Monday, July 30, 2012

Overwhelming Evidence Mounts Indicating Colorado Shooting Staged

Infowars.com
July 28, 2012

It is now clear the Colorado shooting is a staged event. It mirrors previous shootings, including the assassination of Robert Kennedy blamed on the drugged patsy Sirhan Sirhan.

Recently produced evidence reveals that Sirhan was not the shooter and he was framed. In a federal court last November, lawyers argued that Sirhan “was an involuntary participant in the crimes being committed because he was subjected to sophisticated hypno programming and memory implantation techniques which rendered him unable to consciously control his thoughts and actions at the time the crimes were being committed,” according to court papers.

Holmes’ Psychiatrist Worked for Pentagon

New damning details on the Colorado shooting now surface on a daily basis. The latest is that the highest honors neuroscience student James Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist. Holmes was a patient of Dr. Lynne Fenton at the University of Colorado. Fenton worked for the Air Force in Texas and was known for dispensing dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, according to the Washington Post.

The doctor’s background came to light after the corporate media reported Holmes allegedly mailed a notebook "full of details about how he was going to kill people" to her before the attack. “Among the images shown in the spiral-bound notebook’s pages were gun-wielding stick figures blowing away other stick figures,” Fox News reported. This is an obvious attempt to hastily arrange a backstory on Holmes and portray him as a murderous psychopath. It is a key element in the narrative portraying him as a lone wolf, which is the preferred government story when it conducts false flag operations for political gain and to manipulate public opinion.

Mind Control and MKUltra

Supposed Oklahoma City bombing mastermind Timothy McVeigh was under the “care” of Dr. Louis Jolyon West of UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute following his arrest. “Dr. West is a sinister creation of the [CIA's] mind control fraternity. Among other totalitarian projects, he has studied the use of drugs as ‘adjuncts to interpersonal manipulation or assault,’ and employed pioneers in the field of remote, electronic mind control experimentation at UCLA,” writes Alex Constantine.

“The CIA’s use of mind control to create killers is a matter of historical record. MK-ULTRA was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence that came to light in 1975 through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti insists that the program is ongoing and has not been abandoned,” Paul Jospeh Waton wrote on Friday.

Judge Imposes Gag Order to Prevent Release of Information Contradicting Official Narrative

The judge presiding over Holmes’ case has imposed a gag order in the courtroom. District Court Judge William Blair Sylvester has also ordered the University of Colorado not to release his school records after the media filed a request for the documents. The gag order was issued after video from the courtroom showed an obviously drugged James Holmes. The order “bars attorneys from publicly commenting on matters including evidence, whether a plea deal is in the works or the results of any examination or test,” the AP reported.

The effort is an attempt to prevent the media and researchers from discovering the obvious – James Holmes is a patsy and possibly the victim of mind-control. He does not fit the profile of a mass murderer who understands weaponry and paramilitary equipment. "He’s not on anybody’s radar screen — nothing," a police officer told the New York Times. "This guy is somewhat of an enigma. Nobody knows anything about him."

Shooter or Shooters Obviously Military

Following reports that the shooter resembled the Joker character from Batman, witnesses said he “was in full riot gear… He looked like he was from a SWAT team” and “was dressed from head-to-toe in SWAT gear… with Kevlar. He looked like one of the cops. That’s what was really confusing to us.”

Following criticism of the official narrative that the unemployed former student could not have possibly afforded to buy expensive weapons and paramilitary equipment – it is said the weapons and ammunition alone cost around $15,000 — the corporate media floated the story that he was the recipient of grant money from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH explained the grant included a "$21,600 stipend per year in 12 monthly installments to help defray living expenses while they pursue their academic research training experience."

Millions of Americans Do Not Believe Official Narrative

The Colorado shooting story is unraveling like the Fast and Furious story before it. Millions of Americans do not believe the official narrative and find the explanation that a shy neuroscience student suddenly turned into a mass murderer implausible. Many also find it suspicious that the event occurred as the globalists at the United Nations are putting finishing touches on a treaty that will eventually ban all firearms and effectively disarm every American.


White House chef says future food to be made from chemicals, not real food ingredients

White House chef says future food to be made from chemicals, not real food ingredients

(NaturalNews) Every two years, a consortium of Europe's most active minds converges at the Euroscience Open Forum to discuss the latest advancements in scientific research and innovation. But this year's meeting, which was held in Dublin, Ireland, featured a disturbing workshop held by White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses, who explained and demonstrated to audience members how the food of the future will not actually contain real food, but rather various combinations of lab-created chemicals that mimic food.

As reported on Six One News, a feature of RTE News in Ireland, Yosses and several other food experts showed a live audience how to create various foams, gels, solids, and other food-like textured substances out of chemicals that, when combined, resemble things like lemon souffle and chocolate pudding. These food scientists then shared samples of these laboratory creations with audience members, who were told that the imitation food products are the wave of the future.

"You take the (chemical) compounds and you make the dish," said Herve This of AgroParisTech, a science and research organization based in France, to RTE News in Ireland. "So you have no vegetables, no fruit, no meat, no fish, nothing except compounds. And you have to create a shape, a color, a taste, a freshness, a pungency, an astringency, everything," he added, likening traditional cooking methods such as "cracking eggs" and using real food ingredients to "living in the Middle Ages."

White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses shares a similar sentiment, as he believes creating fake food out of chemicals will actually help improve the quality of cuisine and availability of food. He told Six One News that chefs can use the information he presented to gain a "(better) understanding of what they're doing and use that to improve the processes, to improve not only the flavor but the hygiene, the longevity, how to store things."

