frequently but accidentally violate both the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in ways that the general citizenry can easily understand and forgive. That is a deliberate and oh-so-manipulative wannabe-clever government propaganda lie (like "Reefer Madness" or the "Warren Report"). Phoenix-Program-trained police-state "law" enforcement officers know full well that ignorant, impolitic blowhards like Kenneth Wheeler are not dangerous threats. No, the Wheeler case was about suppressing free speech and dissent and trying to terrorize and intimidate the general citizenry into being afraid to openly express their opinions -- that and nothing more -- and I can prove it.
Let's see how cutesy Walsh and Kibble's ilk want to get with this statement: "AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY/PRINCIPLE, I believe that any and all government officers, operatives and employees who deliberately violate the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights should be executed as traitors to the U.S. Constitution. Abraham Lincoln said, 'Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government'. He also said, 'The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.' Again, AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY/PRINCIPLE, and from a moral point of view, I believe all government cutesy pies (be they politician, judge, prosecutor or policmen) who pervert the U.S. Constitution, deserve to be killed by the peasantry in whatever manner the peasantry sees fit." That is no kind of threat, either express or implied, it is 1st-Amendment-protected OPINION, an expression of sincerely-held moral outrage at the cutesy-ness, deception, manipulation and treason perpetrated by individuals who would use the violence/coercion of inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring political Power to suppress the free and open discussion of ideas. In my opinion, Walsh, Kibble, and their constitution-hating (my opinion) ilk, present an infinitely greater and more deadly danger to the citizenry of the United States than ignorant, impolitic, unsympathetic, charisma-challenged blowhards like Kenneth Wheeler. So the question arises, why are traitors (my opinion) to the U.S. Constitution like Walsh and Kibble and constitution-violating cops still walking free while Wheeler is doing time in prison?
I made this little "Free Speech 101 vs. Constitution-hating 'law' enforcement" tutorial as the foundation for explaining my reasoning and feelings in the "Incompetent Parenting vs THC Kills Cancer" public relations war. I'm tired of political cutesy-ness and wanted to raise the level of rhetorical brinksmanship in the interests of polarizing an issue of life-vs-death importance: the politicization of health care. I wanted to lay a foundation for supporting the dog I have in this hunt. I wanted to lay a foundation for saying: "AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY/PRINCIPLE, I believe every constitution-hating useful idiot who prefers politicized medicine to scientific medicine, and every constitution-hating useful idiot who would use the violence/coercion of government to prevent me from growing naturally occurring Creator-made plants in my back yard, then processing those plants into cancer-killing (THC-based) medicine, then rubbing that cancer-killing (THC-based) medicine on my two spots of Basal Cell Carcinoma, from a moral, spiritual, logical, constitutional, self-ownership, self-determination and constitutional point of view deserves to be killed. AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY/PRINCIPLE, any person who is so ignorant, so immoral, and so control-freakish that they actually want to use the violence/coercion/power of "government" to prevent me from medicating myself as I see fit, to heal myself and achieve a state of wellness via my own research and experimentation on my own body, very richly deserves to be killed in spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical self-defense.
In a situation where government scum were secretly working on weaponizing dangerous viruses in the 1950s and then, by accident or otherwise, spread LIVING cancer-causing monkey viruses (e.g. SV-40) to tens of millions of Baby Boomers via polio (and other) vaccines, then tried to cover up that "national security" secret with criminal (my opinion) Richard Nixon's propaganda-based "War On Cancer" designed to make trillions of dollars for Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Big Cancer, Big Banking and their cronies, I believe the vehemence of my dissenting attitude is politically necessary and more than amply justified from both moral and intellectual points of view.
Having said that, let me be crystal clear that, as a 70-year-old teetotaller who is trying to maximize his lifespan by researching nutrition and medical alternatives, and as a person who reads U.S. Supreme Court opinions for a hobby, I am neither naive enough, gullible enough, or stupid enough to try to grow cancer-curing cannabis plants in my back yard before I believe the public relations war against cannabis prohibition has been for all intents and purposes mostly won. Let me also be crystal clear that I have absolutely no intention of implementing violence of any kind against anti-constitution scum, as numerous and ubiquitous as they may be. What I wanted to be crystal clear about is what the law regarding free speech is, and what the level of my moral outrage against politically-cutesy, disordered, neofeudalistic anti-constitution control freaks is. I have ZERO spiritual, moral and/or philosophical tolerance for any anti-constitution scum who would rather force me to die of some disease than to change their "useful idiot" thinking, acquire more knowledge, and start helping the cause of self-ownership, self-determination, individual freedom and the U.S. Constitution.
