10 reasons why even democrats, liberals and progressives are choosing Ron Paul over Obama Reply

From Natural News.

These are the factions of the Left we need to engage in genuine dialogue and bring into our camp: the antiwar left, the civil liberties left, the genuine economic left, the alternative medicine left, the “food freedom” left, the bioregionalist left, and genuine sovereignty or left-ethno-nationalist movements among minorities. If we could split these sectors from the PC, welfare statist left (in either its Marxist or liberal manifestations) we could severely weaken the Left and strengthen our own ranks in the process.


It’s a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you’re a total slave to the police state, it doesn’t really matter whether you’re on the left or the right, does it?

Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don’t worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor isthe principlesthat Ron Paul stands for — the very same principles President Obama has outright abandoned in his broken promises and disturbing reversals against the American people. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has the ethical and moral strength to carry out his office from a place of principle rather than betrayal.

#1) Ron Paul supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs. Obama does not.

Remember when Obamapromisedhe would decriminalize marijuana, but now his own administration continues to raid legal drug dispensaries in California? That’s a classic Obama lie: Say one thing to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, openly supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the failed War on Drugs. Although he doesn’tpromoterecreational drug use (and neither do I), he understands that treating weed smokers as hard-core criminals is ethical, morally and economically wrong. See my related article on Snoop Dogg and his recent drug bust in Texas:http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_Snoop_Dogg_marijuana_War_on_Drugs.html


El Paso county in Colorado Passes Resolution Nullifying the National Defense Authorization Act Reply

Another move towards pan-secessionism.


El PASO COUNTY, Colo. – (January 13, 2012)  Introduced by Commissioner Peggy Littleton. Co-authored by Kim Green of Freedom Action Coalition. Stewart Rhodes is working with Ms. Green to improve the resolution for others to use.

Resolution to Preserve Habeas Corpus and Civil Liberties

WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 30-10-101(1), 30-11-103, and 30-11-107, the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado (“County” or “Board”), has the legislative authority to manage the concerns of the County and to exercise such other and further powers as are conferred by law; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado, opposes any and all rules, laws, regulations, bill language or executive orders, which amount to an overreach of the federal government and which effectively take away civil liberties;

Read More:  El Paso county in Colorado Passes Resolution Nullifying the National Defense Authorization Act

Lou Riccio is the State Chapter coordinator for the Georgia Tenth Amendment Center. He also facilitates meetings for Gwinnett County Conservatives For Reform. He is an Oath Keeper and a staunch supporter of the U.S. Constitution as originally written, the 2nd and 10th Amendments, Limited Government and the Free Market. Lou blogs at @TheEagleKeeper, and “An Eagle Kept Free”. He also periodically contributes articles to RedState.com

Paul-Haters Caught Planning To Dress Up As KKK, Pose As Paul Supporters 1

From The End Run.



January 13, 2012

Coming on the heels of last week’s dirty deception by the Huntsman campaign, several rabidly anti-Ron Paul political activists have been caught planning another vicious “false flag”-style dirty trick against the presidential candidate and his supporters, this time in South Carolina, where the next GOP primary will take place.

The plot, which was being hatched over Facebook, involved dressing up in hooded Ku Klux Klan (KKK) robes, posing as Ron Paul supporters (complete with Ron Paul signs), and “follow[ing] Paul around South Carolina”, making “sure to get photographed by the media.”

The thread proposing the idea was started earlier this week by Jere Brower of neighboring Georgia on the wall of the “Stop Ron Paul 2012″ Facebook group.   On Wednesday, January 11th, Brower wrote:

“If you live in South Carolina and want to have some real fun with these Paulbots here is what we do- go online and buy or make your very own KKK robe, complete with hood (hood is important).  Then get some Ron Paul signs off the internet or make your own.  Follow Paul around South Carolina and be sure to get photographed by the media.  Again, hoods are important.  All can be Klansmen for Paul. Black, white, Jewish, Asian- those Paulbots will shit a brick!”