"All that comes about from understanding cooking on a really molecular level," he added, with sort of a twinkle in his eye. But when he was asked if these same chemical food experiments are used at the White House in meals served to the Obamas, Yosses laughed and said no, explaining that "the First Family is looking for traditional, sort of 'happy recipes' that people are familiar with."

You can watch the disturbing segment in its entirety at:
http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0712/media-3342255.html

While intended to specifically showcase some of the more offbeat scientific developments circulating the "technosphere" today, the Euroscience Open Forum, including the troubling seminar on chemical-based "foods of the future," is actually a troubling foreshadowing of what may soon come for Americans. Some scientists are apparently of the strong persuasion that man-made food items are preferable to natural foods, and the former is what they hope the public will eventually accept.

The average person, in other words, will eventually be expected to happily eat green gelatin-like blobs made of chemical compounds, along with ambiguous cracker products that resemble "Soylent Green," while the White House and the world's other elites continue to eat wholesome, natural foods, including those hand-picked from Michelle Obama's organic garden.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0712/media-3342255.html

http://www.medicaldaily.com

http://www.ndtv.com

Coordinated attack by Abilene paradox

Coordinated attack by Abilene paradox

Aurora Police Chief: From Beat Cop to Intelligence Agent Operative – Officer on Scene Describes Two Shooters

By Shepard Ambellas
theintelhub.com

July 27, 2012


Update: Actual police audio from the scene described what looked to be a coordinated attack with at least two shooters yet the police chief, the corporate media, and the federal government continue to claim that the mind controlled James Holmes acted alone.

Refusing To Put A Normal Child On Psych Drugs Results In Swat Teams and ...

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Obama's neck wound story is a cover-up

Batman murders: The blood trail, the neck wound, and the 2nd gas mask

Batman murders: The blood trail, the neck wound, and the 2nd gas mask

 (NaturalNews) Citizen journalists are outdistancing everybody on the Batman murders. I'm not even sure I have their names matched up correctly to their reports, so for now I'm not publishing the names, but I'll give you the links to their videos and commentary.

Here's what I'm inferring from their work. First, the heavy blood trail outside the Aurora theater, in the back parking lot, has been wrongly attributed to a neck wound suffered by one of the victims, Allie Young. When viewed in the hospital, her scar doesn't look serious enough to account for a massive blood loss, and the wound isn't even dressed. Why would anyone lie about this?

Because the blood in the parking lot may have come from a girl who was killed or abducted by one of the killers.

Knowingly or unknowingly, Obama contributed to the cover story about Allie Young in his incorrect description of her ordeal and wound.

There was a second gas mask found lying outside the theater at the back of the building. This would not have been Holmes' mask. It would have belonged to a second killer.

I'm not saying the meaning of these clues I've just listed is airtight and absolutely final. I'm saying they send the case in entirely new directions.

They definitely add fuel to the conclusion that Aurora Police Chief, Daniel Oates was wrong when he issued the familiar mantra that Homes acted alone. On what basis could Oates have made that claim? Was he intentionally lying? Was he trying to save his reputation, and hiding the fact that at least one other killer was running loose, uncaptured by his men? Oates, an old New York street cop, had risen through the ranks and, as Aurora police chief, presided over a 30% reduction in the crime rate---until the Batman murders.

These clues---the blood trail, the neck wound, the second gas mask---any police investigator should have run with them. The absence of a serious probe indicates we are looking at a cover-up.

Here are the links to the work of the citizen journalists. That's what I call them because I don't have a better label. They are breaking new ground on the case, and they deserve your praise and support:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpbPy7TKe7E

http://willyloman.wordpress.com
http://www.degaray.com/?p=2488

We still have the matter of how James Holmes gained entrance to the theater. There is the side door, the fire exit. Did he kick it in from the outside, as KUSA-TV reported? Did he, as Bloomberg claims the police say, buy a ticket, watch the movie, stand, as if he was taking a phone call, and walk out, propping open the side exit as he left, to return later with armor and weapons?

Or, as eyewitness Corbin Dates told CNN, did "someone" in the theater take a phone call, disappear in the direction of the side exit, after which (15-20 minutes? an hour?) the shooter, in full gear, came into the theater from that direction?

The first description---kicking in the exit door---is highly unlikely, since exit doors generally open out from the inside, are heavy, and are locked from the outside.

If Holmes propped open the side door, left, and came back later, other customers in the theater and theater employees might have seen light coming in from the outside. Did they? Someone also might have walked over and shut the door.

All this needs to be nailed down.

Then we have the packages (2) in the mailroom of the U. of Colorado, Anschutz campus. Press reports indicate a professor of psychiatry at the school called police because there was a package (with no indication of the sender) in the mailroom, addressed to him. The professor suspected it might have been sent by Holmes. This turned out to be wrong. That package had no bearing on the case. But in a search of the mailroom, ANOTHER package was found, which had been sent by Holmes to the professor. It had been sitting there as long as a week before its discovery on July 23rd. It contained a notebook, and the notebook contained Holmes' descriptions of how he was going to kill people.

This one is hard to believe. The professor believes one package was sent by Holmes. Why? BUT the police happen to find another package that was. Was it planted (and forged) to build a stronger case against Holmes?

I have new information about the availability of Holmes' medical records. This would pertain to a criminal trial. It is likely Holmes' lawyer could subpoena any medical/psychiatric records, in order to establish the state of mind of her client, and these records of course would include what drugs were prescribed. Once that is known, a case could be mounted based on the drugs' propensity to cause violent behavior, including homicide. The prosecution could also subpoena these records if Holmes entered an insanity plea.

