Source: https://www.foodfreedomusa.org/food-freedom-usa-press/archives/11-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:30:37+00:00

Document:
Last night, the U.S. Senate voted on Amendment No. 3018 to the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, which protects the rights prescribed to Americans in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to indefinite detention and the right to a trial by jury.
The amendment passed, 67-29. However, many Senators, including McCain and Graham, voted for the amendment because they made the argument that the amendment authorizes indefinite detention.
Moments before the vote, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to again voice his support for the amendment and inspire his colleagues to do the same. Below is video and transcript of his floor speech.
Remember S510, the food safety modernization act from 2010? Well, it is now being used as reported in the article below from Natural News. But first I will post a reminder of what S510 really is. (see below).
Is this still America when the United Nations orders the Federal government to take action against the State's of Washington and Colorado?
Agenda 21, and Wisconsin Green Tier, are internationalist tools to eradicate our private property, sovereignty, freedoms, and local governance. You are about to loose your over the counter access to dietary supplements, farmers are being prosecuted for supplying nutrient dense foods in Wisconsin, and they refuse to label foods that are GMO. So unless you are willing to stand and fight this tyranny from foreign shores, start stocking up if you have not already done so. Time is running out so prepare your self and your family to either live as a globalist slave, (happily medicated by the approved drugs of the FDA) or take a stand and truly 'have your farmer's back'.
There is a war on for your food and if you do not stand against this tyranny you will be greatly rewarded with three squares and a cot at a FEMA camp coming to your state in the near future.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles theKissinger Plan.
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins tosurvive, not just to treat illnesses.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitutegenetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
(NaturalNews) Likely empowered by a U.S. administration that favors the kind of nanny state politics a ruling global entity would no doubt embrace, the head of the United Nations' International Narcotics Control Board feels comfortable telling federal officials they should move to challenge measures in Colorado and Washington that decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 and over.
Raymond Yans lectured the voter-approved measures - part of the United States' democratic process, something most UN member countries are not familiar with - send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."
In an interview with The Associated Press, Yans said he would like to see Attorney General Eric Holder "take all necessary measures" to ensure that marijuana possession remains illegal throughout the United States.
Does the UN remember that Obama inhaled?
Currently, both states are awaiting the implementation of plans to regulate and tax the drug because officials there are waiting to see if Washington will assert its federal authority in the matter. At present, pot is a Schedule I controlled substance, in the same category as LSD and heroin. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration has said that marijuana has a high potential for abuse and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," the New York Times has reported.
Yans' outrage makes us wonder here at Natural News if he read reports back in 2006 when then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama told the American Society of Magazine Editors that he did, in fact, smoke marijuana.
"When I was a kid, I inhaled," he said. "That was the point."
Also, is Yans oblivious to the fact that the Netherlands has essentially legalized pot by decriminalizing both its possession and sale? Or that Portugal, in 2001, became the first European country, according to Time magazine, "to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine?"
At the time, critics of the policy change warned that drug use would skyrocket in a nation where hard drug use was already the highest on the continent. But a subsequent study by the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute in 2009 found no appreciable increase in usage. In fact, in the years after personal possession of drugs was decriminalized, illegal use among teens in Portugal dropped while rates of new HIV infections caused by the sharing of dirty needles also fell. The number of people seeking treatment for drug addition; however, more than doubled - but that figure was an acceptable alternative to incarceration because the Portuguese government had previously determined that treating offenders would be cheaper than jailing them.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research, told Time. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
"I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment, and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA, told the magazine.
A number of U.S. politicians have begun to see it that way.
A year ago, the governors of Washington and Rhode Island - Democrat Christine Gregoire and Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee, respectively - petitioned the federal government to reclassify marijuana as a drug with acceptable medical uses, "saying the change is needed so states like theirs, which have decriminalized marijuana for medical purposes, can regulate the safe distribution of the drug without risking federal prosecution," the Times said.
"The divergence in state and federal law creates a situation where there is no regulated and safe system to supply legitimate patients who may need medical cannabis," the governors wrote in a letter to Michele M. Leonhart, the DEA administrator.
"What we have out here on the ground is chaos," Gregoire told the Times. "And in the midst of all the chaos we have patients who really either feel like they're criminals or may be engaged in some criminal activity, and really are legitimate patients who want medicinal marijuana."
"If our people really want medicinal marijuana, then we need to do it right, we need to do it with safety, we need to do it with health in mind, and that's best done in a process that we know works in this country - and that's through a pharmacist," she added.
This Stossel special will blow your mind! The government, especially the EPA, is out of control, as well as local prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves.
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.
