Thought crime now more than ever is part of the American law. Now that the police will be forced by federal regulations to monitor and judge people's thoughts. Mark these words, as it always has throughout all of history, the definition of hate will change. This will bleed over into anti-government and anti-social ideas. We will be judged by how well we fit into the norm of society. Russia didn't abuse a race or religion. The horrors of Russia were committed against those who were not considered to be Russian enough. Thoughts that were considered anti-Russian were the enemy at that time. American history and numerous documents show that America views its domestic dissenters as much if not more of a problem than foreign terrorists. The 90's saw an attack on those at home who were seen as different. We will see a re-birth of the scenes of Ruby Ridge and Waco. It will be carried out in court rooms now. The police and the Feds will have the justification to prosecute out of fear that someone could become violent. Pre-Crime lives.

See the MIAC report as an example of who is the target of anti-hate and anti-terrorism.

Hate crimes bill signed by Obama

Today, President Barack Obama is expected to sign the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill into law during a White House signing ceremony. Shepard's murder became a cause célèbre when his killers were accused of attacking and killing Shepard for being a homosexual.
However, those who support this new federal law ignore the overwhelming evidence that Shepard's killers were unaware of his sexual orientation when they attacked him.
While politicians and the news media herald this new law, not everyone believes this piece of legislation is a great idea. They are cautioning many supporters that such a law is a two-edged sword and may have unintended consequences that includes misuse by overzealous and politically motivated prosecutors.
Critics fear that this legislation would prosecute individuals not on the basis of their crimes but on their alleged motivations for committing those crimes. It requires law enforcement officials and prosecutors to gather evidence of the offender's thoughts rather than of his actions and his criminal intent.
Critics of this hate or bias crime law oppose this latest foray into the world of political correctness and point out the law will:
* Federalize crimes that already are being effectively prosecuted by our States and local governments. 
* Force law enforcement officials and prosecutors to gather evidence of the offender's thoughts and words, regardless of the criminality of his actions. 
* Blur the line between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not.
"This should strike us all as inherently dangerous," said a New York City police detective who asked for anonymity since the city's mayor favors such legislation.
"Now we'll have feds looking over our shoulders to make certain we arrest people based on their views regarding homosexuality and others who would be protected by a federal law enforced by federal bureaucrats," she added. 
During a discussion of HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, opponents of the proposed law offered compelling arguments for scrapping the bill.
For example, Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics contained in the Bureau's annual Uniform Crime Report showed that the number of so-called hate crimes has actually declined over the last 10 years.  Also, the last UCR released by the FBI revealed that of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S., only 9 of the murders were determined to be motivated by bias. 
"This new law opens the door to suspects being questioned about their thoughts rather than their actions. Are we going to start interrogating people about what they are or were thinking?" asks a New York City detective who opposes the law.
"We already have a hate crime law in our state Penal Code. What are the feds doing getting involved in state crimes?" said the veteran cop on condition of anonymity.
During the debate over the new law, US Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia voiced his opposition to HR 1913 and explained why he voted against it.
“Regardless of its motivation, I believe that every violent crime is appalling.  Furthermore, I believe that all people should be equally protected by law from violence, no matter who they are," said Broun, who is also a licensed physician.  
“In addition to posing a litany of constitutional problems, today’s legislation alarmingly overturns the cornerstone of equality in our justice system by placing a higher value on one life over another.  In no way could I support a bill that more harshly punishes criminals who kill a homosexual, transvestite or transsexual than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, or a senior citizen.  I believe that all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law," said Rep. Broun.
Rep.Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said that a federal hate law would preempt the Tenth Amendment which delegates most law enforcement to the states.  She said the claim that Matt Sheppard was murdered because he was a homosexual was a "hoax;" and that he was killed as the victim of a robbery. Shepard's murderers did not know he was gay at the time of the robbery, she stated.
Supporters of the law complain that laws for dealing with hate or bias crimes differ from state to state and that this new law will codify the definition of a hate crime. They believe that the federal government will be able to utilize the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 in order to force local officials to protect gays, minorities and others as "protected groups."
While opponents support the prosecution of criminals to the full extent of the law, they believe the police power is traditionally mandated to the states by the US Constitution. Murder, rape, assault and other felonies are crimes for individual states to adjudicate, according to several police commanders, some of whom said their politically motivated superiors supported HR 1913. 
“This unconstitutional hate crimes bill also raises the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could become the subject of a criminal investigation focusing on a suspect's religious beliefs, membership in religious organizations and any statements made by a suspect,"  said Congressman Paul Broun. 
"Religious leaders and others who express their constitutionally protected beliefs should not be silenced out of fear of prosecution,” he said,

note: Lets keep another fact in mind. If you don't need to vaccinate for HPV, then you are introducing the virus on mass to a population that normally doesn't come in contact with the virus. The results could lead to mass infection down the road. By then I am sure this connection will be forgotten about and be blamed on poor health or diet....

Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates

By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin

Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that “four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.”

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, “If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.”

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.”

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”

At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”

“It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,” she said at the time. “There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”



Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline’s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper’s candor. “I think she’s a scientist, a researcher, and she’s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.”

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. “For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.”