My guess is that Torrence Brown's lawsuit against Holmes' doctors would come after a criminal trial (if there is one), at which time the medical/psychiatric records would have already been unsealed and would be available.

Remember, there is still no known witness-ID of Holmes in the theater. There is only the police claim that they found him, calm and confessing, next to his car, after the shooting---or by other accounts, inside his car.

I've seen raw cell phone video footage of people outside the theater on the night of the shooting, but no footage from inside the theater. Someone inside had to be recording a piece of what was going on. We have to ask ourselves: where is that footage? Has it been confiscated?

Here are relevant links to the theater exit door and the mailed packages:

http://www.foxnews.com

http://www.foxnews.com

http://www.bloomberg.com

On we go...

Obama Zombies in Austin TX- Alex Jones Infowars Nightly News 2012-07-19

New York Times openly admits mainstream media stories are scripted by the White House

New York Times openly admits mainstream media stories are scripted by the White House

(NaturalNews) Millions of Americans have long suspected that the so-called "mainstream media" is big-time controlled, whether selectively or institutionally. A recent New York Times story not only substantiates that belief, it proves just how controlled the messages are that are coming from those who mean to rule over us. What's more, the story demonstrates that most major media sources are complicit in the packaging of information the public is "allowed" to hear.

The revelations may not necessarily be groundbreaking news to many Americans who already suspected they weren't getting unfiltered and unbiased reporting, though the extent of control over the information reaching the public from the major campaigns may surprise many.

But the revelations should certainly be disturbing to voters who are trying to make choices based on altered or incomplete information.

Of course, that's the point. Full disclosure would mean giving a rival something to campaign for (or against), so it's understandable for a candidate to want to carefully control his or her message.

Where it becomes shameful is when the media willingly goes along.

Sorry - You can't print that

Consider the re-election campaign of President Obama. According to the Times, quotes from the candidates often come back to them from the campaign headquarters in Chicago "redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative." They are emailed to reporters who have been allowed, essentially, to interview campaign officials, but only under the caveat that "the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name."

In a different age, perhaps, such a restrictive requirement might have drawn the ire of a respectable journalist. But no more; today, most "grudgingly" agree to such preconditions. Those who do not agree, it appears, are not given the opportunity to interview.

Once the interview is complete, the scrubbing process begins. The reporters check their interview notes and review tape recorders for the juiciest of sound bites. At that point, the quotes they select are submitted to the campaign for approval.

"The verdict from the campaign - an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script - is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message," said the paper, whose own reporters, presumably, must subject themselves to the same treatment.

So much for the Old Gray Lady's long-time mantra: All the news that's fit to print.

Control from both sides of the aisle

Then again, maybe the phenomenon of pre-packaged quotes and releases is at least partially our fault. Americans, after all, seem to be obsessed with the "Gotcha!" mentality of sound-bite reporting.

But then again, did the mainstream media hook us? After all, they are the ones who have accustomed us to this kind of sensationalism - aren't they?

"The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism's perennial battles," the Times said. "But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations."

Yes, the "media culture" is "gaffe-obsessed," but only because we're still reading.

While this kind of quote pre-approval process is standard operating procedure for the Obama campaign, the campaign of Republican Mitt Romney has a quote quality control apparatus in place as well.

The paper said the Romney machine also likes to air-brush quotes, especially when it comes to interviewing his five sons. "Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article," said the Times.

In a classic understatement, the Times calls this unacceptable practice a "double-edged sword," because reporters "are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews."

And the American people are losing too. If quotes are sanitized, what other information is being cherry-picked, or worse, being left out completely by a mainstream media that is supposed to be the protector of liberties and freedom, not a facilitator for the powers that be?

We may never know what we never know. And that's the real danger.

Blanket anonymity at 'new levels'

"It's not something I'm particularly proud of because there's a part of me that says, 'Don't do it, don't agree to their terms,'" Major Garrett, a correspondent for the Washington, D.C.-based National Journal, one of the few journalists who spoke on the record about the contextual quote editing, told the Times. "There are times when this feels like I'm dealing with some of my editors. It's like, 'You just changed this because you could!'"

"We don't like the practice," Times news editor Dean Baquet said. "We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder."

Needless to say, the Obama campaign refused to allow anyone to go on record for the Times story. The report didn't say whether the Romney campaign was asked to go on record for it.

But the paper did single out the current administration.

"Under President Obama, the insistence on blanket anonymity has grown to new levels," the Times reported.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com

http://newsbusters.org

http://www.politicususa.com/conservative-media-bias-obama.html

United Nations Small Arms Treaty Not Dead

Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones
Infowars.com
July 29, 2012

Opponents arrayed against the United Nations’ anti-gun effort prematurely celebrated on Friday as the treaty stalled due to member states failing to reach an agreement on revised language in the text. The treaty went into limbo after the United States, Russia and China called for more time to consider revisions.

NGOs and gun-grabber groups portrayed the stall as “stunning cowardice” and a “staggering abdication of leadership” and attributed the supposed failure to the Obama administration. A nameless diplomat went so far as to claim the U.S. had “derailed the process” and complained that there is little hope the treaty will be revived after the U.S. election.

The U.S. State Department, however, said in a statement released at the conclusion of the negotiating conference that the effort will indeed be revived after the election in November. “While we sought to conclude the month’s negotiations with a treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The extended timeframe will give Second Amendment opponents time to ramp up their propaganda campaign in favor of gun control following the suspiciously timed mass shooting in Colorado.

