Raw audio from the conversation between Julian Assange and Clinton State Department lawyer Cliff Johnson. Assange warns of breach of data that puts individuals at risk.
Julian Assange to Hillary Clinton's State Department following the theft of 250,000 diplomatic cables from @Wikileaks:
"In case there are any individuals who haven't been warned…they should be warned.” pic.twitter.com/hx5u2fSzuC
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) December 16, 2020
Full audio here
The World Economic Forum, Wall St., Bill Gates, big food, venture capital, The Rockefeller Foundation – they are all in. Like it or not, this is the future of meat production.
At Food Dive
Analysts have said this is the beginning of a sea change in how the world gets its meat.
Strategy and management consulting firm Kearney published a report predicting that by 2040, 35% of all meat consumed worldwide will be cell-based. About 40% will be conventional meat, and 25% will be plant-based alternatives. Corey Chafin, a principal in the firm’s consumer practice, said this is based on projections that have little to do with the current advances in this field. As it wrote the report, Kearney concentrated on factors including global population estimates, food needs for people and livestock, and resource challenges.
The report indicates that in 2018, the largest chunk of crops harvested worldwide — 46% — went toward animal feed. Human food took just 37% of the harvest. And as the human population is expected to be 10 billion by 2050 — an increase of 2.5 billion from 2018 — food and space needs will increase, but the amount of land will stay the same. The report finds that cell-based meat could solve these problems through efficient production of food that is less resource- and space-intensive.
“Cultured meat is not just a trendy thing that you go try once or twice, but it’s actually a pathway to continuing to feed a growing population in certain areas of proteins, where we see animal-based meat being constrained in the future,” Chafin said.
But will consumers want to eat meat that came out of a bioreactor? According to a 2018 online survey from PR firm Ingredient Communications, almost three in 10 consumers in the U.S. and U.K. were willing to try the products. A third of consumers weren’t sure, while 38% said they would not.
“I hope that the biggest meat companies … read this and say, ‘We’re going to get in this now. Now, we’re going to turn our attention, our vast capital resources, our infrastructure, our manufacturing prowess, our distribution capacity. And this is how we want to make meat.’ Because I think ultimately you need that kind of energy into it if you’re really going to change things.”
Josh Tetrick
CEO, Eat Just
In episode #511 of my podcast, Jeff Deist states that with the control of the levers of power firmly in the hands of Left AND Right Progressives, “separation” is the only solution. I interpret his use of the term separation as radical decentralization and even secession. If you are looking for a solution to growing tyranny, and especially the rapidly expanding centralized power of the medical technocratic State, this is the only solution other than dropping off the grid completely.
The objections you hear from the mainstream are typical whether they’re from the Left or Right. The Left has no rational response other than, “you just want to own slaves,” or, “we fought a war to settle this you bigot!” Reminding them that they didn’t fight a war and Twitter isn’t Gettysburg is always fun. And the Right? It all comes down to tradition. “There’s 50 stars on that flag for a reason,” or, “you’re disrespecting the soldiers who died for our freedoms.” Asking them what they celebrate every 4th of July is just hilarious at this point.
That there are so many people who claim to be liberty-minded who object to decentralization and secession should be surprising, but it isn’t. They’ve been taught to seek “perfection” instead of “acceptable.” What do I mean by this? I can tell you from my own experience that it is much easier to keep talking about the fantasy of “ancapistan” than a thousand Lichtensteins. Why? Because talking about how you get to a thousand Lichtensteins takes a lot more effort and brain-power than talking about something you’ll never see. Theory is always easier than praxis. Digesting Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s classic, “What Must Be Done,” and starting to implement it is much harder work than reading books on what a “perfect” libertarian society would look like. I’ve done both and have been guilty of the latter.
If we read the culture properly, we should realize that promoting separation to people who believe half the country wants them enslaved to their values is more strategic than telling them about the non-aggression principle and how this will lead them to a free-market society they may not desire. The kind of people I want to reach out to say things like, “look, I just want to be left alone and live my life in peace.” They may not be looking for private security or a society based off mutual aid. And that’s fine. I want to concentrate on explaining to them how they achieve their goals of “being left alone” and how the leviathan of the federal State prevents that. Don’t throw away the “acceptable” because you’ve been convinced you need “perfection.”
