April 26, 2013 Texas – A bill currently under consideration by the Texas government would allow doctors or clergy to act counter to your wishes when dealing with end of life decisions. The bill, S.B. 300, would give a committee of administrators the right to either end your life or prolong your life, without your consent, and against your beliefs, if the committee determines it is medically appropriate.
Many people have a moral or religious objection to the application of heroic methods to save their lives in the event of their sudden death. In the medical arena it is referred to as a Do Not Resuscitate Order or DNR. This means, if you should die on the operating table or while undergoing some form of treatment, the medical staff are prohibited from using any medical methods, including CPR, to revive your body. They must allow you to die.
The opposite is also true. Many people object to the idea of dying. They require that medical professionals use whatever means are at their disposal to keep their body alive, even if this means the use of artificial methods such as mechanical breathing or blood circulation devices.
Either way, the choice is left to the patient. After all, most agree, it is their body and their life. The new bill being considered by the Texas Senate would allow doctors or a committee of administrators, who don’t have to be doctors, to override your decisions or those of whomever you have given the medical power of attorney. Further, it also grants clergy the right to make these decisions for you.
Under this bill, Section 4 Paragraph B subsection 5 gives life ending authority to members of the clergy. If a member of your family or if the agent who holds your medical power of attorney cannot be reached, the hospital Chaplain can be consulted to determine whether or not you should be kept alive. While this would be an extreme worst case scenario, it still brings up a serious religious question. Suppose the patient is a Buddhist and the Chaplain is a Catholic. How likely is it that the Chaplain will understand or know of the patient’s religious belief regarding his current medical situation? If the decision is made to allow the patient to die, are the patient’s last rites given to him going to be in accordance with his beliefs or the Chaplain’s?
Additional provisions of this bill allow for doctors who disagree with your death decisions to not participate in them, instead, referring the matter to an Ethics Committee. If a patient has a DNR in effect and the
doctor believes it to be incorrectly applied to that patient’s current condition, he can refuse to honor it. By refusing to honor the decision, the bill sets the “default” position at life supporting measures. Therefore the doctor is now required to administer whatever treatment he deems necessary to keep the patient’s body alive.
This decision will be reviewed by an Ethics Committee and presumably the doctor will be reprimanded, but the action will already have been taken.
The opposite is also true. If the patient is in a situation where his life depends on artificial means to maintain it (life support) and the relative or agent with medical power of attorney wish to maintain life support for the patient, the doctor can disagree with this decision, also. However, unlike the previous example, this works, at least temporarily, in the patient’s favor. The matter will be taken up by the Ethics Review Board, the patient’s medical situation will be assessed, testimony will be heard and the board will make its decision. If the board decides terminating the patient’s life is the appropriate medical option, that is the action to be carried out by the doctor. But there is a last recourse for the family or agent of the patient.
If the family or agent of the patient still disagree with the Committee and doctors, they can elect to have the patient moved to another facility. While the arrangements are being made, the facility currently housing the patient is required to maintain health support for 14 days. After that they are no longer obligated to keep the patient alive.
In the event a patient is on life support and the family or the agent desire to terminate that support, if the doctor disagrees with that decision, the same procedure outlined above will be undertaken. The decision of the panel is final. As with the previous example, if the family or agent of the patient still disagree with the panel’s decision, they may move the patient to another facility that will honor their wishes.
In the event a patient is on life support and the family or the agent desire to terminate that support, if the doctor disagrees with that decision, the same procedure outlined above will be undertaken. The decision of the panel is final. As with the previous example, if the family or agent of the patient still disagree with the panel’s decision, they may move the patient to another facility that will honor their wishes. But, until they are able to do so, the panel's decision will remain in effect.
 
Picture
By Robert Rowe

The subject of marijuana use in the United States has become one of the most hotly debated in the last few decades. Proponents espouse the supposed positive medicinal benefits of cannabinoids as sufficient reason for legalization. Opponents, on the other hand, point to several health risks connected to the most common method of using marijuana, smoking, as the necessity for maintaining its controlled (read illegal) status.
As America becomes increasingly tolerant of pot use, at least by adults, it is developing an almost cultish following, known as the 420 crowd. It has derived this name from the old Scooby Doo cartoons of the seventies in which all the clocks in the show read 4:20. Most people believe that the characters Shaggy and Scooby exhibited one of the most common side effects of pot usage, their constant hunger. In today’s America, where those choosing to drink at what is socially deemed an inappropriately early time are often heard commenting that it is five o’clock somewhere, similarly those who participate in pot consumption are often remarking that it is 4:20 somewhere.
Additionally, April 20th has become known across the country as a day to celebrate marijuana usage either recreationally or medicinally.
It is popularly believed by most in the 420 subculture that marijuana prohibition laws should be treated the same as alcohol prohibition laws were early in the 20th century. Juries tended to stand against the government in most of these cases as a way to protest the unfair and unjust laws. This is a process known as jury nullification which practice fell out of favor for most of the 20th century and is gaining in popularity again in 21st century America.
Proponents of the herb’s usage often extoll many recent studies which indicate that its use may have considerably greater health benefits than it does negative effects. In fact, researchers at the University of California have discovered that the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), actually decreases the growth rate of cancer cells in lung, breast and brain tumors. It can also be used for treating the symptoms of Crohn’s disease and Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). In 1985, the Food and Drug Administration approved for use the nausea treating drug Marinol which is derived from synthetically produced THC.
It is obvious the U.S. Government knows of the positive health effects gained by pot usage. The question then arises: why is it still on the controlled substance list making it illegal for Americans? Answers to this question range from the hemp competition theory to the taxation theory and anything in between.
Many believe that marijuana was included in the hemp ban because of the difficulty in determining the difference between the two. Hemp was outlawed in America as it interfered with the lumber industry’s monopoly on paper products and the oil industry’s monopoly on fuel products. Marijuana usage at that time was fairly common as a medicinal and recreational herb. However, once it was discovered that hemp could produce far more paper at a far cheaper cost per acre than lumber and it could produce fuel oil at a substantially lower cost than oil companies paid to pump oil out of the ground, big business swung into action and lobbied Congress to outlaw the plant. Marijuana was included in that law.
Later, the Food and Drug Administration added marijuana to the controlled substance list citing the negative health effects it has on the human body including emphysema, linked to the carcinogens inhaled by pot smokers. Indeed, marijuana smokers are more likely to suffer from diseases like emphysema than cigarette smokers in spite of the fact that