A number of establishment intellectuals – with CFR member Joe Klein leading the pack at Time Magazine – are now pushing “sensible” and “moderate” approaches to disarming the American people. Klein’s Time article, set to roll out on August 6, features a photo of a 100-round ammo drum of the sort James Holmes supposedly used in Aurora. Gun-grabbers in Congress have set their sites on extended round clips and other firearm accessories.

Although Bloomberg in New York and Chuck Schumer in the Senate and others are talking up outlawing armor-piercing ammunition and semi-automatic weapons, the establishment has responded to the bureaucratic snafu at the United Nations by playing possum or playing dead.

After the election finale in November and the installation of Romney or the re-installation of Obama as chief teleprompter reader in January, not only will there be a push for a new round of restrictive gun laws in America, but the stalled United Nations treaty will be dusted off and the bickering between nations will finally end with a gun-grabbing consensus.

As Al Benson, Jr., notes, careerist politicians are reluctant to press forward on legislation for fear of their cushy jobs. “As for the Senators, this is, after all, an election year and if they antagonize their gun-owning constituency many of them will be in big trouble, so they have to try to placate us, at least for now, until they get back into office. Then all bets are off, especially if Comrade Obama gets a second term (notice I didn’t say “wins” a second term),” he writes.

The corporate media has portrayed those of us concerned about a United Nations treaty outlawing our guns as conspiracy kooks and paranoids. They insist the Constitution trumps any internationalist treaty and there is nothing to worry about, so we need to relax.

But as CFR minion Joe Klein knows, the one-world government crowd has no respect for the Constitution and works relentlessly to undermine it.

“For decades, apostles of one-world government have endeavored to convince the American people that treaties, rather than the Constitution, embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that ‘Treaty law can override the Constitution…Treaties, for example…can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights,” writes Doug Book.

Book notes that even if the courts decide against the treaty after it is ratified in the Senate, Obama will undoubtedly move to ignore any such decision as he has done with Fast and Furious and other laws enacted by Congress, in particular his decision to ignore a law to deport illegal aliens.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt told Politico in June. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

Disarming America is undoubtedly a front and center “political calculation” for the globalists.


  1. Five Words For the United Nations: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
  2. START Treaty is Really the United Nations Global Military Regime Treaty
  3. Globalists Push Internet Control Freak Treaty at the United Nations
  4. While we’re all watching the gulf: Hillary signs UN Small Arms Treaty
  5. UN Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) on Small Arms: Gun Grab Gradualism
  6. Law of the Sea treaty dead
  7. 51 US senators voice concerns with UN arms treaty
  8. United Nations to take up ‘global Internet tax’ proposal
  9. Barack Obama Is The First United Nations President
  10. United Nations Urged To Ban Mercury In Vaccines
  11. Powerful EU Nations May Reform “Mission Impossible” Treaty in Secret
  12. CFR: Don’t Worry About Hillary’s Small Arms Treaty

Oregon criminalizes permaculture; claims state ownership over all rainwater - ponds and swales restricted - jail time for violators

Oregon criminalizes permaculture; claims state ownership over all rainwater - ponds and swales restricted - jail time for violators

 (NaturalNews) There's nothing more refreshing than standing in a cool, summertime rain shower. Or bathing in the warm sunlight on a crisp spring day. Or inhaling the cool autumn air, fresh with the scent of turning leaves and pine needles. These things -- rainwater, sunlight, air -- have long been assumed to be not only free, but un-claimable. You can't claim to own the sunlight that falls on my front yard, for example. A corporation can't claim intellectual property ownership over the air that you breathe and demand you pay a royalty for inhaling.

But today, Jackson County, Oregon says it owns YOUR rainwater, and the county has sentenced a man to 30 days in jail and fined him over $1500, for the supposed "crime" of collecting rainwater on his own property.

The man's name is Gary Harrington, and he owns over 170 acres of land in Jackson County. On that land, he has three ponds, and those ponds collect rainwater that falls on his land. Common sense would say Gary has every right to have ponds with water on his 170 acres of land, but common sense has been all but abandoned in the state of Oregon.

Much like California, Oregon is increasingly becoming a collectivist state. You didn't build that! The government built that! You don't own that! The government owns that! That rainwater that just fell on your land? That's the government's rainwater, and you're going to jail if you try to steal from the government!

That's the explanation from Jackson County officials, who initially granted Harrington "permits" to build ponds back in 2003. Yes, in Oregon you actually need to beg for permission from the government just to have a pond on your own land. But the state of Oregon revoked his permits a few years later, after he had already created the ponds, thus putting Harrington in the position of being a "water criminal" who was "stealing" rainwater from the state.

Tom Paul, administrator of the Oregon Water Resources Department, is an obedient water Nazi. He insists, "Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before doing that activity."

What he means, of course, is not that the water is "public" water, but that it's government water. The government owns it, and if you "steal" from the government by, for example, collecting rainwater off your own roof, you will go to jail.

Thus, even when rainwater falls on your own property, you don't own it! The government owns it. You didn't build that! The government built that. That's not YOUR land, you only lease it from the King, and by the way, your property tax is due again...

Harrington said that he will never stop fighting the government on this issue. As reported in CNS News: "When something is wrong, you just, as an American citizen, you have to put your foot down and say, This is wrong; you just can't take away anymore of my rights and from here on in, I'm going to fight it." (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-col...)