If you’ve ever filled out a Form 4473, you’re familiar with the Question 11e: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or other controlled substance?” In case you thought there was any ambiguity with regard to medical marijuana, you were wrong. Indeed, there is a warning in bold right underneath the question that clarifies:
“Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized or for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”
Regardless of what one thinks about marijuana, its legalization or the right of the federal government to regulate either drugs or the internal laws of the various states, the fact remains: As of now, possession, sale and cultivation of marijuana remains a federal offense. It is a Schedule I drug in the same category as heroin and cocaine. You might not like that and you might think such classifications are ridiculous. The federal government doesn’t care.
This is a particularly difficult issue for people who use medicinal marijuana for bona fide medical purposes, rather than as a sort of legal loophole to consume marijuana legally. Many people use medicinal marijuana for a variety of purposes including relief from pain, Alzheimer’s symptoms, glaucoma, epilepsy and a number of complications related to cancer, including nausea and lack of appetite. The science on this is rather conclusive, so much so that Big Pharma makes legal synthetic THC pills known as marinol.
For those who use medical marijuana and wish to protect themselves with firearms, there is a choice: you can keep your guns or you can keep your grass or you can break the law.
In 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms clarified its stance – it is not legal for anyone who uses any illegal substance to own firearms. This includes marijuana, which is legal according to some state laws, illegal according to others, and also illegal under federal law.
The relevant federal law is 18 U.S.C. 922 § (g)(3), which prohibits anyone who uses any controlled substance, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act, from owning firearms. It’s not specific to marijuana. It includes every controlled substance. However, marijuana is worth talking about specifically because of its quasi-legal status, including in a number of relatively gun-friendly states such as Arizona, New Hampshire, Colorado, Michigan, and Nevada.
It’s easy to be cynical about the motivations of the federal government with regard to this topic. However, it is worth briefly noting a couple of facts regarding marijuana with regard to mental health. Marijuana is closely associated with a number of psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, but also anxiety, paranoia and even psychosis, though the last of these is quite rare. One might wish to hand-wave this as “reefer madness,” but the correlation if not the causation is well documented.
One might object that those with SSRIs are allowed to legally possess firearms, despite the fact that these have been proven to be dangerous. We don’t disagree that there is a correlation between SSRI use and abuse and gun violence. However, SSRIs being dangerous – or even more dangerous than marijuana – does not make marijuana any less dangerous than it is.
In the interest of balance, we’ll end this section by noting that correlation is not causation. Some have argued that it’s less that marijuana causes schizophrenia than those who have schizophrenia are more likely to use marijuana as a form of symptom relief. We will not attempt to decide which hypothesis is true, but the facts regarding marijuana and mental health bear mentioning.
We are not encouraging anyone to break the law. And, indeed, the penalties for doing so with regard to firearms are always stiff. Using and possessing marijuana are no exceptions. So what are the penalties for those who simply choose to flout the law and continue using marijuana – legal or otherwise, because remember that the feds don’t recognize the difference – while owning firearms?
First, we should mention that some states, such as Colorado, have prohibited information sharing that would tie your ownership of firearms to your status as a medical marijuana patient. Other states, such as Illinois, have ruled that you can legally own firearms as a medical (or otherwise legal – Illinois is a recreational state) marijuana user. Illinois is not the most gun-friendly state in the Union by a longshot, but it has explicitly said that it will not assist the federal government in stripping otherwise law-abiding citizens of their firearms while also providing them with the same friendly warning that we will throughout this article: that the feds still consider it a crime, so be careful.
But again, the federal law is what is most important for our purposes right now. And the federal appeals courts have upheld bans on medical marijuana users from legally possessing firearms. What’s more, even states that are friendly to medical marijuana have not taken a clear stand on what will happen to people who are stopped in possession of legal firearms and a legal amount of marijuana.