marijuana is smoked less frequently than cigarettes are by tobacco smokers.
Recent studies have indicated that children under the age of 16 who are regular pot smokers tend to score considerably lower on cognitive tests of brain function, especially those assessing executive functions (planning, abstract thinking, understanding rules and inhibiting inappropriate responses to stimulus). What is often left out when citing these studies is that THC appears to have no effect on an adult brain with regard to these same assessments. This furthers the cause of legalization as no law presented for consideration has ever included an allowance of minors to use the substance recreationally.
It has also been found to inhibit immune response especially in the lungs which seems to contradict the previous UC study. This has caused opponents of marijuana use to lobby extensively to keep pot on the Federal Controlled Substance list.
No lobby group seems to have more influence in this effort than the National Lung Association which cites respiratory infections as being more prevalent in pot smokers than in cigarette smokers. It is believed this is due to the increased THC and tar levels in marijuana plants grown today. Tests performed on confiscated marijuana have shown that these levels have more than doubled between 1993 and 2008. The National Lung Association claims that this increased level of tar, which is four times greater than in a regular cigarette, explains the increase in reports of lung and respiratory infections in pot smokers.
Marijuana addiction is also cited as a reason to keep the plant on the controlled substance list. However, the statistics do not seem to suggest marijuana is a very addictive plant. Fewer than 10% of marijuana users become addicted to it versus users of other substances like alcohol (15%), heroin (23%) and cigarettes (32%).
Taxation is another issue which prevents the Federal legalization of the plant. It can be grown just about anywhere, processed easily with common tools and materials found in any large store like Wal-mart and sold by “independent retailers” without any records being kept of transactions. This makes it almost impossible for the government to levy taxes against it. The State of Washington and Colorado appear to have figured this problem out, however. In fact, it opined by many lawmakers in Colorado, that the taxes collected from marijuana sales in that state could cover the operating costs of every public school district and still have money left over for addiction treatment programs.
Marijuana has been shown to be effective in the treatment of tumors, glaucoma and migraines amongst other diseases. It has been shown to be equally effective in the treatment of the symptoms of various diseases like Tourette’s Syndrome, PMS and ADD/ADHD. Additionally, it has been shown to stop the neurological effects and nerve damage caused by Multiple Sclerosis and seizures.
The pharmaceutical industry argues that they have created medicines which can often have the same results without exposing the user to the possibilities of addiction. Cannabis proponents counter with the argument that marijuana is a natural substance which is already recognized by the human body, the human body comes with cannabinoid receptors, and produces far fewer of the harmful side effects of the chemical pharmaceuticals. Big Pharma, it should be noted, is one of the biggest opponents to the legalization of marijuana in spite of the fact that patent rights for THC, both synthetic and natural, have been granted to large pharmaceutical companies.
While states like Washington and Colorado are leading the way toward what many believe to be the inevitable Federal deregulation of marijuana, some wonder what the unintended consequences of this may be. The immediate influx of tax dollars may temporarily solve many fiscal problems but those in the fields of medicine wonder what the long term effects of legalization will be on the health care system which is already bloated and constantly on the brink of financial ruin.
 
PictureJudge Patrick Fiedler
By Robert Rowe

Judge Patrick Fiedler made this ruling in a case brought against the Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection by citizens who believed their rights were being violated by that organization. A group of families had decided to opt in on the purchase of dairy cattle. Some of the cattle were purchased collectively at fair market value and boarded on a single property. Other cows were owned outright by individuals. They were not selling their milk to anyone, they were not distributing their milk to anyone other than those who owned the cows either collectively or individually. They were, however, consuming the raw milk from their own animals.
According to Judge Fiedler, the fact that the people owned their own cows is irrelevant. He states in his ruling: “It is clear from their motion to clarify that the plaintiffs still fail to recognize that they are not merely attempting to enforce their ‘right’ to own a cow and board it at a farm. Instead, plaintiffs operate a dairy farm.”
The judge sides with the state in his belief that if multiple people who own cows and decide that for economic or other reasons to board their cattle in a single location under private contract constitutes the running of a dairy farm; presumably, as a cooperative. This in spite of the fact that some of the people in this case do not drink milk from the cows of other families who board their animals at the location.
Judge Fiedler maintains that people do not have a Constitutional Right to own their own cow, consume the products of that cow, board that cow wherever they deem is best for that cow or produce and consume the foods of their choice by stating, “This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue.”
“It’s a case of fundamental rights,” said Elizabeth Gamsky Rich, an attorney representing the group of farmers. “The plaintiffs are maintaining they have a right to own a cow; they have a right to consume the milk from that cow and that these are fundamental Constitutional rights.”
In an interview with this AASN journalist, Ms. Rich posits that the Right to Privacy, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, in addition to the First Amendment Right to freely express one’s self

through lifestyle, are being violated by the state’s dairy and other agricultural laws. “The Constitution trumps the statutes,” she said. “We have a fundamental right to own a cow. We have a fundamental right to consume the milk from our cow. We have a fundamental right to board that cow at somebody else’s farm pursuant to a private contract that should be free from government interference.”
Additionally, Rich is confused by the judge’s opinion that there was insufficiently developed argument supporting the plaintiff’s position. “We cited over 70 cases which set precedent in this matter.”
“The right of the people to opt out of the agri-business model of food production and consumption is what we were arguing. Apparently, the judge disagreed with that position,” she stated.
In a public statement, Steve Ingam, PhD, administrator of the Department of Agriculture’s division of food safety states, “We have a law that prohibits the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk. These farmers have tried to set up a way to get around the law and create a way that they think they own the cow and are consuming the cow’s milk legally.” According to Wisconsin State law, if one own even one cow, goat or sheep they own a dairy and are subject to the dairy laws of the state.
Dr. Ingam scoffed at Rich’s interpretation of the judge’s ruling. “He wasn’t really ruling on that argument,” he said. “He was ruling originally on whether we had properly interpreted the laws and regulations in Wisconsin.”
The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture was contacted for comment on this issue but declined as this case is currently actively under appeal. However, they did provide a list of the Wisconsin statutes which they believe apply in this case. Those statutes do indicate that a person or people may invest in a legally licensed dairy farm but NOT for the purpose of obtaining raw unpasteurized milk. The statute reads:
No agreement, for ownership in the entity which holds the milk producer license, is valid for the purposes of a share of the dairy farm or cows, tied to taking raw milk under the “incidental sale exception” under s. 97.24(2), Wis. Stats., and s. ATCP, 60.235, Wis. Adm. Code.
The incidental sale exception of the law allows for a visitor to the dairy to purchase or consume unpasteurized milk as long as it is not a regular occurrence.
 