If states claim they own the rain, they may soon claim to own the sunlight, too

Rainwater, it turns out, isn't the only thing that falls on your land. Sunlight also falls on your land. Air resides above it, and minerals below it.

If the state of Oregon already claims to own all the water that falls on your land, what's to stop them from claiming ownership over all the sunlight, too? Imagine a day when the state erects solar panels on your land, but the electricity isn't yours to keep. You still have to pay for it, because the sunlight belongs to the state, get it?

If you erect your own solar panels on your own land, the state could then arrest you and charge you with "stealing" state property. All those photons, you see, belong to the state. Once the state declares sunlight to be "community property," you instantly become a criminal for having solar panels on your house.

State of Oregon declares war on permaculture and sustainable living

Collecting rainwater -- and sunlight -- are practices taught in sustainable living, permaculture and throughout the green movement. Rainwater capture using ponds and swales is one of the most important strategies for restoring a local landscape. See a good video overview of this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXhHMmA2Xk

These rainwater capture practices help trees grow more quickly and accelerate the return of animal life to any region. They can even be used to restore a desert to a lush, food-producing forest. Watch these remarkable videos with Geoff Lawton:

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=C8103CF932330F50C3517F90AD81CBAB
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=566CDDCCEAB4F13F84BD671136D07F10
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=9F5EE67E76B9EEF613327E144B1B9973
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=E6AA432FA7063A24C998BC96C1363A72

See more premaculture videos on the permaculture channel at TV.naturalnews.com:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/Browse.asp?memberid=18014

Capturing rainwater also reduces the burden on groundwater supplies and municipal water systems. Capturing rainwater actually protect aquifers and raises the value of land, which results in higher property tax revenues for the county.

That Jackson County officials actually criminalize permaculture practices is abhorrent to not only the green movement on the left, but also the Libertarians and Constitutionalists on the right. Much like in California, Oregon County officials are lying, power-hungry tyrants who falsely accuse Harrington of "diverting" stream water when, in reality, he was only capturing water that normally flows off his own property and later joins the stream.

"Water law is water law, whether you agree with it or not," said Jackson County Water Master Larry Menteer. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/16/man-disputes-oregon-convictions-...)

In other words, the power of the state is absolute, even if the state departs from the realm of sanity. Importantly, if the state of Oregon can claim ownership over rainwater, what's to stop the state from claiming ownership over the AIR, too?

To clarify: Oregon state bureaucrats are claiming they own the RUNOFF water from rainwater that falls on your own land! Some of the communist-minded critics who are defending state officials in this case are lying and trying to claim this man "dammed a stream," implying it was a stream that ran through his property. That's a lie. All this man did was dam up his own runoff which later dumps into a stream. Thus, he only captures his own rainwater. He takes no water from anywhere else. And when his own ponds are filled, that rainwater overflows directly into the stream where it used to flow before he built his dams.

This practice of capturing rainwater has been used throughout the history of civilization to restore landscapes, preserve soils, grow food and live more sustainably. Do not fall for the disinformation campaigns being waged on this issue by the Oregon communists and socialists who believe no individual has any right to anything.

What if Oregon claims ownership over the air you breathe?

If the state of Oregon can claim it owns the water that falls on your land, then it can also just as easily claim ownership over the sunlight that falls on your land. But it doesn't stop there: What about the air you breathe?

There is absolutely nothing stopping Oregon -- or any other state -- from proclaiming air is "state property." If you breathe it, you owe the state money.

The fees will be small at first -- perhaps $10 / month -- but over time they will be raised to exorbitant levels. It's a state-run shakedown, after all, and once the People become apathetic enough to allow the state to expand its power beyond all reason, there is no limit to the state's desire for total control over everything under the sun... even including the sun and the air!

This is not a difficult matter for the state to achieve. Oregon could simply pass a new law declaring all air that exists within state boundaries to be state property. Those who "divert" air by engaging in activities such as inflating balloons or compressing air and storing it in air tanks would be given stiff jail sentences.

Think this couldn't happen? Think it's too stupid? It's no more stupid than what has already happened -- the criminalization of capturing rainwater, a common permaculture practice for sustainable living.

California criminalizes fresh milk; Michigan criminalizes small local ranching; Oregon criminalizes permaculture

Do you see a pattern in all this? As NaturalNews has reported in just the last 18 months:

• California has declared war on small, local fresh milk farmers and distributors (http://www.naturalnews.com/036614_James_Stewart_Ventura_county_raw_mi...).

• Michigan has criminalized small, local ranchers and animal operations (http://www.naturalnews.com/035585_Michigan_farms_raids.html).

• A city in Michigan has also tried to criminalize home gardens (http://www.naturalnews.com/032960_Julie_Bass_home_gardening.html).

• The city of Tulsa, Oklahoma sent out a "destruction crew" to chop down a woman's edible landscaping garden of over 100 varieties of foods and medicinal herbs (http://www.naturalnews.com/036234_edible_landscaping_medicinal_plants...).

• Oregon has criminalized one of the most important practices of permaculture, capturing rainwater to restore life to a local landscape.

What's the pattern here? Total state domination over all resources -- land, water, food, medicine and more. This is part of the ongoing effort to crush self reliance in America and turn everybody into a mindless, hopeless slave of the state, living on USDA food stamps and eating corporate-engineered GMO.

Freedom means being able to speak your mind, capture your rainwater, bask in the sun, grow trees, raise backyard chickens, home school your children, say NO to vaccines, defend your life and property against looters and violent crime. Freedom is what once made America great, and it is the crushing of freedom which is now destroying America.