There are two parts of the law here: First, the question of what will happen to you if the feds show up and you have marijuana and a firearm. The second is the question of what will happen if the feds decide to hit you for lying on your form – a lesser, but still serious charge. Neither situation will play out well for you: The federal penalty for being in possession of a firearm, while also in possession of illegal drugs, is ten years in the federal pen. The federal penalty for lying on your Form 4473 is five years in prison.
It’s worth pointing out that if you’re guilty of one, you’re probably guilty of both, so let’s just call that 15 years. And while Jeff Bezos’ left-wing vanity blog The Washington Post has stated that “Your chances of being prosecuted by the Justice Department for falsifying information to illegally buy a gun are almost zero,” no serious person would advise you to lie on your form. This is illegal and a highly risky gambit.
Still, facts are facts and numbers usually don’t lie: The NICS system denied gun purchases 112,000 times in 2017, because they were in forbidden categories. Of these, the ATF investigated 12,700. Of these, a whopping 12 were prosecuted. However, Attorney General William Barr has stated that the feds plan to investigate and prosecute so-called “lie and try” cases with increased vigor, so we might see more prosecutions in the future.
Note that it is not just marijuana users who might fall afoul of federal authorities because of this: literally anyone involved in the cultivation or distribution of medical marijuana is engaged in a federal crime. Thus, they are subject to being penalized in the same way that any other drug user – or drug dealer – might be. Further, all of these laws apply not just to guns, but to ammunition as well.
Again, we cannot state this clearly and unambiguously enough: Purchasing a firearm while using illegal drugs, of which even “medical marijuana” is one, is a federal offense carrying serious penalties, and we obviously urge anyone considering ignoring the law to not do so. The feds are not joking around with people that they prosecute for these crimes.
If you take umbrage at this legal situation, we urge you to contact your state legislators, particularly those who might be on record as sharing your views on the matter. There is a growing movement in America’s state legislatures to protect medical marijuana users who wish to peacefully exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The legal pretext for charging otherwise law-abiding gun owners because of their use of medical marijuana is the Gun Control Act of 1968, passed at the height of American conservatism’s war on hippies and weed. Note that at this time, there was a low-level insurgency of left-wing militants just starting.
The purpose of this provision of the law at the time was to create an easy way for the feds to hand out sentence enhancements for drug dealers or domestic terrorists who were also potheads, due to the strong presence of cannabis use among the counter-culturalists who populated the far left during this time period. If we’re going back to original intent, this provision was not crafted with now-legal medical marijuana users in mind. This is an important point to raise because of the mental health issues alluded to above – this law was not designed for such problems.
As such, there isn’t really an enforcement apparatus set up for this specific law, nor can federal authorities realistically enforce it on a mass scale. There are likely tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of medical marijuana users in the United States who also own otherwise legal firearms. There is also the spectre of people who are involved in the legal marijuana trade who have absolutely nothing to do with cultivation or sale, such as security guards, who often carry firearms and are technically in violation of this law. For the feds to begin targeting such otherwise law-abiding citizens would mean either a massive crackdown on a significant part of the population or using a few high-profile cases to set an example for everyone else.
If this law were enforced in any systematic manner, medical marijuana dispensaries would have no means of defending themselves from criminals, because their security guards couldn’t be armed with anything currently classed as a firearm. This – and the generous tax revenues that flow from it – is primarily why state governments have chosen to look the other way on enforcing or helping to enforce this aspect of federal law. Not only are there tons of people violating it, but consistent and rigorous enforcement would lead to a significant drop in state tax revenues collected, which would, in turn, lead to significant cuts in social services offered by state governments.
Because the IRS doesn’t allow any deductions, they’re making a killing off of marijuana taxation – about 40 percent.
There is also a solid basis for the law prohibiting medical marijuana users from owning firearms being unconstitutional. First there is the question as to whether or not any restrictions on firearms ownership actually pass constitutional muster. But beyond this, the law has been challenged by those who are not the Second Amendment ideological purists that we are.