MY DOG IN THE HUNT:
Politically cutesy-pie scum might ask, "What is Wilkenson's dog in this hunt?" Easy. I am a self-ownership heretic/zealot and free-speech absolutist (somewhat after the school of William O. Douglas) who believes he has two small spots of Basal Cell Carcinoma on his body, who believes that THC will kill those cancer cells, and who believes he has a fundamental constitutional liberty right to be let alone and to medicate himself and otherwise deal with his own health, wellness and nutrition in any way I deem beneficial.
At the same time, however, I am sufficiently well-informed and "nuanced" to be able to understand that, because America has degenerated into a full-blown police state (complete with Oath-Breaker politicians, judges, prosecutors and police) that before I attempt to actually grow the plants I need to make the medicine I need to heal my little Basal Cell Carcinoma spots, I first need to inform the public as to the true nature and extent of the "political" problem I need to overcome. The idea is to, by the sheer gravitational force of overwhelming and accurate information, win the cultural and public relations wars regarding the fundamental constitutional liberty rights to be let alone and to medicate myself.
(NOTE: Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution says in pertinent part: “Freedom of speech and press…every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, ... and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.” See also the legal disclaimer for this website.)
Phoenix Tears - Rick Simpson Oil
Colorado Alternative Health Care - "125 Peach Ave. Unit B Palisade CO.81526, Mon - Sat 11:00 - 6:00pm, Phone: 970-424-5844, Edibles, Candies, Ointments, Tinctures; E-Pens and cartridges. Fabulous Massage Center, great prices. Medical Marijuana Center / Store north of RR tracks btw Brewery & Distillery. " - Email ColoradoAlternativeHealthCare@yahoo.com
RECENT VIDEOS, BLOGS, ARTICLES, COLUMNS, AND STATEMENTS:
: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.
Making hash oil without a license a felony offense, by Charles Ashby - Daily Sentinel - H.B. 1305
How a Comma Might Make Colorado Hash Oil Illegal, by Russ Belville - High Times
Silt Nixes Pot Plant Grow, by Heidi Rice - Citizen Telegram
Silt marijuana fight grows more heated, by Heidi Rice - Citizen Telegram
Rick Simpson's Hemp-Oil Medicine - High Times
Why Doctors Die Differently - Wall Street Journal
Hemp oil producer plans public meeting, by Cathy Von Kintzel - Chronicle Herald (CN NS), 08-26-05
Obama's War on Pot- This story is from the March 1, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone - I put this story in here so the terminally ignorant "steal-from-A-to-buy-the-vote-of-B" Left could see what their homie, OKenyan, was made of.
Ed Griffin on the Politics of Health and Health Freedom - YouTube video
The Collectivist Conspiracy-G Edward Griffin.mp4 - YouTube video
Dr. Raphael Mechoulam discusses medical cannabis: Cancer Cure - YouTube video
Cured: A Cannabis Story (A Film By David Triplett) - YouTube video
Michael Cutler Speech - UPA Launch - YouTube video
HOW and WHY does Cannabis Cure Cancer - Scientific Explanation - YouTube video
Cancer Cure using Cannabis - Dr. Burzynski stand up to FDA - YouTube video
Hemp - What Are We Waiting For? - YouTube video
Retired Police Captain demolishes the War on Drugs - YouTube video
1. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"2. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.
2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. In other words, "politics" = manipulation. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.
3. It bears constant repetition: explaining the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals and/or ideologies. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads are in fact effective. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling "scum" what it is. Surely a huge majority of people, especially black people, would agree that any person or group who sincerely believes in slavery or pedophilia, by way of example, qualify as "scum". Point made.
Under construction . . .ShareThis