Collectivism is the enemy of freedom

In Oregon, California, Michigan, Washington D.C. and everywhere around the world where evil bureaucrats seek total power over all of humanity, our natural, divine rights are being viciously stripped away. Our money supply is being eroded at an accelerating rate. Our right to due process has been nullified by our own President (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html). Our right to free speech is being increasingly censored and stifled. Our right to grow our own home gardens is under constant assault. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036234_edible_landscaping_medicinal_plants...)

The common cause behind all these attacks on freedom is "collectivism" -- the idea that individuals have no value and that only the state can provide life, food and an economy. This is accomplished through endless permit requirements that now make running something like an organic farm a paperwork nightmare. It is encapsulated in the recently-publicized idea that "You didn't build that! The government built that!" which ridiculously imagines that only government creates prosperity, not individual innovators and people who believe in hard work.

Similarly, the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act late last year (http://www.naturalnews.com/030986_food_safety_farmers.html) will absolutely devastate small, local farms once it fully kicks in (see video below).

We are all becoming indentured servants

With every new regulation, inspection, permit and government burden placed upon farms and land owners, we are increasingly destroying our own futures by placing more power in the hands of tyrannical government. We are all becoming indentured servants to the state. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant)

Think you OWN your land? Try not paying property tax for a year. You'll find out very quickly that you don't own anything. The state owns it. You are just paying rent.

Watch this video interview with Farmer Brad from central Texas, who talks about the devastating impact of the Food Safety Modernization Act:

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Olympic Verdict Places British Residents Under Military Rule Indefinitely

Patrick Henningsen and Daisy Jones
Infowars.com
July 27, 2012

It’s official: an Englishman’s home is no longer his castle.

In a move that is hardly witnessed in wartime, let alone in peacetime, the UK’s military establishment has been given the green light to quarter residential homes without any permission or notice.

In the run-up to the 2012 Olympics in London, the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) has taken the unprecedented step of erecting surface-to-air missile batteries on top of multiple residential locations around East London.

A group of local council tenants from Leytonstone, East London, lost their high court battle to prevent the military missile encampment from being stationed on the roof of their tower block before and during the Olympics. The action to use their residential block as a military base was signed off by the British Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Defence Secretary in ‘Defence of the Realm’.

Residents were then also refused permission and blocked from applying for an appeal via judicial review because the case falls under the guise of national security.

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, was accused by the residents of the block of Breaching Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European convention on Human Rights. These protect an individual’s right to a private life and peaceful enjoyment of their home.

At no point beforehand were any of the residents given consultation by the MOD. Moreover, the ruling against the residents has set a number of new legal precedents in favour of the military, including a ‘zero notice’ policy whereby the MOD has no obligation to inform or consult residents beforehand, nor do they have any legal obligation to offer any compensation if they choose to commandeer a private property to set-up a forward operating base.

David Enright, a human rights lawyer and Partner of Howe and Co. who represented the residents, explains the danger of this new ruling, “Let’s be clear. Whenever the government (or military) takes a power over the civilian population – they never give it back.”

Critics are pointing out that the both MOD and the government agencies had 7 years to prepare and plan their operations, but intentionally left it until only three months before the games before revealing their operation – limiting the time to launch any legal challenge against them.

The residents of the Fred Wigg tower block were concerned, amongst many other issues, that surface-to-air missiles on their tower block could make them a terrorist target. The MOD rejected their claim by saying that missile deployment as part of the security measures for the Games was ‘legitimate and proportionate’. David Forsdick, who appeared in court on behalf of the MOD, said “The MOD, intelligence agencies and the Metropolitan Police do not consider there is any credible threat to the Fred Wigg tower from terrorism”.

It is somewhat ironic that the MOD, intelligence agencies and the Metropolitan Police do not consider there is any credible threat to the Fred Wigg Tower from terrorism. This was probably the case before they put missiles on the roof, but few would argue that this is still the case.

The Judge presiding over the case, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, maintained that the MOD had no duty to consult with residents, nor would they responsible for their relocation or any compensation as a result of the domestic military operation.

Prior to the case hearing, it was also revealed that Judge Haddon-Cave who was appointed to the case, had clear links with MOD. He had worked for, maintained ties with and even lectured for the MOD. He declared his interests at the beginning of the trial but for reasons unknown, his conflict of interest was not contested.

In what has been described as patronising at its worst, Judge Haddon-Cave claimed that although the residents of Fred Wigg tower had expressed ‘shock, anxiety and worry’ over the prospect of missiles being stations on top of their building, they had been under ‘something of a misapprehension’ about the nature of the equipment to be deployed and the risks deployment would bring.

Judge Haddon-Cave justified the MOD’s brash move by claiming there was no need for the MOD to negotiate with residents, as there were ‘no other alternative site for missiles’. Residents and citizen advocates have since rubbished the Judge’s spurious claims pointing out that there are literally thousands of huge open spaces- parks, vacant office buildings, industrial waste land, car parks, construction sites, school playing fields, and ships on the Thames, all of which would suffice if indeed, ‘air defence’ was indeed the primary issue at play here. In addition to all these other options, there are also hundreds of secure government buildings all over London which could be available for use in military operations. Instead, the decision by the MOD to opt instead for residents’ homes as domestic military staging areas places residents firmly into the category of ‘human shield’.

Journalist Brian Whelan, 28, previously posted a video on Telegraph website showing the British Army leaving crates of missiles, rockets and other military equipment outside the entrance of his home, Lexington Tower in Bow – completely unguarded. The MOD responded to the report by insisting that they were ‘dummy missiles’ and no risk was incurred by residents. Whelan was then promptly evicted from his council home after his report went public.