By Johnnie Aysgarth
15.01.2008

Water Fluoridation has hit the main stream media after decades being brushed aside. Scientific American had an article about the dangers of fluoride if its overused, revealing that its almost impossible not to overuse it. Many people don’t think twice about the toxic waste that we are drowning in. Fluoride is not what you think, and the deceit is painfully obvious, you just have to look.
Acceptable amounts of fluoride to ingest is 1 part per million of water. More than 2 PPM has been ruled toxic. Acceptable levels allowed in our tap water have been rising, and more than 90 percent of our public water is fluoridated, so our food is grown with it, soda, soup, all canned with it, we are being bombarded with fluoride. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how much of the toxic fluoride we have stored in our bodies, it stays in your body, for unknown period’s of time. “Half of all ingested fluoride remains in the skeletal system and accumulates with age” Dr. Hardy Limeback
Last year the National Research Council released the report: “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” The report said too much fluoride for babies is toxic. It advised parents feeding babies powdered formula to prepare it with un-fluoridated bottled water. Yet on our grocery store shelves we have “nursery water” a brand aimed at formula fed babies, loaded with fluoride. The report was released, with little or no mention. This is INCREDIBLY dangerous, yet, the public draws a blank. Its no surprise we are being misled, the whole operation is confusing. Seven months after that report the FDA gave manufacturers of bottled water permission to print claims on their labels that drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of dental caries or tooth decay. Instead of the DANGER warning fluoridated water should have gotten, artificial water fluoridation gets the FDA golden seal of greatness. Currently bottled water remains virtually unregulated. “43 of 50 states have the equivalent of fewer than a single staff person dedicated to regulating bottled water.”The lawmakers are not looking to protect, but to harm, and they are preying on your inability to stay informed, drowning out the necessary information we need to make decisions. We just file in as complacent as the fluoride will get us, believing that no one would ever harm us…the government would never allow it. Do the research, WE are allowing it. In 1992, three counties of New Jersey had almost seven times the osteosarcoma (bone cancer) rate in males in the fluoridated communities compared to the non-fluoridated communities. It’s a proven carcinogen…still they fluoridate.In 1931 ALCOA, the worlds largest aluminum producer, was polluting the water with sodium fuoride, children’s teeth were turning yellow, because of the high levels found in the water supply. Sodium fluoride is a toxic pollutant, an aluminum by product, the same type of fluoride that is found in toothpaste. Look a little closer at the tube of toothpaste, you will find the phone number for poison control, “toothpaste overdose” can cause convulsions, and a break down of your nervous and digestive systems, along with difficulty breathing. The amounts we pollute our bodies with everyday are harmful, and we feel the effects of the poison, without recognition, fluoride lowers your IQ and it is a main component of anti-psychotic drugs, extremely dangerous for our children. We are drugged, like patients in a sanatorium, with little resistance.Fluoridated water is a tool of control, the benefits to the the masses are non existent, the benefits to a government trying to CONTROL the masses are endless. In the 1930’s Hitler created his plan of control, and force alone was not going to be enough. The plan involved what they called “water medication” (we call it “water fluoridation”). The Nazi’s would contaminate the water supply to make the people docile (and sterilize them as well).
Most of Europe does not (openly) fluoridate their water. The UK, however has unknown amounts of Prozac in their water, and its basic ingredient is fluoride, so basically they are being medicated by the government as well. We have been conned. Water Fluoridation is destroying the will of the people. It is just one of the tools that is being used against the population, it’s slowing us down. In order to Fight the tyranny, first we must remove the fluoride, how can you willing ingest something that will make you less smart? You can’t, its suicide. Filter your water. Don’t go willingly.

Here is a woman that sums up most of the swine flu hoax while showing us Quebec has put a mass vaccination campaign against the people.

New York Nurses Suing State Over Forced Vaccinations

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Oct 13, 2009

At one time I liked Bill Maher, but time and time again he has showed himself to be a tool for the liberal side of this control system. Congrats to Richard Belzer for doing his homework and showing that Bill Maher just goes with the main stream beliefs without doing his own studying.

Here is an example of the state making laws that make no sense to any reasonable person. We will eventually have every step we take be regulated by one level or another of government. They want to tell us how to eat, when to see the doctor, how to raise our children ......etc etc. With your eyes open you will see it everywhere. Anytime that any government official or bureaucrat opens their mouth about anything realize this; a hundred years ago they would have been told to what to do with their OPINIONS.

This is an example of the government wanting to tell you how to raise your children. You aren't allowed to have your children with anyone that has not been screened and authorized to do so by the government. You can't just have anyone you trust watch your children, the government must decide for you. Also this licensed daycare worker must pay for the government's trust. 

Don't we realize that when we give up so much with our children. We give up time for them to go to school where they learn to trust relatively unknown teachers. They spend so little time at home that you no longer can influence them. If you can't raise your children the way you want (by having them stay a couple hours a week with a trusted neighbor, rather than pay for daycare - government licensed=pays fees to the government for an otherwise illegal act) what are you? The government teaches and raises your children while you pay all the living expenses. You pay for a product(worker) that the government created with your genes. The earlier you put them into a school/daycare environment the sooner we lose them to the system.

As a side note. A neighbor reported the woman who was babysitting for her friends. Oh my..... how we throw ourselves to the wolves by betraying our fellow man.


State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids


By JAMES PRICHARD (AP) – 2 days ago

IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. — Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.

Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers.

"I was freaked out. I was blown away," she said. "I got on the phone immediately, called my husband, then I called all the girls" — that is, the mothers whose kids she watches — "every one of them."

Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.

On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.

"Being a good neighbor means helping your neighbors who are in need," Ahmed said in a written statement. "This could be as simple as providing a cup of sugar, monitoring their house while they're on vacation or making sure their children are safe while they wait for the school bus."

Snyder learned that the agency was responding to a neighbor's complaint.

Read entire article

Just a little humor about a horrible scam.... It is safe to inject chicken into my body? mercury? .......

By the way .... look up the patents for the ways produce these vaccines and see all the other lovely ingredients right into your blood.

Don't laugh too hard, its true!