Picture"Razor" wire
By Robert Rowe

Prepping is a personal experience. The way one person prepares for emergencies is different from the way anyone else prepares. But when one is preparing for a civilization ending event, or SHTF as preppers are inclined to call it, there are a few things that are basic to the process and should be considered by all.
First, one has to have the ability to protect what he has acquired, built or stored. There are a variety of methods to accomplish this such as booby traps, overt perimeter defenses, close in defensive measures and, of course, firearms.
Most cities have prohibitions against protecting the perimeter of your property with anything other than a fence. While this is a good start, like locks, fences only keep honest people from violating your property. They offer little resistance to those intending to rob you of what you have or are building or growing. In order to prevent intruders during a SHTF situation, one has to provide a more convincing deterrence. A good option for this is a highly visible deterrence such as barbed wire. It is passive and will only bring harm to those who intend to attack it. Barbed wire offers a very visible statement to those outside the perimeter of your protected area: this property is protected! Most people will consider that enough deterrent to maintain their distance from your property.
Laying out your barbed wire is important. Merely stretching your wire across the top of your fence in a typical three strand configuration is not enough. Anyone with a pair of wire clippers can easily defeat that defense. A better way is to use the natural coil of the barbed wire and string it along your perimeter in loops. You will need a considerable amount of barbed wire to accomplish this, but the higher defensive capability of this configuration is worth the expense and effort. If you can surround you r property with several layers of this configuration, so much the better.
Razor wire, (a.k.a. Concertina wire) is considerably more effective, expensive and difficult to acquire, but offers a vastly greater defense of your perimeter. It is harder to cut and infinitely more difficult to maneuver through. Unlike barbed wire, razor wire is more likely to cause serious bodily harm or death to anyone desperate enough to attempt passing through it. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, one cannot simply cover it with a blanket and crawl over it.
Wire is a passive defense intended to deliver a statement to potential intruders. Unfortunately, as stated previously, these defenses can be easily overcome by anyone with the proper cutting gear. Consider booby traps as a secondary line of defense. These defenses can be created to cause anywhere from limited but painful bodily harm all the way to causing death. Extreme caution should be taken when building and placing these devices.
As there are innumerable types of booby traps, this article will not go into the details of making or placing of them. The reader should be aware of their extreme nature and make his own decision regarding type, placement and use.
Dogs offer a very aggressive and fearful line of defense. Most humans are fearful of predatory animals. This is an instinct that developed millions of years ago with the first proto-humans who were more often than not, prey animals. Homo Sapiens, modern man, has not lost that instinct to be fearful of predators. Dogs developed from the predator Canis Lupus, or what we know as the wolf. Their strong jaws, sharp teeth and incredible maneuverability and speed inspire fear in even the bravest of men. Their extreme loyalty and devotion coupled with their high intelligence and offensive capabilities give dogs an advantage over humans. A dog is dedicated to protecting his human’s property and what it perceives as its territory. The mere presence of a dog will cause most to reconsider plundering your property. The presence of several dogs will multiply the fear and uncertainty of prospective thieves exponentially.
When considering dogs as part of your protection plan, one should consider the goal one is trying to achieve. Small dogs, while offering almost no offensive capabilities do offer a very practical defensive capability. They serve as a reliable and highly vocal alarm. Their bark will awaken even the deepest of sleepers giving you the few extra seconds needed to prepare your inner defenses. One other advantage to smaller dogs is that they consume less of your resources.
Larger dogs, on the other hand, offer you a highly effective offensive capability. They have the advantage of knowing the terrain, keener eyesight, great strength and agility that cannot be matched by most humans.
The down side is the larger the dog, the more resources are required to keep it strong and healthy.
So, what do you do if your barbed wire has been compromised, your booby traps all triggered and your dogs destroyed and the marauders continue to attack? Retreat to your last line of defense: your structure. If your structure is properly secured, it is most likely that the marauders will simply plunder your resources and leave. But, if they want more, say to cause harm to your family, you will need to be able to slow down their attack long enough either for help to arrive (which will be highly unlikely in a SHTF situation) or for you to repel their advances.
Most houses built today will offer little to no resistance to a determined intruder and virtually no resistance to even the smallest of firearms. Therefore, the wise prepper will have stored the necessary components to fortify their structure’s weakest points. These points are the windows and doors. Most will choose to use ¾” plywood as this offers solid defense against the most common tools that will be available to marauders: axes, hatchets, machetes and other bladed weapons.
PLEASE NOTE, plywood will offer no resistance against firearms. This works both ways, though. The marauders on the outside of your house futilely beating against your plywood will be at the disadvantage. They will have no idea where you are and you will know exactly where they are.
Boarding up your windows must be done properly, though. Merely using three inch screws to secure the

Picture
plywood to the outside of your window is an inadequate defense.
All it takes is a person with a cord- less drill or a screwdriver to overcome that defense. If you have multiple marauders attacking your structure, you cannot defend all points of it. Eventually, someone is going to weaken your defenses enough break through.
In order to properly secure your plywood to the outside of your window, you need to use carriage bolts at least ½” in diameter. These carriage bolts need to be long enough to go through the 2X4 frame of your window, the exterior covering and the interior covering material. You will need to use the appropriate size ring washers on the interior when securing the bolt with its appropriate hex nut. Make sure your plywood is wide and long enough to cover your window and allow you at least two inches of space between the placement of your bolt and the edge of the board. Bolt at each corner and every 16” to 24” in between on each side. It is preferred that you use the sixteen inch placement along the top and bottom as this will put the bolt through a 2X4 offering infinitely more strength. For those living in structures built before codified building laws, you will have to adjust your bolt placement accordingly.
It is impractical to block your doors with plywood. This would prevent you from escaping your structure if necessary. Therefore, a more effective and practical solution is to cover the outside of your door with plywood (and inside if you choose) for the added protection it provides, especially if your door has glass windows. A door is more secure than a window but still a weak point. After all, the only things holding it in place are three hinges and a door knob latch. Maybe, if you are smart, you will have a dead bolt lock. These are good defenses but can be defeated with enough applied force. Therefore it is necessary to bar your door from the inside to offer the greatest resistance from brute force being applied externally.
External doors are typically solid wood doors or are encased in a thin sheet of aluminum to meet fire code requirements. These doors have to be able to resist fire long enough to allow the occupants of a structure to escape. This offers you a little more protection but still not nearly enough.
You will need to fashion metal (preferably steel) braces to the inside of your door being careful to allow the door to open to its full width. Again, use carriage bolts to accomplish this. Using one brace on either side of your door in order to hold a 4X4 or two 2X4’s will probably be sufficient for most cases. However, having one set of braces placed high on your door and one placed in the middle of your door either just above or just below your door knob will offer you almost infinitely more protection from outside marauders.
For sliding glass doors you will have to build a defensive frame to cover your door. Using 2X4’s build a frame that will cover the dimensions of your door. Place 2X4’s every two feet maximum inside this frame. Cut your ¾” plywood to size ensuring the pieces meet in the center of a 2X4 and screw it into place with deck screws. Get strips of 3/16” steel long enough to traverse the height of your frame. Drill holes in these strips corresponding to where you intend to use your carriage bolts. Put these strips on the on the seams where your plywood comes together. Bolt these metal strips in place using carriage bolts. Now, secure this frame using carriage bolts to your sliding glass door frame in the same fashion you did with your windows. You will need much longer bolts to accomplish this as you are now going through two sets of 2X4’s and any exterior and interior coverings. This will now protect you from anything short of a projectile weapon.
These fortifications are not intended to prevent marauders from gaining access to the interior of your structure. They are only intended to buy you a few extra minutes to implement your next strategy. You may wish to affect an escape or find a more secure structure to hole up in, like a panic room, for example. Or you may decide go on the offensive. Whatever your strategy, these defensive fortifications will buy a person or family enough time to put their plan into action.
So, you have decided to go on the offensive. You have your firearms and are ready to repel the invaders. Good for you. So what now?
First consider the capabilities of your firearms. Second, consider your goal. Third, consider your final option.
Your firearms, even if you have a .22 caliber rifle, are powerful enough to penetrate the plywood coverings of your doors and windows. If you can shoot through them, this is likely to send your attackers running, especially if they do not possess firearms. However, if they do, they are likely to open fire on you. You have now gone from having the advantage to being at a disadvantage. You are in a confined area with limited options for movement. They, on the other hand, are unlimited in their potential movement capabilities. They also have the advantage of being able to fire into your structure from farther away, giving them the advantage of concealment.
A better tactic would be to GIVE your attackers a weakness to exploit. Once they have defeated that weakness and gained entrance into your structure, you can funnel them into a bottleneck where you can now take them out at from a protected and concealed location. At this point, even a dedicated band of attackers is very likely to give up and retreat to cut their losses. But, if they don’t, you must be prepared to shoot it out with them until one group or the other is dead. This means having a plan for reloading your weapons when your magazines all run out of ammo. There must be one or two people dedicated to the task of reloading magazines.
These ideas are deliberately basic and without a lot of detail. This is because no two situations are the same and no two people’s skills are the same. Therefore, the reader must consider the options outlined in this article and determine how best to make use of them or modify them for your unique situation.
In part two of this series, the discussion will be considerably less dramatic and violent in nature. Part two will consist of preparing the interior of an urban dweller’s property to maximize its potential and yield.