The result of Whelan’s early eviction from his home in Bow, has been that residents in the Fred Wigg Tower in Leytonstone have been afraid to speak to the media regarding their plight for fear that they too might be made homeless for speaking out against the state’s power structure – a disturbing new trend which can only be described as institutional intimidation. This new reality was confirmed by Infowars.com reporters, who were met with a wall of silence when trying to gain comment from multiple residents this past weekend.

In addition to the MOD, British state-run television apparatus BBC has also taken over a number of council properties in East London for its media operations around the Olympic games, clashing with residents and even denying residents entry into their own homes in at least one instance. Demotix.com reported this week:

Following a request from BBC Security, police denied a family access to their tower block home overlooking the Olympic site in Stratford for well over an hour, before having to acknowledge they had no power to do so.

Colin, a resident in Lund Point on the Carpenters Estate in Stratford had invited a group viewing the estate in a tour organised by CARP (Carpenters Estate Against Regeneration) to come to his flat to see the high standard of accommodation in the 1966 tower block and the views across the estate.

The BBC have rented the vacant areas of the top five floors of the 22 story block as a base for their Olympic and Paralympic coverage. The group included a number of UK and foreign journalists, photographers and TV crews with an interest in the area.

This is the thick end of the wedge, where eminent domain and martial law automatically usurp any rights or redress a citizen would normally be entitled to, but can’t because national security has been invoked by the state.

Clearly, one can certainly deduce from these events that Britain is officially in a permanent state of war.

Against who?

That is the ever lingering question.

Colorado Shooter Was Under Psychiatric Care Of Ex-US Air Force Doctor

Chris Francescani & Keith Coffman
London Independent
July 28, 2012

The former University of Colorado graduate student accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 others in a shooting rampage at a cinema last week had been under the care of a psychiatrist who was part of a campus threat-assessment team.

The disclosure came in court documents filed yesterday by lawyers for James Holmes, 24, who is accused of opening fire last Friday on a packed showing of the latest Batman movie, “The Dark Knight Rises,” in the Denver suburb of Aurora.

The defence attorneys, in their request to an Arapahoe County district judge, are seeking a court order requiring prosecutors to turn over the contents of a package that Holmes sent to Dr. Lynne Fenton and was later seized by investigators.

“Mr. Holmes was a psychiatric patient of Dr. Fenton, and his communications with her are protected,” the filing said.

CNN: Fenton has held many jobs over the years. She worked as a physician in private practice in Denver from 1994 to 2005, and was chief of physical medicine with the U.S. Air Force in San Antonio, Texas, in the early 1990s, according to the resume. Since 2008, she’s won various grants and contracts to study schizophrenia.


  1. ABC News Misinterpreted Statement Made by Mother of Accused Colorado Shooter
  2. Colorado Shooter Had More in Common with Paramilitary Cops than Batman
  3. Shooter James Holmes and DARPA Weird Science
  4. Suspected Shooter Holmes Obviously Drugged During Arraignment
  5. Colorado Massacre Survivor Plans to Sue Warner Bros., Two Others
  6. UK fits psychiatric patients with satellite tracking devices
  7. NYPD Officer Held in Psychiatric Ward of Hospital for Six Days After Reporting Corruption
  8. Christian Doctor in legal battle for asking ‘suicidal’ patient about his faith
  9. Batman Shooter: ‘He Said He Was The Joker’
  10. How Big Pharma and the Psychiatric Establishment Drugged Up Our Kids
  11. Follow the Trend: Batman Shooter James Holmes Was On Hardcore Pharmaceutical Drugs
  12. Colorado Cop Charged In At-Risk Assault

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Bombshell: UN Caught Infringing on Individual Rights in Gun Treaty

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

The text of the anticipated and hotly-contested United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been leaked, with the treaty itself set to be adopted and signed by member States as early as tomorrow, July 27, 2012. President Obama, today joining the chorus for gun control inside the United States in the wake of the Batman massacre, has previously indicated that he would sign the treaty, which would then have to be ratified by the Senate.

Masked behind the language of promoting peace in an international world by preventing genocide, the UN has unleashed a great Trojan Horse that calls upon States to enact national legislation sufficient to meet the minimum goals outlined in this treaty– include gun registries, background checks, import/export controls and more for arms of all types, including small & conventional weapons. It makes specific note that the treaty places no limit upon greater gun control efforts within individual nations.

For instance, “Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.”

While the language of the treaty appears to recognize the legal right to keep such arms, the text actually recognizes the “inherent right of States” to “individual and collective” self-defense.
The first “principle” outlined in the preamble reads: “1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;”

This is NOT the same as individual persons’ inherent right to keep and bear arms as recognized and enumerated in the United States’ Bill of Rights. Instead, it puts the collectivist unit known as the State above the individual, in complete defiance of the system set-up in the United States. Individual defense for a State, for instance, refers to what is known on the international scene as “unilateral war,” while collective defense is recognize in such actions as that of NATO or other allied bodies.

NO SPECIFIC PROTECTION for individual persons is contained in this dangerous treaty, though the same media who’ve been demonizing critics of the UN’s effort as delusional and paranoid will attempt to argue otherwise, clinging to deliberately inserted clauses herein that look like stop-guards and protections for gun rights, but properly read, do no such thing.