A Philadelphia-based doctor named Matthew Roman filed suit after a licensed firearms dealership didn’t allow him to purchase a firearm after he answered this notorious question honestly. His argument isn’t based on the Second Amendment at all (and it’s a good thing, because the courts generally do not agree with our “no exceptions” view of the Second Amendment). Rather, he appealed to the Fifth Amendment, which protects Americans from self-incrimination, in addition to the Second Amendment, which doubtless all our readers know by heart.
Indeed, the question specifies that the person has used medical marijuana “unlawfully,” which is a dubious question – does the federal government have jurisdiction over the states in this regard? There are certainly arguments in either direction, but this is not entirely settled law. At the very least, the Trump Administration seems to have declared a truce on this matter, looking the other way with regard to the increasing legalization of marijuana, both medical and recreational, throughout the country, ending the Catch-22 harassment of the Obama Administration, which targeted otherwise legal – and tax-paying – medical marijuana facilities on the grounds that they were paying tax on illegal income.
Of course, no one wants to be a Constitutional test case, especially when they’re looking at 15 years in prison if they lose the gambit. But it is worth noting all of these issues with even having such a law on the books and deploying it in a manner that forces people to incriminate themselves.
In April 2019, Republican Congressman Alex Mooney of West Virginia introduced legislation to bring into alignment federal gun laws and the increasing legalization of medical marijuana at the state level. This bill only recognized medical marijuana use and would do nothing for the millions of Americans currently living in states where recreational marijuana is not just legal, but a booming business. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky proposed a similar law, but this legislation would have covered recreational cannabis as well as medical.
For those who like to carry concealed, the challenge is twofold: Not only must they potentially give up their guns, they must also give up the practice of carrying concealed when in public.
There was an effort in 2019 to extend the right to carry concealed firearms to medical marijuana patients in Colorado, but it was ultimately unsuccessful. And, indeed, in our research we were not able to find a single state that took the additional step of not just allowing medical marijuana users to own firearms under state law, but also allowing them to carry concealed without molestation.
This is all, of course, a bit of a moot point anyway for those looking to stay within the good graces of the law. Because what good is the right to carry a concealed firearm if you don’t have the right to own a firearm?
Federal legislation is needed in this regard, because the state laws protecting the right of otherwise law-abiding medical marijuana users to own firearms mean nothing. The state law isn’t what is at issue here. It is the federal law that requires change. Either that, or the federal government needs to begin rigorously enforcing its laws regarding marijuana – but there is simply no political appetite for this. Particularly with an opioid epidemic ravaging the country, marijuana cultivation is pumping badly needed money into economies ravaged by deindustrialization. What’s more, there is some evidence – though it is far from conclusive – that medical marijuana might be an important and useful tool in the fight against opioid abuse.
There is also the question of the unintended consequences of this law, which are twofold: First, there is the very real possibility that otherwise law-abiding gun owners will turn to the black or grey market to purchase their firearms out of paranoia that the federal government will target them if they wish to obtain one legally. This might sound far-fetched, but after the hysteria surrounding the Chinese Coronavirus and the civil unrest of the summer of 2020, there is no reason to believe that every otherwise law-abiding citizen will just forfeit their right to self defense because the federal government has forced them to choose between that and pain management or epilepsy.
The flip side of this is all the law-abiding citizens who choose their doctor-recommended treatment of medical marijuana over the right to keep and bear arms. This scenario is much more likely than the previous one, and it’s not a neutral position. People choosing to exercise their Second Amendment rights is a net social positive in addition to simply being a Constitutionally enumerated right. Stripping otherwise law-abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms will, conversely, have a net social negative effect in addition to simply being a violation of their rights.
State sovereignty issues likewise enter into the equation. While a certain degree of federal supremacy is a moot point after the American Civil War (to say nothing of the expansive view of the interstate commerce clause), it does seem like a massive amount of federal overreach allowing the feds to effectively strip Second Amendment rights from a group of people who are not breaking any laws in their state. This is particularly egregious because the federal government seems to largely have given up trying to get these states to comply with the federal law that, at least in theory, supersedes it.
Otherwise legal gun owners are thus thrust into making a difficult decision between their rights and the law – a decision that is made particularly cruel thanks to the federal abdication of enforcement.