 
Picture
By Robert Rowe

As Americans, we take it for granted that it is the job of the police to protect us from the illegal activities of those who would cause us harm. This is, unfortunately, not the case. In fact, the police are under no obligation to protect us, the common citizen, at all. If a police officer were to see a crime being committed against you, he is still under no obligation to help you at all. Chances are he would, but he is not obligated to do so.
In his book, “Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth,” attorney Richard W. Stevens writes, “It was the most shocking thing I learned in law school. I was studying Torts in my first year at the University of San Diego School of Law, when I came upon the case of Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule.
This is a shocking truth, to say the least. But, the fact of the matter is, there is nowhere in the Constitution, or anywhere else in any American law, which states the government is required to protect Americans from criminals within its borders. In the case of “DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” the court noted the 1989 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution does not “impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”
Many believe, incorrectly, that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is the authority under which police must protect citizens. However, the Fourth Amendment is a restriction against the government from improper actions against the citizenry without due process. It does NOT require the government to protect private citizens from the actions of other private citizens. There is good reason for this perceived lack of protection. In order for the government to protect each and every citizen of the country it would require the existence of a police state. This would restrict American’s inalienable freedoms as outlined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Since the government has no authority to create a police state, it cannot be obligated to protect its citizens from the actions and behaviors of criminals.
L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado notes that there are only two exceptions to this rule. They are the “special relationship” and “state created danger” theories. In short, the special relationship theory requires that there is an arrangement by the police to protect an individual, such as a confidential informant or if a person has been taken into custody by law enforcement officials. The state created danger theory exists when an officer leaves the individual in a more dangerous situation than the one in which he was found. For example, an intoxicated bar patron, who was ejected by police late at night into subfreezing temperatures wearing only jeans and a T-shirt, and was prevented from returning to the bar or driving his truck, made a failure-to-protect claim. The Sixth Circuit Court stated, "The question is not whether the victim was safe during the state action, but whether he was safer before the state action than he was after it."
ndeed, except as stated previously, it is the responsibility of each person to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property. This is supported by the bill HR 648 introduced by the 108th Congress known as the “Citizens’ Self Defense Act of 2003.” )This bill was never voted upon. There is a current version of the bill, almost identical in nature and wording entitled the “Citizens’ Self Defense Act of 2011” awaiting vote.) In this act, the Congress finds that:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `(C)ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice

found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self- defense. For example:
(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.
(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.
(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.
These four findings taken collectively directly show that because the police cannot be everywhere to protect individuals and are not required to protect individuals it is the responsibility of each individual to use whatever force is necessary, including the use of a firearm, to protect themselves, their family and their property from criminal actions.

Congress has known these facts at least since 2003. They have articulated these facts into this bill and its most recent version, the “Citizens’ Self Defense Act of 2011,” currently awaiting a vote. It should be noted, though, that this bill has little chance of passing both Houses given the current political climate surrounding gun rights. Additionally, with the current President’s opinions on gun control, even if the bill is to pass Congress, it is likely to be vetoed.
Given the fact that it is known by law enforcement agencies from the Federal level to the local level that police cannot protect the citizenry and are under no obligation to do so, should it not then, be a requirement that all households not specifically prohibited from possessing firearms own at least one? The answer is, NO. Just as the Federal government doesn't have the authority to legislate away our right to bear arms, it also does not have the authority to require we exercise that right. It is the responsibility of each citizen to determine for themselves how best to protect themselves.
However, even though the Federal government does not have the authority to require firearms in each household, each of the several States does have that authority if the citizenry grants it. Each State may, by popular vote, enact such laws that require each legal citizen to protect themselves by whatever means they deem most appropriate, up to and including, the possession and use of firearms.
In a country which is rapidly degrading into factions violently opposed to each other and with non-firearm related crime on the rise, it is the duty of the citizenry to debate this issue and decide on what is the best course of action for their jurisdiction.
 
Picture
By Robert Rowe

Most Americans don’t realize there is a fourth “branch” of government more powerful than the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. That “branch” is the jury. It is more powerful because of a legal concept of which very few are aware: jury nullification. In short, Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. (1)
Jury nullification does have its limitations, though. A jury can only bring a verdict contrary to the letter of the law on the case before it. However, if this develops into a pattern of acquittals, it has the force of a de facto invalidation of the statute. This usually indicates to prosecutors the public’s dissatisfaction or opposition to an unwanted law.
Modern Western juries are often instructed by the judge presiding over the case to serve in the capacity of “fact finders” only with the role of determining the veracity and credibility of the evidence presented. They are further instructed to apply that evidence to the statute in order to reach a verdict but are NOT instructed that they have the ability to determine what the law is or whether it is a fair and just law.
Jury nullification has a long history in America dating back to the Colonies. In the American Colonies, jury nullification often involved the refusal of colonists to convict a defendant under English Law as in the case of John Peter Zenger. In 1734, Zenger was arrested on charges of seditious libel against His Majesty's government. The jury in that case disregarded the judge’s directions to find Zenger guilty and acquitted him.
Juries have also refused to convict a defendant due to the perceived injustice of a law or the way the law is enforced in a particular case. The darker side of this concept has resulted in juries refusing to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one or more of the parties in the case. This happened frequently in the South where the defendant was white and accused of damage against a black person.
Intensely debated, proponents of jury nullification see it as an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Opponents believe it is a violation of the right to a jury trial which undermines the law. Yet others seem to view it as a violation of the juror’s oath though the oath’s reference to “deliverance” seems to require nullification of an unjust law.
In June of 2012, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law requiring judges inform jurors of their right to nullify. Almost immediately, the concept was applied in the case of New Hampshire v. Doug Darrell in a marijuana growing case. According to the website, The New American, “Darrell, a Rastafarian piano tuner and woodworker who has been married for almost four decades, was arrested after a National Guard helicopter spotted some marijuana plants on his property in Barnstead. State prosecutors charged him with cultivation, a felony that could have carried up to seven years in prison.” (2)
Nobody, including Darrell, disputed that he was growing marijuana for his personal medicinal use in accordance with his religious doctrine. Juror Cathleen Converse stated in an exclusive interview with Free Talk Radio (3), “Mr. Darrell is a peaceful man, he never deals with the darker elements of society and he grows for his own personal religious and medicinal use. I knew that my community would be poorer rather than better off had he been convicted.” To prevent conviction of Darrell, she convinced other jurors to do as the defense suggested: vote their conscience and declare Darrell a free man. “Many of us wondered what kind of precedent this would set,” Converse continued. “But after chewing on all of the possibilities and re-reading the definition of nullification, we all decided that the only fair thing to do was to vote with our consciences and acquit the defendant of all charges.”
Mark Sisti, Darrell’s defense attorney remarked that the judge’s decision to inform the jury of their right to nullification was key to his client’s victory, warning, though, that nullification is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
This case illustrates how juries can express their dissatisfaction with current drug policy laws and render them moot. As Americans are becoming more tolerant of marijuana usage in the face of new evidence suggesting that there are fewer and fewer negative effects of using the herb (4), jurors are less inclined to convict on drug charges involving marijuana. Darrell’s case is one example of how jurors can use nullification to render a more just verdict rather than merely judging the facts against a law that may be unjust.
In his publication, “Jurors’ Handbook: A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty,” Professor James J. Duane of the Regent University School of Law, states, “YOU, as a juror armed with the knowledge of the purpose of a jury trial, and the knowledge of what your Rights, powers, and duties really are, can with your single vote of not guilty nullify or invalidate any law involved in that case.” This is backed by the 1972 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which stated that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge…”(5)
According to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland, “We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.(6)
There is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. However, today, there are several issues of concern raised by jury nullification, namely:
• Whether juries should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify,
• Whether a judge may remove jurors “for cause” when they refuse to apply the law as instructed,
• Whether a judge may punish a juror for exercising the power of jury nullification and
• Whether all legal arguments, except for motions in limine(7) to exclude evidence, should be made in the presence of the jury.
The State of New Hampshire has, obviously, decided on the matter of instruction for their jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court has stated that judges are under no obligation to inform juries of their right to nullification. But, as Douglas O. Linder, Elmer Powell Peer Professor of Law at the University of Missouri Kansas City writes in his 2001 document “Jury Nullification,” “Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.”(8)
This suggests that many judges may believe that jurors either do not have the capacity or should not be allowed to determine whether or not a law is just; that it is up to the courts to make that decision. In a country where the ultimate power rests in the hands of the people and the system of justice exhorts, “It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape (the punishment of justice) than that one innocent Person should suffer,”(11) this is a conclusion that is not supported by the aforementioned decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeal.



