Click here to view the video on YouTube.

The police state is upon us. Drones now fly over our skies, U.S. citizens can be indefinitely detained without a trial, and police forces are increasingly militarized for duty. Wake up, education yourself and your friends and neighbors, because without an informed populace things will only get uglier. Times are rapidly changing, be ready. Stay informed, anticipate new directions, and prepare for the unexpected.

“The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised.” ~ Ron Paul

Share/Bookmark

“Industrial hemp is a very useful plant. I challenged the attorney general to get rid of the criminal stigma associated with hemp so we can look at it in terms of how it might be useful.” ~ Jesse Ventura

During his stint as Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura undertook efforts to promote and educate people about hemp. Ventura made an appeal for hemp to President Bill Clinton in this 1999 letter.

Dear President Clinton:

It is no secret that farmers in Minnesota and around the country are looking for creative answers to the farm crisis. Prices for corn, soybeans and other commodities continue to wallow far below break-even levels, and for an alarming number of producers, the financial crunch is devastating. Minnesota farmers pride themselves on their self-sufficiency, and as days go by, more and more of them are looking for new ways to attack the price problem. For many, the idea of growing alternative crops is attractive.

The 1999 Minnesota Legislature passed a law directing the Governor, in consultation with the Commissioners of Agriculture and Economic Development, to prepare an application to the federal government to authorize growing experimental and demonstration plots of industrial hemp. After researching the federal permitting process, we learned that individual producers must apply on their own, and that a state cannot apply for a general permit.

In the next few weeks, my administration will hold a public meeting to talk with interested farmer about the state and federal permitting process required to grow industrial hemp. We are also exploring opportunities to streamline the permitting process. The hope is that experimental plots will one day lead to an exciting economic opportunity for Minnesota farmers to produce this potential alternative crop that once thrived around the world.

Industrial hemp is a hardy crop that was once grown around the world for a wide variety of uses. In America, it was grown during World War II for fiber. Today, industrial hemp products are being sold across the nation, yet few states have actually passed legislation allowing the crop to be raised.

Industrial hemp has a number of uses, ranging from construction materials and cosmetics to papers and textiles. According to a study completed by North Dakota State University’s Institute for Natural Resources and Economic Development, retailer sold $75 million in hemp products in 1997. This figure is estimated to grow to $250 million by next year. Clearly, additional research and development needs to be done with regard to marketing and processing opportunities, but I believe that industrial hemp can become a lucrative alternative for Minnesota farmers.

Our neighbors in Canada are ahead of us in the effort to establish industrial hemp as an alternative crop for farmers. They have already given their producers the opportunity to grow industrial hemp, and I understand their process is working well. Given the success we have seen in Canada and the continuing economic challenges Minnesota farmers face, I am anxious to move forward on the opportunity to grow experimental and demonstration plots of industrial hemp. I look forward to the day when our producers can grow this crop as a profitable alternative to corn, soybeans and wheat. I anticipate that a crop of industrial hemp from Minnesota could be used to fulfill many of the 25,000 documented uses for this crop.

I realize the production of industrial hemp raises concerns in the area of public safety. I have asked the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to work with the DEA to address those concerns directly. However, as we address those concerns we must be careful not to over-regulate or make industrial hemp production prohibitively cost for farmers – otherwise all our efforts could be wasted.

I look forward to working with DEA and the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, which regulates the use of controlled substances, to ensure that our producers can grow experimental plots safely and without unnecessarily burdensome regulations. Our producers are looking for economic alternatives, and government should not stand in their way. I hope that by working together in a fair and rational manner, we can create a viable opportunity for industrial hemp production in Minnesota.

Sincerely,
Jesse Ventura
Governor

Share/Bookmark

“If you want to be patriotic, stand up for the Bill of Rights. Because once they strip the rights from you, you will pay hell to get them back.” ~ Jesse Ventura

“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” ~ Thomas Paine

Jesse Ventura recently endorsed Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party candidate) for President:

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Share/Bookmark

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Jesse Ventura is one of the very few figures who has participated in government that I highly respect and admire. Jesse has maintained strong levels of integrity and principle when he easily could have sold out to gain more power and respect from the mainstream. He is an independent and despises both the Republican and Democrat parties, having been elected Minnesota Governor in 1998 without being a member of either party. Jesse will say plenty of controversial things, but above all I know he is a diligent and principled individual dedicated to preserving freedom, peace, and principle.

Share/Bookmark

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

“The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” ~ James Madison

Resist the police state; RSVP for the December 16 Tea Party Money Bomb at TeaParty11.com.

For those wondering, this is regarding the real Tea Party movement inspired by Ron Paul’s presidential bid in 2007. This has no connection to the phony “Tea Party” movement that was hijacked by the GOP and made a largely anti-Obama campaign.