He quickly got a second from one Chris Collins of Gainesville, GA (only about an hour’s drive from the South Carolina border), who said: “That is seriously a great idea! Anyone wanna volunteer???”

Minutes later, Brower replied: “Chris, if we can get ten of us to do it, I am down, but where does one get KKK robes????”

When another member opined that the plan was not worth carrying out, Collins objected: “Well, actually, I disagree.  Why not show the world the truth about the type on ilk that supporters Ron Paul?  Let me think on this, Jere.”

The next post came from a Rex Foster, who recommended that the Paul haters infiltrate the Paul campaign by volunteering to make phone calls for the candidate.  They could tell South Carolina voters that they were calling on “behalf of Ron Paul’s campaign”, and then spout non-sense about “lizard people” in an attempt to turn the voters off to Paul.


Ollie North: Still a Scumbag After All These Years Reply

The last time I ever voted was to vote against this guy when he ran for Senate in Virginia in 1994.


Decorated military veteran and best-selling author Oliver North tells Newsmax that, with the recently announced cuts to the U.S. military, the Obama regime is looking like the “Jimmy Carter administration on steroids.”

North also asserts that President Obama’s efforts to deal with the growing Iranian threat have been an “abysmal failure” and warns that Israel will not “sit idly by and wait to be incinerated” by Iranian nuclear weapons.

North served in the U.S. Marines for 22 years and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He also served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Ronald Reagan administration.

North now hosts “War Stories with Oliver North” on the Fox News Channel and is the founder of the Freedom Alliance foundation.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, North assesses the Iranian threat and the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies.

“Clearly the sanctions have not yet worked,” he declares.

“We’ve been at this now for 10 years. It predates even the Obama administration. The abysmal failure of this administration is the failure to recognize the real and growing threat Iran poses with their insistence on enhancing nuclear power and building nuclear weapons.

“There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind at this point that Iran is now building nuclear weapons and already has the means to deliver some with intercontinental ballistic missiles.”


The Ron Paul-Military Alliance Is The Biggest Threat To The Rotten Establishment Reply



The brightest spot on the American political scene is the Ron Paul-Military alliance. Anyone who is paying attention to the 2012 presidential race knows that Dr. Paul is the only military candidate, while his Republican foes and President Obama are the Wall Street candidates.

Dr. Paul has been given more money from retired and active duty military personnel than every other political leader who is running in the 2012 presidential race, including President Obama.

But the military’s support of Dr. Paul is not just in the form of money. Their support is based on deep spiritual passion and strong political commitment. A lot of soldiers are vocal about their support for the anti-war candidate and participate in the campaign by raising public awareness of Dr. Paul’s military service and unconditional defense of the U.S. Constitution in Congress.


Nine Years of the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, 1989-1998 Reply

Article by Wayne Price.

I was at this group’s founding conference in 1989, and it was that experience along with my previous experiences in the North American anarchist milieu that largely convinced me that an entirely new movement was necessary. This article provides a pretty good summary of what North American anarchism was like in the 1980s as well as the trajectory followed by Love and Rage. I predicted when this group was founded that it would eventually be just another commie cult, and that’s more or less what happened when it’s leading figure decided to abandon anarchism and proclaimed himself a Maoist.


NEFAC’s Wayne Price’s interesting account and analysis of the development and decline of the North American continental anarchist federation the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation.

A new wave of radicalization is spreading around the world. Federations of anarchists are being organized in the U.S and Canada, and in other countries. The ‘platformist’ current within international anarchism, with its emphasis on the need for anarchists to organize themselves, is having worldwide effects. In these conditions, it is not surprising that there should be an interest in the last major attempt to build an anarchist federation in North America: the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation (L&R). Founded in 1989, it lasted to 1998, almost ten years, with branches in Mexico (Amor y Rabia) and in English-speaking Canada.