"The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, [the wrongful seizure of authority] without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation." Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, p.267. Quoted in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 (1895), Dissenting Opinion: Gray, Shiras, JJ., 144.
Gentlemen, the danger is great, in proportion to the mischief that may happen through our too great credulity. A proper confidence in a court is commendable; but as the verdict (whatever it is) will be yours, you ought to refer no part of your duty to the direction of other persons. If you should be of opinion, that there is no falsehood in Mr. Zenger's papers, you will, nay, (pardon me for the expression) you ought to say so; because you don't know whether others (I mean the Court) may be of that opinion. It is your right to do so, and there is much depending upon your resolution, as well as upon your integrity." Andrew Hamilton's defense of John Peter Zenger, from How. St. Tr. 17:698 (1735) at 703-720.
"...[T]he institution of trial by jury --especially in criminal cases-- has its hold upon public favor chiefly for two reasons. The individual can forfeit his liberty --to say nothing of his life-- only at the hands of those who, unlike any official, are in no wise accountable, directly or indirectly, for what they do, and who at once separate and melt anonymously in the community from which they came. Moreover, since if they acquit their verdict is final, no one is likely to suffer of whose conduct they do not morally disapprove; and this introduces a slack into the enforcement of law, tempering its rigor by the mollifying influence of current ethical conventions. A trial by any jury... preserves both these fundamental elements and a trial by a judge preserves neither..." Judge Learned Hand, U.S. ex rel McCann v. Adams, 126 F.2d 774, 775?76 (2nd Circuit, 1942).
"Jury acquittals in the colonial, abolitionist, and post-bellum eras of the United States helped advance insurgent aims and hamper government efforts at social control. Wide spread jury acquittals or hung juries during the Vietnam War might have had the same effect. But the refusal of judges in trials of antiwar protesters to inform juries of their power to disregard the law helped ensure convictions, which in turn frustrated antiwar goals and protected the government from the many repercussions that acquittals or hung juries would have brought." Steven E. Barkan, Jury Nullification in Political Trials, Social Problems, 31, No. 1, 38, October, 1983.
"During the first third of the nineteenth century,.. .judges frequently charged juries that they were the judges of law as well as the fact and were not bound by the judge's instructions. A charge that the jury had the right to consider the law had a corollary at the level of trial procedure: counsel had the right to argue the law --its interpretation and its validity-- to the jury." Note (anon.), The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174,(1964).
"...[T]he right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge's instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: "It is not only...[the juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though indirect opposition to the direction of the court." There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted." Note (anon.), The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 173 (1964).
See also Judge Van Ness' instruction to the jury in United States v. Poyllon, 27 F.Cas. 608, 611 (D.C.D.N.Y. 1812): ". . . this was in its nature and essence, though not in its form, a penal or criminal action; and they were therefore entitled to judge both of the law and the fact, and that the enforcing act could not apply in this case," and John Marshall's instructions to the jury in United States v. Hutchings, 26 F.Cas. 440, 442 (C.C.D.Vir. 1817): "That the jury in a capital case were judges, as well of the law as the fact, and were bound to acquit where either was doubtful."
"As little can this respondent be justly charged with having, by any conduct of his, endeavored to 'wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact involved in the verdict which they were required to give.' He denies that he did at any time declare that the aforesaid counsel should not at any time address the jury, or did in any manner hinder them from addressing the jury on the law as well as on the facts arising in the case. It was expressly stated, in the copy of his opinion delivered as above set forth to William Lewis, that the jury had a right to determine the law as well as the fact: and the said William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas were expressly informed, before they declared their resolution to abandon the defence, that they were at liberty to argue the law to the jury." United States v. Fries, 9 F.Cas. 924, 934 (D. Pennsylvania, 1800).
"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." Mr. Justice Holmes, for the majority in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).
"The facts comprehended in the case are agreed; the only point that remains, is to settle what is the law of the land arising from those facts; and on that point, it is proper, that the opinion of the court should be given. It is fortunate, on the present, as it must be on every occasion, to find the opinion of the court unanimous: we entertain no diversity of sentiment; and we have experienced no difficulty in uniting in the charge, which it is my province to deliver.
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."
Nullification The Rightful Remedy: What do we do when the federal government steps outside of it's Constitutional boundaries? Do we 'vote the bums out' and hope that the new bums limit their own power? Do we ask federal judges in black robes to limit the federal government's power? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn't think so, and neither do we. The rightful remedy to federal tyranny rests in the hands of the people and the States that created the federal government in the first place. It's called Nullification, and it's an idea whose time has come. This documentary explores the history of state nullification, and how it is being used today to push back against the encroachment of federal power.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.