Share/Bookmark

It continues, “Scary chain emails and videos” are popping up on the internet, attempting to discredit President Obama’s health care positions. Because “these rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation,” the White House is asking you to send anything that seems “fishy” to [email protected].

The post did not include the entire quote from President John Adams, which came from his Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials in December 1770:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Essentially, the White House feels it knows all the facts and has all the evidence necessary for health care reform and any piece of information, whether it’s from an email or a conversation with your neighbor, you have the responsibility to inform the White House.

My first reaction to this is, How do we know who has all, none, or only some of the facts? The short answer is that we don’t know, until each individual does his or her own research on any topic. We cannot expect to gain all knowledge if we ignore some information, rely only on one outlet for information, or are prevented from knowing some information completely. It is extremely difficult for individuals to gain full understanding of any topic if they are prevented the opportunity to freely interpret and research that topic as they see fit.

The First Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits any abridgment of free speech and the press. The protection of free speech and a free press are the only methods that guarantee people have the opportunity to voice their opinions and seek any information that they feel to. It must be remembered that only through free speech and a free press can sound discussion prosper.

This latest action from the White House does not promote free speech, sound discussion, and logical arguments.  Much to the contrary, it promotes speech that only the government deems fit and factual, attempts to regulate and monitor neighborly discussions if necessary, and tries to discredit any argument that doesn’t agree with the President’s health care proposals.

This is an appropriate time to bring up the Merriam-Webster definition of censorship:

To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.

The White House, and many politicians, know that the President’s proposals for health care reform have lost popularity relatively quickly. Individuals grouping together to protest at the town hall meetings pushing forward the President’s health care agenda have received a large share of the blame. They have been called violent, they have been called mobs, they have been called racist (racism… health care… it makes sense!), they have even been labeled as paid pawns for the insurance corporations. All these individuals are doing is exercising their Natural and protected right to peacefully assemble, and apparently the government cannot stand it (is there any greater testimony to free speech and its protections under the First Amendment?).

None of the blame the White House has placed on individuals, businesses, political parties, and “angry mobs” has done the trick in reducing opposition. They are now attempting to enter the first stage of censorship: to examine in order to suppress. The White House actually believes that the reason for the decreasing popularity of the President’s health care reform is because of “fishy” emails and casual conversations. This sheer ignorance of what causes legislation to become unpopular makes me wonder if these so-called angry, racist, violent, and paid protesters have some valid points.

If the White House and many Democrat representatives really believe that a hugely complicated, expensive, and sweeping change of health care can be brought down through a few spam emails and conversations, maybe that legislation really is worthy of increased discussion from all viewpoints, parties, and individuals; not less.

The White House fails to point out, of course, that those who want to push forward the President’s message of health care reform could just as easily spread false information or propaganda through emails, websites, and casual conversation. If you are going to attempt to censor “disinformation of health care reform,” shouldn’t you censor the non-factual information in support of the President’s plan as well? If the White House knows all the facts, they ought to discredit all individuals attempting to spread false information. Who are we as people to send an email or start a discussion that the White House doesn’t verify as factually correct?

A debate won through censorship can never be called a true victory. For it is won not through principle and sound argument, but manipulation and deceit. With freedom of speech comes freedom of thought, neither is fully effective or meaningful without the other. “Free speech” is not here to protect speech that the government appreciates or needs for an agenda. It is to specifically prohibit government from infringing on the right to free speech, unless it is through the due process of law as protected and mandated in the 4th and 5th Amendments. The White House simply has no superiority, legally or morally, over what people ought to freely write, think, or discuss.

As former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura said in 2008, it is not popular speech that needs protecting, but unpopular speech. Speech that people and the government appreciate comes with the natural protection of popularity. Even if the words coming from some people and outlets are not factually correct as the White House claims, it does not give government a shred of authority to monitor, suppress, or censor speech or thought. (The First Amendment does not protect free speech “so long as all words are factually correct according to the Federal Government.”) The ultimate censorship does not come from a government official, the White House, or Congress, but through the individual’s right to choose what to read, listen to, and discuss.

If the President’s health care reform plan is everything that politicians claim it to be, truth will be the victor. No amount of emails and discussions could result in its lasting demise. If it is what they say it is, free and voluntary discussion and thought should be a boon, not a danger, in creating a respectable, worthwhile, and helpful health care reform bill. It comes down to the fact that the White House today is attempting to censor and discredit all those who oppose the President’s health care proposals.

The censorship and citizen informant program does not strengthen the White House’s message, it discredits it. For if the facts they claim to hold maintain the truth they claim to represent; freedom of speech, thought, and discussion is the absolute last thing they need to worry about.

“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself.  It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” - Potter Stewart

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” – Albert Einstein

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.  For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” – John F. Kennedy

Share/Bookmark