From 1900 to 2000, the leading cause of non-natrual death in humans was democide, the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Government has taken 662 million lives in just 100 years, not including those killed in active combat. It is estimated that government has killed more than six times the number of people killed in all battles combined.
If all 262 million bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5 feet, they would circle the earth ten times. It’s as if there was a nuclear war, but the casualties were spread over the period of a century. (from www.hawaii.edu)
Many Americans have found themselves fighting the government to be able to produce, sell, and eat the type of food they desire. How can the government decide what type of food we sell, produce, and eat in a “free” country, especially if the food is making us healthier? How can the government arrest people over unpasteurized milk? How free would you feel if you were told you have no right to being healthy, and no right to allow your children to eat and drink the foods you feel are best for them?
John Stossel’s Illegal Everything *~*MUST SEE*~*
Lemonade stands, raw milk, fast food, and recording police are things that could earn you not just fines, but also a place in jail. The bitter irony rings in my head as I remember asking my mother at a very young age, “If drugs are illegal, why do they allow people to eat McDonald’s food?” Of course I was no more than eight years old and was only trying to keep others safe. On a field trip to the museum, we were shown over-sized models of clogged arteries, with french fries and hamburgers named as the culprit. At school, they told us drugs were bad. They also told us fast food was bad. I always knew I was a prophet…or was I just a child bending to engineered consent 20 years in advance?
In a dismissal letter dated April 26, 2010 from The United States District Court For The Northern District of Iowa Western Division concerning the right to purchase and consume unpasteurized milk, the court stated:
Plaintiffs’ assertion of a “fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families” is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish. In addition, courts have consistently refused to extrapolate a generalized right to “bodily and physical health” from the Supreme Court’s narrow substantive due process precedents regarding abortion, intimate relations, and the refusal of lifesaving medical treatment. See Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (warning that the fact “[t]hat many of the rights and liberties protected by the Due Process Clause sound in personal autonomy does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected”); see also Cowan v. United States, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1242 (N.D. Okla. 1998) (rejecting a claim that the plaintiff had the fundamental “right to take whatever treatment he wishes due to his terminal condition regardless of whether the FDA approves the treatment”). Finally, even if such a right did exist, it would not render
FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes “bodily and physical health.”
I may be reading this wrong, but did the court rule that, if the right existed, prohibiting the sale and distribution of raw milk wouldn’t be unconstitutional because the FDA’s regulations restricting food choice are to keep us safe and promote “bodily and physical health”?
Although “[t]wo of the earliest right to privacy cases,” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), “established the existence of a fundamental right to make child rearing decisions free from unwarranted
governmental intrusion,” these cases do not “establish an absolute parental right to make decisions relating to children free from government regulation.” Henne v. Wright, 904 F.2d 1208, 1214 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)). Plaintiffs’ generalized assertion of “fundamental privacy rights of raising their families in the way they see fit,” Am. Compl. ¶ 120, falls far short of the “careful description of the asserted right” that forms the starting point of the “established method of substantive-due-process analysis.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720-21. Here, plaintiffs’ “characterization of a fundamental right to ‘personal choice regarding the family’ is so general that it would trigger strict scrutiny of innumerable laws and ordinances thatinfluence ‘personal choices’ made by families on a daily basis.” Doe, 405 F.3d at 710; see also Henne, 904 F.2d at 1214 (upholding a restriction on parents’ choice of surnames for children that allegedly violated the broad right to make “parental decisions relating to child rearing”).
Recently there has been much attention given to the “Stand-your-ground” law which “states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the “stand your ground” law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. “ However, with cases like Marissa Alexander, who was given 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot into the ceiling after her abusive husband threatened to kill her, one begins to wonder what rights we have to self-defense, and what protections the police and government are obligated to provide. In June 2007, The Supreme Court ruled that the police have no constitutional duty to protect us . My heart sunk and stomach flipped as I learned we indeed had no constitutional right to be protected from harm, meaning police would not suffer any consequences for even serious negligence. The Supreme Court’s decision is supported by the following rulings.
Bowers v. DeVito, the Seventh Circuit Court found that
“. . . there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the State’s knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a “special relationship” giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain “special relationships” created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection … this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen … a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.); http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6260
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist’s wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965) (In an action against police officers and city for personal injuries sustained by Kathryne Ne Casek when she was knocked down on a sidewalk by two suspects who had been arrested by the officers, the Court of Appeal held the amount of force or method used by a police officer in attempting to keep an arrested person or persons in custody is a discretionary act for purpose of application of doctrine of immunity of government officials from civil liability for their discretionary acts, and therefore Ms. Ne Casek who was injured by two escaped suspects who had been handcuffed together could not maintain an action against the arresting officers based on the officer’s alleged negligence in using insufficient force to keep the prisoners in custody.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the Watts’ Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974) (A silent burglar alarm installed on the premises of the store operated by the plaintiff was, during the course of a robbery by two armed men, activated at 3:32 p.m. and the alert message was relayed to the police department.The dispatch message to the units in the field was at 3:43 p.m., and a police unit arrived at the scene of the robbery at 3:44 p.m. The delay in the transmission of the dispatch enabled the robbers to complete the robbery and escape with jewelry and merchandise in the amount of $49,000. The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient. “The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled discretionary’ or ministerial.‘”); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler
“The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” (No duty to protect)”
Remember what I wrote earlier? (I’m serious when I ask if I am reading it correctly; it just seems so absurd.)
“I may be reading this wrong, but did the court rule that, if the right existed to consume whatever food one desired, prohibiting the sale and distribution of raw milk wouldn’t be unconstitutional because the FDA’s regulations restricting food choice are to keep us safe and promote ‘bodily and physical health’?”
But the police have no duty to protect us, and government no obligation to provide services, and according to the government, we have no right to bodily or physical health, let alone the right to choose what we put into our bodies, or even the right to know the ingredients in the foods we are allowed to put into our bodies, so why do we have a government that insists on protecting us? And if this government works harder to protect itself than it does to protect us, and the regulations, policies, and laws made and implemented by government to keep us safe actually violate, harm, traumatize, or cause health problems for innocent citizens, and if government deems non-criminal acts or violations as conspiracies or criminal offenses, such as selling unpasteurized dairy, or having pigs with non-curly tails, and if being suspected of an offense, whether criminal or not, puts one’s bodily and physical health at risk (police brutality, no-knock raids/botched raids), even endangering one’s life…
…WHY do we still have this awful, twisted, tyrannical government?!
Why do we allow, with little to no protest, this monstrous entity of unconscionable criminals to act like abusive, demented parents who are stuck in a perpetual state of psychosis, marked by sadism and a major lack of reason or efficiency, especially concerning rules and punishments, both for the people and government themselves?
VIDEO: Government Explained (to an alien) This short animated piece and the John Stossel ‘Illegal Everything‘ video are great for those who have a hard time doubting anything the government says (although they will all admit it is corrupt), and are not yet aware of the slow theft of our liberties, which is now increasing at an alarming rate
Government is NOT God.
Government is NOT your mother or father.
Government is NOT your older, protective brother or sister.
Government is NOT your friend.
Government exists for the benefit of government, and any benefits we receive are secondary to the government’s primary functions.
Supreme Court OKs Strip Searches Without Suspicion For New Jail Inmates (UPDATE) | Huffington Post.com
Edited July 21, 2012 to fix link for John Stossel’s Illegal Everything.
Edited September 17, 2012 to fix link