One of the organizations at the forefront in the debate over jury nullification is the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) based in Helena, Montana.(10) Kirsten Tynan, is the National Coordinator for FIJA. When asked for comments regarding this issue, Tynan made the following statements via email, “Judges should not, but typically do, remove jurors if it comes to their attention during voir dire that a juror knows about his or her full legal authority or during deliberations that a juror is considering nullifying the law.”
This is done contrary to the concept of American justice where the legal system favors the defendant. Often, in a trial, clever prosecutors maneuver in such a manner that the jury is not given access to all the information in the case, especially information that could exonerate the defendant.
Ms. Tynan argues, “The jury should be aware of most courtroom proceedings. Modern juries are strictly curtailed by government in what they are allowed to do compared to how juries historically have operated. Juries in some cultures were used much more extensively, such as by participating in investigating crimes. In the United States today, however, jurors can be punished if they do outside research.”
This gives the prosecution too much power and severely limits the capabilities of defense attorneys. Informing the jury of their right to nullification is one way for the defense to gain the upper hand especially in victimless crimes such as Doug Darrell’s case. “In a case where there is no victim, there is no crime even if government has arbitrarily defined something as a legal offense. The jury in the Doug Darrell case, recognizing that nobody was harmed by Mr. Darrell's private activities, appropriately refused to harm him and instead nullified an unjust law that would have punished a peaceful man for no good reason,” states Tynan.
Other arguments against jury nullification are:
• Law should be made by elected legislators, not by jurors chosen randomly from the population.
• Jury nullification would be inconsistent with the law’s aspiration that similar cases should be treated similarly because nullification would have unpredictable results in similar cases based on the preferences of different juries regarding the desirability of the same law.
• The system has worked well for over a century without jury nullification.
Unfortunately for opponents of jury nullification, the framers of the Constitution had a different perspective:
• The jury [and jury nullification] is a check-and-balance against government tyranny, and intended for the jury to have the power and right to nullify in cases of unjust criminal prosecutions.
• That function of the jury is still essential today to protect against unjust prosecutions.(9)
In today’s legal system there are literally thousands of cases where a defendant has been convicted based solely on the facts presented to the jury regarding a law that has been misapplied or is unjust. So the argument that jury nullification would be inconsistent with the law’s aspiration that similar cases should be treated similarly does not hold merit as these cases tend to prove.
For example, in 1985, Sharon and Edmund Pangelinan were convicted of contributing to the delinquency of minor children in the state of Alabama. In her book Guilty of Love published in 1987, Sharon discusses the decision her family made to home educate their children, Ruben and Marisa, due to what they perceived as religious intolerance and other negative influences of the public school system in Alabama toward mixed race families. In that case, the judge refused to allow the jury to consider nullification as the Pangelinan’s attorney believed their situation was a case of misapplication of an unjust and unconstitutional law.
There is no way to know if the outcome of the Pangelinan’s case or that of other cases where nullification was disallowed would have been different had it been allowed to be considered by the jury. However, the fact that judges actively disallow nullification is perceived by many legal scholars and experts, like Tynan, as a serious miscarriage of justice. “This is an insidious form of jury-tampering straight from the bench which tilts the playing field in favor of the prosecution.”
Cases such as the Pangelinan case, do not create a valid argument for requiring a judge to instruct a jury on nullification. According to the Supreme Court in its Dougherty decision(5), "The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power". This may seem to be hypocritical at first glance, but as Professor Duane points out: “In our Constitutional Republic, note I did not say democracy, the people have granted certain limited powers to government, preserving and retaining their God-given inalienable rights. So, if it is indeed the juror's right to decide the law, then the citizens should know what their rights are. They need not be told by the courts. After all, the Constitution makes us the masters of the public servants. Should a servant have to tell a master what his rights are? Of course not, it's our responsibility to know what our rights are!”
Tynan furthers that argument by saying, “At the time the Supreme Court ruled in Sparf and Hansen v. United States that judges were not obligated to inform jurors of their right to nullify, the cultural and political environment were very different. Unlike today, jurors' veto power was common knowledge in the culture so it was argued by some people that it was unnecessary to inform jurors of this authority. Additionally, the 1890s were notable for a climate of dissent between labor and industry. Judges were typically from the social upper class and tended to side with industry while juries were more likely to have working class members represented among them. Juries of the day often nullified criminal conspiracy laws that were used against striking workers and union organizers. Retired Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe points out in "Jury Nullification: Empowering the Jury as the Fourth Branch of Government" that the Supreme Court surely would have been aware in rendering the decision in Sparf and Hansen v. United States that the majority opinion, curbing the jury's knowledge of its right to nullify, would help tilt the playing field in favor of industry and against the labor movement.”"
Therefore, if the People, the Masters of America, decide they want juries to be instructed on nullification, they must follow New Hampshire’s lead and pass laws binding judges to the will of the People rather than allow judges to continue their current rogue practices.

(1) From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
(2) http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12892-new-hampshire-jury-nullifies-major-felony-marijuana-case
(3) http://www.freetalklive.com/content/nh_jury_nullifies_drug_war_acquits_pot_growing_ rastafarian
(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
(5) US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)
(6) US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)
(7) In U.S. law, a motion in limine (Latin: "at the start") (pronounced \in-ˈlē-mi-ˌne\) is a written "request" or motion to a judge that can be used for civil or criminal proceedings, and at the State or Federal level. A frequent use is at a pre-trial hearing or during an actual trial, requesting that the judge rule that certain testimony regarding evidence or information may be included or excluded. The motion is always discussed outside the presence of the jury and is always decided by a judge. The reasons for the motions are wide and varied, but probably the most frequent use of the motion in limine in a criminal trial is to shield the jury from information concerning the defendant that could possibly be unfairly prejudicial to him if heard at trial. Some others arise under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with discovery.
(8) http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
(9) http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_powers_nullification_debate.asp
(10) Fully Informed Jury Association (www.fija.org)
(11) Benjamin Franklin, Works 293 (1970), Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan (14 March 1785)
 