It does, however, advise States to keep within the scope of their own laws, yet the end-run assault against the 2nd Amendment is unmistakeable. These international goals will undoubtedly pressure changes in the executive branches’ many policies, as we have already seen with the ATF, who placed greater reporting burdens on gun shops in the Southwest border states as a response to the Fast & Furious set-up to demonize and destroy gun ownership.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The text was released two days ago, but has received almost no attention in the press. The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights and The Examiner have analyzed the treaty, pointing out that member states like France have “let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned ‘weapons.’”

The United Nations has a sordid history of pursuing “general and complete disarmament,” and individual arms including legally owned arms have always been part of that focus. The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the “SADC Protocol: Southern African Development Community” is, according to the UN’s own disarmament website, a “regional instrument that aims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms.”

As we have previously noted, U.S. troops have been trained to confiscate American guns, while the confiscation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina has already set the precedent. The deception over aiming for legal guns while pretending to target “illicit” weapons is continued here in this 2012 monster treaty.

Below is the text in full, as it has been proposed and released. Any changes in the signed version will be noted when that time comes:

————————

PREAMBLE

The States Parties to this Treaty.

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;
Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;
Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;
Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and

16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:

Principles

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

Article 1
Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market or to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

- For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

- To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

In order to:

- Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;

- Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;

- Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

Article 2

- A. Covered Items

- 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

- a. Battle Tanks

- b. Armored combat vehicles

- c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

- d. Combat aircraft

- e. Attack helicopters

- f. Warships

- g. Missiles and missile launchers

- h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

- 2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

- 3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

- 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

- B. Covered Activities

- 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

- 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

Article 3
Prohibited Transfers

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Article 4
National Assessment

Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:

Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:

Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
Contribute to peace and security;
Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;

In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.

5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.

Article 5
Additional Obligations

Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
being diverted to the illicit market;
be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
become subject to corrupt practices; or
adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

Article 6
General Implementation

Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;

The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;

Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.

State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users. All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.

If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

Article 7
Export

Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.

Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export. Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.

Article 8
Import

Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.

State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty. State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.

Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.

Article 9
Brokering

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

Article 10
Transit and Transshipment

Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;

Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;

Article 11
Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.

Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.

States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.

Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.

Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

ARTICLE 12
ENFORCEMENT

Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.

ARTICLE 13
IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT

This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.

ARTICLE 14
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.

States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.

4. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.

5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.

Article 15
International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.

6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.

7. At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty. Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.

8. References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.

Article 17
Entry into Force

This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.

For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.

For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.

Article 18
Withdrawal and Duration

This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary. The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.

A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.

Article 19
Reservations

Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

Article 20
Amendments

At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.

Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.

Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.

A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

Article 21
Conference of States Parties

The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

The Conference of States Parties shall:
a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR

b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;

c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;

d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;

e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

Article 22
Dispute Settlement

States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty

States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.

Article 24
Relationship with other instruments

States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.

Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

Fox News Channel Questions Narrative Of ‘Batman’ Massacre

Did James Holmes have an accomplice?

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, July 25, 2012

A local Fox News channel came off sounding more like Infowars than the mainstream media when it listed a series of unanswered questions that challenge the official narrative of the ‘Batman’ massacre and suggest a wider plot.

FOX19.com-Cincinnati News, Weather

Ben Swann, a reporter for WXIX-FOX19 out of Cincinnati listed the questions as part of a segment called ‘Reality Check’, which was introduced by pointing out that political operatives were busy exploiting the tragedy for gun control propaganda before the emergency crews had even left the scene of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

Swann’s questions about how a college student was able to pull off such a sophisticated and brutal attack without help have been raging across the web since last Friday’s massacre.

- How was alleged shooter James Holmes, an unemployed graduate student, able to afford an arsenal of weaponry, including a tactical helmet, bullet proof vest, an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington shotgun, two 40-caliber Glock handguns, as well as an assortment of bomb-making materials?

Subsequent reports confirmed Holmes had received a $26,000 federal grant as a stipend for his work in the neuroscience program at the University of Colorado in Denver. However, how much of this money remained after Holmes had already been in the program for over a year is unknown.

- Why did Holmes go to the expense and trouble of rigging his apartment with an array of deadly explosives and then immediately tell police about the bombs when he was arrested? If Holmes wanted to kill as many people as possible, why warn the cops ahead of time?

- Given the fact that Holmes was a graduate student in neuroscience, where did he obtain the skills to create a maze of bombs so complex that it took the FBI two days to disarm them? According to experts, the intricacy of the bombs was reminiscent of war zones – how could Holmes have set all this up without help from an explosives expert?

- Despite police claiming “every single indicator” tells them the shooting was a lone wolf attack, numerous witnesses have described accomplices. Initial police reports that suggested the involvement of two or more shooters were quickly buried and the lone wolf narrative aggressively pushed.

As Swann points out, eyewitnesses interviewed after the shooting such as Corbin Dates state that Holmes received a phone call from someone while he was inside the theater and responded by moving to the emergency exit, suggesting the call was an accomplice coordinating the attack.

Dates also said he saw Holmes by the exit door “signaling somebody or looking for somebody to come his way.

Another eyewitness added, “From what we saw he wasn’t alone – he had someone with him. Because the second can of tear gas didn’t come from his side….“We can only assume that someone got him in because what he was wearing seemed thick.”

“Instead of asking all those questions, national media want to focus all their attention on why guns were legal in the first place,” states Swann, adding, “National media seems too busy playing the political game and not busy enough looking into what really happened.”

It’s astounding to watch the mainstream media being forced to behave like alternative media outlets which the establishment previously derided as “conspiracy theorists” in an attempt to remain relevant, but kudos to Fox 19 for at least making the effort to ask the hard questions.