So which legal decision should you make? That’s not a question we can answer for you. It’s one that only you can answer for yourself after careful consultation with your physician, as well as weighing your options with regards to the potential for a self-defense situation were one to arise. Indeed, because it is disproportionately seniors and the ill who are using medical marijuana, this makes the decision an especially cruel and tragic one. However, until federal law catches up with the medical marijuana laws of your state, it is an unfortunate choice that you must make if you don’t want to end up on the wrong side of the law, facing 15 years in prison.
Protection or Pain Treatment: Choosing Between Your Gun and Medical Marijuana originally appeared in The Resistance Library at Ammo.com.
One would think it’s just a given that when the government or one of their cut-outs is pushing to do something that will harm the individual, you don’t support them in any way, shape or form. Dave Smith paraphrased Daniel McAdams on a recent episode of my podcast saying that in the run-up to the U.S. government’s unconscionable invasion of Iraq in 2003, if a “libertarian” was writing articles about how Saddam Hussein was a monster, even if it were true, they were contributing to the propaganda and war effort. Much the same way many ‘libertarians” sided with the CIA in the attempted coup against Trump in relation to Ukraine-Gate. You don’t side with monsters, ever!
Which brings me to a more current subject; the lockdowns, “mask-world” and vaccines in regard to the Covid-19 “pandemic.” It appears that many “libertarians” want to have it both ways. They want to appeal to the masses (“wear the mask” – “it’s a private business”) while claiming they don’t want the State to mandate anything related to these issues. I’m sorry, but that’s not going to work. In my opinion, the appeal to the masses has to do with that air of respectability they wish to cultivate with the populace when it comes to their “libertarian” beliefs. But the ideology of libertarianism you promote is radical to the normie to say the least. Or it should be! Do you want to be democrat or republican lite? Good luck!
Now to address not wanting mandates handed down on these issues but still promoting them publicly as a good idea to take on voluntarily. These people know that the powers that be want these things to be mandatory. They also know that a good portion of the public wishes it as well. While these “go along to get along” people are saying it’s a good idea but they don’t want it mandated, people who do, or who are on the fence are asking themselves, “well, if it’s such a good idea, and even the libertarians think so, why not force everyone?” That is logical thinking if you step into the mind of the statist. It is clear that these “libertarians” have not thought this through.
Much in the same way if you were promoting how brutal a dictator Saddam was in 2002 thereby being a dupe for the war cries, taking any stance other than anti-lockdown/mask/vaccine is being complicit in the tyranny the world over has been subjected to for the last nine months. For a group who believe that logic and consistency are paramount, these people don’t see how they are failing. There is no nuance to be had here, there is either tyranny or liberty. And the actions of a choice few, especially those considered “influencers,” are playing right into the hands of those who have destroyed countless lives and will continue to do so. Why would you help them?
There are 160 apps on my phone. What they’re actually doing, I don’t know. But I decided to find out.
I have a feeling these apps are spying on me. Well, not listening in, but that they’re keeping track of where I am at all times. That my every move is shared on. When I am shopping for groceries, having a drink, or hanging out with friends.
I know there are those that buy and sell such information. How are they tracking us, and what do they want with our data?
To try to get to the bottom of this, I started an experiment in February. I installed lots of apps on a spare phone. I would then carry that phone everywhere.
More here
“There’s no such thing as a technocratic approach to truth. There are official truths, but those are political rather than scientific determinations, and therefore almost always wrong on some level. The people who created the American free press understood this, even knowing the tendency of newspapers to be idiotic and full of lies. They weighed that against the larger potential evil of a despotic government that relies upon what Thomas Jefferson called a “standing army of newswriters” ready to print whatever ministers want, “without any regard for truth.”
We allow freedom of religion not because we want people believing in silly religions, but because it’s the only defense against someone establishing one officially mandated silly religion. With the press, we put up with gossip and errors and lies not because we think those things are socially beneficial, but because we don’t want an aristocratic political establishment having a monopoly on those abuses. By allowing some conspiracy theories but not others, that’s exactly the system we’re building.”
More here