By Robert Rowe

CAUTION: It is strongly recommended those thinking of fasting as part of a "diet" consult a physician or dietitian before starting due to the potential risks to health.
Before reading this article further, the reader must be aware that the author references various practices from various faiths. The author is not suggesting that any one faith is any more or less significant or important than any other. Also, the author understands that not all practitioners of each faith represented in this article practice the same disciplines. Therefore, when reading the article, the reader must keep this in mind and understand the references are intended to be examples only.
There has been much research conducted on the concept of dieting, caloric restriction and fasting. This research suggests there are significant health benefits to such behaviors. Some of these benefits include a reduced risk of cancer, diabetes, immune disorders and even a general slowing in the aging process potentially increasing one’s life span. Indeed, according to researcher Dr. Mark P. Mattson, chief of the laboratory of neurosciences at the U.S. National Institute on Aging, intermittent fasting (fasting every other day) has shown, in laboratory mice, to have beneficial effects as effective as those on caloric restriction diets.
A study conducted by the University of Illinois reached the same conclusions. Studies conducted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded additional benefits of increased insulin sensitivity, reduced morbidity and stress resistance can also be achieved through intermittent fasting. It is important to note, however, that there have been no long term studies on humans regarding intermittent fasting. But, short term human studies have shown the benefit of weight loss. Dr. Eric Ravussin states, “Alternate day fasting may be an alternative to prolonged diet restriction for increasing the life span.”
Another study indicates that adherence to the Greek Orthodox fasting periods contributes to an improvement in the blood lipid profile (cholesterol levels). This fasting seems to have directly led to the decrease in total LDL cholesterol and a decrease in the LDL to HDL ratio. These results indicate a possible positive impact on obesity levels of those who practice these fasting periods.
The concept of fasting in Buddhism, like most Buddhist concepts, is somewhat different from what the typical westerner considers when contemplating fasting. Buddhist monks and nuns practice fasting not as a fast but more as a disciplined regimen designed to aid in meditation as well as aid good health.
"Once when the Buddha was touring in the region of Kasi together with a large sangha of monks he addressed them saying: 'I, monks, do not eat a meal in the evening. Not eating a meal in the evening I, monks, am aware of good health and of being without illness and of buoyancy and strength and living in comfort. Come, do you too, monks, not eat a meal in the evening. Not eating a meal in the evening you too, monks, will be aware of good health and..... and living in comfort.' " (Kitagiri Sutta-Majjhima Nikaya)
Lay Buddhists (Buddhist practitioners who are not monks or nuns) do not practice fasting. Fasting is seen as a deviation from the Middle Path. Buddhist tradition suggests this is because Prince Siddhartha practiced a regime for six years of strict austerity prior to attaining Enlightenment. During this time he consumed very little food. One Buddhist legend has it that he, at one point, consumed only one rice seed per day. Upon realizing that the practice of denial [of food] was not appropriate and dangerous, he adopted the concept of moderation or eating only enough and no more. As the above Sutta suggests, he refrained from eating an evening meal, though that is often in dispute. This is likely why Buddhist monks and nuns practicing Vinaya refrain from an evening meal.
Lay Buddhists, conversely, are instructed to observe the eight precepts, one of which is to refrain from eating after noon during Uposatha days (Uposatha roughly translates to one day per week).

Fasting, if not practiced properly and under the guidance of a medical professional can be quite dangerous when the body cannot perform gluconeogenesis (the formation of glucose, especially by the liver, from noncarbohydrate sources, such as amino acids and the glycerol portion of fats. See www.thefreedictionary.com) Under normal conditions the brain and the body’s vital organs need about 800 calories per day to have ample glucose. This assumes the body is not in ketosis (a state of elevated levels of ketone bodies in the body. It is almost always generalized throughout the body, with hyperketonemia, that is, an elevated level of ketone bodies in the blood. Ketone bodies are formed by ketogenesis when liver glycogen stores are depleted. The ketone bodies acetoacetate and β-hydroxybutyrate are used for energy. See www.wikipedia.org). Therefore, if one consumes less than 800 calories per day damage can be caused to the brain and other organs and, in severe cases, death. Fasting should be conducted only when the body is in a state of ketosis and can remain there for safety.
Recent studies on mice show that fasting every other day while eating double the normal amount of food on non-fasting days can lead to improved insulin and blood sugar control, neuronal resistance to injury, and general good health indicators. Hypertension has also been shown to be reduced by fasting.
Spiritual fasting
There is a time for fasting and there is a time to NOT fast. For example, do not fast during celebrations or other times when you are expected to have fun. For Christians, the resurrection of Jesus is the happiest thing that has ever happened. So the time between Easter and the Pentecost is a time for feasting and celebrating, NOT for fasting. Similarly, the birth of Jesus is a good cause for celebration. For Christians, His birth represents God being with us imperfect and undeserving humans. As such, the time between Christmas and Epiphany is for celebrating and feasting. Fasting is not recommended.
Fasting from food is not dieting. It's not a divine weight-loss plan. Treated that way, it could be a thin disguise for an adult version of anorexia, a psychological eating illness which has strong physical effects on the body. Many people have died because of this abuse of fasting. If you're overweight because you have no self-discipline about eating or exercise, then short or selective fasts may be helpful as part of the larger process of developing self-discipline about food -- but helpful due to the discipline, not the weight loss.
Fasting is not for self-punishment. It is not right to harm yourself in a way that might make you a burden to others who would have to give you physical care. Mohammed was a strong believer in fasting as a discipline, but even he had to act against the extreme fasting of his Companions in Medina when it weakened them up to the edge of death. Thus, do not fast in a way that seriously harms your health.
Practiced properly, fasting can be a great way to improve your health or achieve spiritual goals. It must be conducted in a manner which assures success in achieving your goals without harming your body, mind or spirit. Therefore, it is always a good idea to consult with your health care provider before considering any form of fasting or dieting. Keep in mind that fasting is intended to be a temporary situation intended to be broken at a specific time or after achieving a specific goal. If your goal spiritually oriented, set a time limit for yourself. If you have not achieved your spiritual goal within a specified period of time, do not consider it a failure. Rather, consider it as achieving a step toward your ultimate goal realizing that it may take several attempts to achieve your goal. You do not reach the top of a flight of stairs by taking only one step. You must traverse all the steps to accomplish the task. Similarly, with spiritual fasting, you may have more steps to climb than you originally anticipated.
 
PictureChinese Renminbi
By Robert Rowe

With the recent gains the Renminbi has made against the dollar, prudence would dictate that we look at the actual threat it poses to the U.S. Dollar; specifically in relation to replacing the Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. This will be a very difficult task as it requires the simplification of a very complex situation.
The short answer is that there is not a lot to worry about at this time.
However, for those of you interested in learning about the long term effects the Renminbi’s gains could have against the U.S. Dollar, read on.
The Renminbi (RMB) is the currency of China. The communist China, not the legitimate China which is in exile in Taiwan. Prior to 2005, the value of the RMB was akin to the Russian Ruble; virtually valueless. The Chinese communist government accomplished this by manipulating and artificially devaluing their currency to ensure that China’s exports remained competitive in the world’s markets, especially the insatiable American markets. In 2005, the communists revalued their currency to a stronger position but still considerably weaker than most of the world’s currencies such as the USD, Eruo, Japanese Yen and the British Pound Sterling.
After the world’s financial crisis of 2008-09, the RMB found itself in a surprisingly strong position against the world’s failing currencies, namely, those listed above. This was actually a position of weakness for China, believe it or not, as their fragile and overprotected economy could not handle a sharp decline in the value of the RMB the way America was able to, barely, handle the sharp decline in the USD. But a sharp few economists saw an opportunity for China. Still fewer actually believed China would take advantage of the opportunity as it would mean opening up their markets and exposing themselves to levels of risk not before acceptable to the Communist Party.
China, for the first time, had an opportunity, through subterfuge, cunning and currency manipulation, to replace the USD as the world’s reserve currency in favor of the RMB. Thus began their journey to develop the RMB not only into a stronger regional currency, but the world’s reserve currency.
Just to make things very clear: the RMB is not even close to being strong enough to replace the USD as the world’s reserve currency. But, with the gains they are making in the financial sector, the relaxation of their own market policies to a more liberal and open system combined with their international agreements with the BRICS nations and regional nations, China is poised to take advantage of the rapidly falling USD.
Their plan is quite ingenious, actually. First, they opened their markets on a limited basis just to test the waters. This was so successful, the Communist Party had to reconsider their position on maintaining a closed and protected market. They reformed their market policies allowing foreign investment on a very limited scale. This, again, was very successful. Now, they have a market that allows foreign investment to come INTO the country and limited investments and monies to LEAVE the country. This creates a higher, and artificially inflated, demand for the RMB.
The next step was to allow the RMB on the international market. Again, China plays their cards very close to the vest. Allowing only a small amount of RMB onto the market, they made tremendous profits by value manipulation. But, this is also exactly why the RMB is nowhere near a real threat to the USD at this time. More on that in a bit.
China then announced to the world that they were no longer interested in using the USD as the world’s reserve currency. Why is this important to you and me? The over simplified version is this: the world borrows USDs to conduct international trade, especially petroleum products. The demand for dollars is so great

that the Federal Reserve can loan those dollars at any interest rate it chooses and everyone will clamor for them. This is because the dollar has always been considered a stable currency because of America’s free market policies and our ever increasing GDP. America borrows USD also. But, because it is our currency, our interest rates are considerably lower than that of the rest of the world. After all, it is OUR money, right?
As a result of the world trading in OUR currency, we have been able to create an artificially high standard of living. That standard of living requires two things to maintain its stability. The first is that the world must continue to trade in USD. The second is that we must continue to increase our GDP indefinitely. Both of these conditions are now threatened.
If the world ceases to use the USD as the world reserve currency, our economy could, literally, collapse within 24 hours. If our GDP fails to outgrow inflation, the dollar loses its value and inflation increases, reducing our GDP which increases our inflation which reduces the value of the dollar which increases inflation which reduces our GDP which increases our inflation…
I think you get the point. Hyperinflation would set in very quickly.
So, why would China want our economy to crash since it would also crash their economy? That is a very astute question. Here is the simple answer. It won’t adversely affect their economy enough cause it to crash. China has quietly been unloading its holdings of dollars and U.S. debt while simultaneously increasing the influence of the RMB both regionally and globally.
Here is what is holding the RMB back from becoming a dominating world reserve currency. Faith. Quite frankly, the world does not have faith that the Communist Party will keep their hands out of the markets. As long as the international money exchangers continue to distrust the RMB, they will never be more than a strong regional currency with a few global economies dabbling in it as a way to anger America.
But, with China’s announcement in November 2012, that it is relaxing, even further, its market policies and it is making MORE RMB available for global trade, faith in the RMB will increase. This will make it a stronger and more valuable currency to combat the dollar.
Now, enter India, Iran and Pakistan. India and Pakistan already deal with China in RMB. But, the RMB cannot be taken seriously until other countries use the RMB as a trade currency with countries other than China. India is considering trading with Iran for oil using RMB. Once the RMB gets a foothold in the petro markets, its value will quickly become competitive with the USD which is almost entirely dependent on the petro markets for its value. Every chunk of the oil trade that the Chinese can take from the petrodollar, the weaker the USD becomes and the stronger the RMB becomes.
So here is a simplified breakdown of what is going on.
1. The Chinese are relaxing their market trade policies.
2. The Chinese are making the RMB available for regional international trade.
3. The Chinese are making the RMB available globally to be used to conduct international business.
4. The Chinese are dumping USD onto the market, decreasing its value.
5. The glut of USD on the market means higher inflation for the U.S. and any country dependent on the USD.
6. The RMB is increasing in value and strength. Investors are flocking to the RMB as an alternative “safe haven” currency. (This is disputed by some economists who believe investors are merely using the RMB for short term profits.)
7. The goal of the Communist Chinese Government is to replace the USD as the world reserve currency in favor of the RMB.
While it will still be some time before the RMB becomes strong enough to compete with the USD, it should not be taken lightly as a serious competitor to the dollar. Given the current attitude of the U.S. President (who has praised the valuation of the RMB) to find creative ways to destroy the American economy, the global domination of the RMB may come to be a lot faster than economists currently believe.
 
Picture
By Robert Rowe
February 01, 2013

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization bent on propagating the spread of Islam throughout the world by whatever means necessary. Recently leaked documents which were captured by American agents have revealed their motives and plans. It is alarming to find out how well organized they are and how meticulously they are moving forward with their plan. Indeed, it is disturbing to find out how much their agenda seems to coincide with the general agenda of the Left in America. The title of the captured document which is referred to in this article is “An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group [The Islamic Brotherhood] In North America” and is dated 5/22/1991.

As the date of the document shows, the Muslim Brotherhood has been openly operating in the United States for decades. This is nothing new. However, the new evidence shows that their underground operations have been successful in furthering their goals for the Islamification of America. According to the document Americans are also financially supporting this effort, albeit unwittingly.

Understanding the enemy is the first step toward defeating them. In order to understand what the Islamic Brotherhood has for their ultimate goal, one merely has to read the following paragraph:

The general strategic goal of the Group in America which was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference for the year [I987] is "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is". (emphasis mine)

In other words, it is their intention to propagate Islam in America and present it as a "civilization alternative" which means, change America from a Democratic Republic into an Islamic Theocracy adopting Islam as the State Religion and all that it entails.

An argument could be made that the purpose of that statement is merely to propagate the practice of Islam in the United States and work to maintain and grow a Muslim following, just as any other religion aims to do. On the surface that seems to be the goal until one finds the following paragraph which clearly demonstrates their true intent with regard to presenting Islam as a civilization alternative:

Three: The Concept of Settlement:
This term was mentioned in the Group's "dictionary" and documents with various meanings in spite of the fact that everyone meant one thing with it. We believe that the understanding of the essence is the same and we will attempt here to give the word and its "meanings" a practical explanation with a practical Movement tone, and not a philosophical linguistic explanation, while stressing that this explanation of ours is not complete until our explanation of "the process" of settlement itself is understood which is mentioned in the following paragraph. We briefly say the following:
Settlement: "That Islam and its Movement become a part of the homeland it lives in". (emphasis mine)
Establishment: "That Islam turns into firmly-rooted organizations on whose bases civilization, structure and testimony are built". (emphasis mine)
Stability: "That Islam is stable in the land on which its people move".
Enablement: "That Islam is enabled within the souls, minds and the lives of the people of the country in which it moves". (emphasis mine)
Rooting: "That Islam is resident and not a passing thing, or rooted "entrenched" in the soil of the spot where it moves and not a strange plant to it".


These statements make it more than sufficiently clear that the Islamification of America is their intended goal



and nothing less will suffice. The next question then becomes: how will they accomplish this task as the largest portion of Americans (approximately 74% as of 2011) are Christian? Looking further into the document we find their method of operation.

"4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" WITH ALL THE WORD MEANS. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal
." (all emphasis mine)

There can be no doubt in the mind of even the most skeptical the intention of this paragraph. It makes clear that jihad (holy war) is the preferred and final method by which the Muslim Brotherhood intends to bring down the United States and present Islam as the only viable alternative for those who remain after the dust has settled.
Perhaps more importantly, though, is the fact that they intend to bring down the United States from within. Plant saboteurs in high ranking places to bring about division and foment rebellion. Of course, that cannot happen in America, right? We are a nation of tolerance and peace. We aren’t currently bitterly divided over things like race, gun control, economic disparity or any other serious issues such as these. And there is a bridge for sale connecting America with Europe, too.

Like it or not, America is a country whose culture is loosely based upon the tenets of Christianity. Though it has matured over the years, homage to the origination of the country's culture must be given and respect given to its success. However, though most of the Christian faith would have it otherwise, we have a Constitutional mandate that our government respect NO religion and that mandate has formed a cultural mindset of religious tolerance over the past couple hundred years.

Most Americans alive today have lived their entire lives with the understanding that we respect each other’s faith, even when we don’t share those other beliefs. This concept is ingrained into our very moral make up. We stand firm on this principle. We defend this idea with our very lives. The only thing more important to Americans than this idea is our various faiths. That very principle engrained into every fiber of our culture is now under attack. Indeed, has been for decades.

It is, without a doubt, and by their own words, the intention of the Muslim Brotherhood in America to bring about the complete destruction of the United States of America and to replace it with the Islamic Theocracy of America. They intend to use every means at their disposal, including violence and terror tactics, to make this happen. They have placed saboteurs at the highest levels of our governmental system to aid them in this process.
To make matters even more dire for the average American citizen is that our tax dollars are being used to fund this jihadist movement. Very frequently we are being told through various headlines of the enormous amounts of money the government is giving away, with no strings attached, to the Muslim Brotherhood or one of the organizations they control. Yet Americans, knowing this will bring about their downfall, do nothing to stop it. Their apathy is surpassed only by their unwillingness to even take a glimpse at the truth.

When the time comes that America has succumbed to the patient and deliberate undermining of its principles, the slow and incessant chipping away of its foundations, her citizenry will look up from their television sets and say, “Wow, we didn’t see that coming. Oh well, nothing we can do about it now.” Then they will return to watching American Idol, until it becomes illegal to watch such programs.
 
PictureRabbits: Day and Night
By Robert Rowe

Normally, when one thinks of animals facing extinction images of polar bears, pandas or whales come to mind. But, an animal whose propagation is legendary and synonymous with excess hardly receives any consideration at all. Yet, this appears to be the case with rabbits globally. While Lagomorphs (the Order which contains rabbits, hares, chinchillas and others) have existed on Earth for some 40 million years, Leporidae are a relatively new Family of animal on the planet, spanning merely thousands of years compared to the hundreds of millions of years of existence for animals such as sharks and alligators or even the approximately two million years of Hominidae. Our own Species (Homo Sapiens) has been around for approximately 200,000 years, about 20 times longer than the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) from which we derive most of the 60 or so recognized rabbit breeds currently remaining world-wide.
For the last hundred years or so, this alarming trend of rabbit extinctions has gone almost completely unnoticed by the public. While it is true that in some areas of the world, rabbits are so prolific that they are considered nuisance animals or pests, here in America rabbit extinctions have become almost commonplace. In fact, in America, we have lost 32 species of rabbit since 1900 with several more currently on the endangered list.
To be fair, of that 32 species, many were human developed breeds that simply fell out of favor or popularity. During the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, it is estimated that there were over 200 distinct species of rabbit. But, rabbits bred solely for show or pets often fell from popularity amongst the wealthy and breeders simply stopped raising them, allowing for their extinction. Rabbits that provided sustenance for the poor and impoverished, on the other hand, maintained popularity and their numbers eventually grew to record levels. However, by the 1950’s commercialization of meat products like beef and pork contributed to the all but nonexistent consumption of rabbit in the United States. This, in turn, has contributed to the overall decline in the rabbit population in America as they became considered pests to be eradicated.
This is not a problem for just America, but for other areas of the world as well. Europe, Russia, Japan, North Africa and South Africa are also experiencing the loss of various species of rabbits. (Please note: Rabbits and Hares are not the same. This article deals solely with rabbit genera and species.)
European rabbits, currently on the endangered species list in several countries, originate from the Iberian Peninsula in what is now called Spain and Portugal. The word Hispania from which Spain derives its name means “the land of rabbits.” They were most populous in that region and along the North African coastal region until recently. It is estimated that the European Rabbit population has declined to less than 5% of its pre-1950’s levels throughout the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa. Human encroachment and other environmental factors are blamed for this massive and rapid decline.
Additionally, the European Patagonian breed (not to be confused with the Argentinian Patagonian breed) has already become extinct.

Here in America, we are currently working to preserve several species of rabbit including the Columbian Pygmy, Idahoan Pygmy, the New England Cottontail, the Sivilagus palustris hefneri (named after Hugh Hefner) and the Riparian Brush Rabbit just to name a few. Human and cattle encroachment as well as the destruction of their native habitats are considered the predominant causes for the near extinction of these breeds, though in the case of the New England Cottontail, studies are still ongoing to determine the cause of its near extinction.
In Japan, the Amami rabbit is near extinction with only a few hundred known to remain.
In South Africa, the Riverine rabbit is close to extinction. There have been some signs, recently, that point to possible recovery of this animal and researchers are investigating.
Given the prolific mating habits of rabbits, one may wonder why it is of concern that rabbit species are dying out. Rabbits, being herbivores, are near the bottom of the food chain. Most don’t understand the importance of these prey animals. The closer to the bottom of the food chain, the more important the animal is. In the case of rabbits, they provide much of the food for predatory animals such as foxes, coyotes, wolves, eagles and such. Without rabbits, these predators will begin to die off or will be forced to prey on other species which are also endangered. For example, in the Iberian Peninsula, the decline in the rabbit population has directly led to the rapid decline in the Iberian Lynx and Spanish Imperial Eagle populations, putting them on the endangered species list, also.
In other regions of the world, rabbits maintain and provide for the natural ecosystem of the environment in which they thrive. Rabbits feed on fruits, grains, roots and vegetables that would otherwise overrun an ecosystem without rabbits to consume them. Where the rabbit population has declined, aggressive plant species are beginning to wreak havoc on local ecosystems. Being herbivores, the excrement of rabbits provides some of the best fertilizer a plant could desire.
There is good news for the remaining species. Due to their extreme “cuteness” rabbit keeping for pets is on the rise in North America as well as in parts of Europe such as UK and France. Hopefully, as with dogs and cats, this trend may result in the creation of rabbits to perform certain functions. For example, someone may develop a rabbit with underdeveloped claws which would make a great pet. Others may develop rabbits for sport such as racing. I would personally love to see a breed of garden rabbit that will only eat weeds leaving the cultivated plants unmolested. Imagine the popularity of a rabbit like that.
People are also beginning to understand the remarkable benefit of consuming rabbit meat. Extremely low in fat it is an increasingly popular choice among an obese American society. Additionally, rabbit meat is the easiest meat for humans to digest, increasing GI tract health and absorption of nutrients by the body. Rabbit meat, much like chicken, also has a remarkable ability work well with just about any spice arrangement. While it is unrealistic to assume that rabbit meat will someday compete with beef and pork for a place at the dinner table, it is, again, increasing in its popularity due to its nutritional benefits and low fat content.
The human race may not be able to save all the currently endangered species of rabbit. However, we have the ability and responsibility to try and preserve and protect those currently not in danger. Domesticating rabbits is one possible means of performing this feat. So is commercialization of their meat. But, more importantly, we must preserve those existing in the wild so as not to lose the benefit they provide us, the animal Kingdom, the plant Kingdom and the Earth in general.