It came out of a very amorphous anarchist movement, whose main continental organization had been almost yearly ‘gatherings’. In various cities around the U.S. and Canada, anarchists would get together, attend workshops, talk with each other, eat vegetarian food, play together, engage in ‘pagan rites’, and then go home. Decisions were not made and lasting structures were not set up.

In this milieu, a minority began to call for the establishment of a continental anarchist newspaper. There were, of course, already a small number of anarchist periodicals, each expressing the views of the individual or small group which put it out. The idea was for a newspaper which reflected the views of a continental body of supporters, who existed to participate in putting it out and distributing it. The supporters of the ‘newspaper project’ soon realized that this implied some sort of organization.

People of various backgrounds and anarchist persuasions met to establish the Love and Rage Federation. A key role was played by a group from Minneapolis, Minnesota, calling itself the Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League (RABL or ‘rabble’). Another group came from the former Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL). This was a group which had evolved from Trotskyism to anarchism. The RSL (of which I was a member) had never regarded the state-capitalist Soviet Union as a ‘degenerated workers’ State, as did orthodox Trotskyism. It had interpreted Marxist orthodoxy in the most libertarian manner possible, such as emphasizing Marx’s writings on the Paris Commune, or Lenin’s State and Revolution. When this became impossible to continue, it moved toward anarchism. The RSL officially dissolved at the time of the founding of Love and Rage; most ex-members leaving politics. Some of us became involved in the setting up of the L&R and its newspaper, which was also called ‘Love and Rage’.

Love and Rage was distinguished from most of the anarchist movement in a few important ways. First, obviously, was the very idea that anarchists should form an organization, and, related to that, should put out a newspaper. These concepts were vigorously, not to say viciously, denounced by many in the anarchist movement. A relatively prominent anarcho-syndicalist came to the founding meeting only to denounce the very idea of founding an organization. The anarcho-primitivist Fifth Estate denounced L&R from the beginning. Many others agreed that it was wrong of anarchists to form organizations, or at least to form organizations beyond the local level. There was a widespread suspicion that the ex-members of the ex-RSL were really doing a Trotskyist ‘entry’, worming their way into the anarchist movement in order to emerge with a new and larger Leninist party. Considering the course of events, this was quite ironic. However, the issue of organization was never quite settled.

There was a constant tension in the federation over how far to go in unifying and coordinating it. A large minority broke off because they really wanted a loose ‘network’, not a more coordinated federation. Over time, this continued to be an issue. Due to its decentralized heritage, people were chosen for positions on the basis of geography, not politics. The continental committee which made decisions between conferences was picked this way. So was the smaller body which coordinated between that committee’s meetings. Influential people were often left out of these bodies, in the hope that this would prevent the formation of a ‘leadership’, but instead (of course), the real leadership was kept informal and undemocratic.

Editorial decisions for the continental paper were not made by any politically responsible body, but by the production crew. This was composed of random people who volunteered and lived in the city where it was put out. At the same time, L&R was never a real federation, because it never had more than a few real local groups. Mostly it had about 200 members scattered throughout North America. There were a few significant collectives in a few cities, and many individuals who were willing to distribute the paper.

Besides being pro-organization, the other distinctive feature of the L&R was its left-wing focus. It was for the struggles of the oppressed. It supported national liberation struggles (although there was tension over attitudes towards the nationalist leadership of such struggles). It supported women’s liberation, queer liberation, struggles of prisoners, of poor people, of youth, and of African-Americans. This may seem obvious, but much of the anarchist movement denounced this as too ‘left’. The left was seen as old-hat and out dated. This was the explicit conception of the primitivists. Even among anarchists who were consciously leftist, such as anarcho-syndicalists, many were for workers’ struggles but did not support national liberation wars or women’s struggles. Too many of these rejected non-working class struggles as irrelevant diversions.

Aside from that, there was little theoretical agreement among L&R members and little effort to develop a theoretical program. Their theory, or program, was something vaguely called, ‘revolutionary anarchism’. That is, we were anarchists who were ‘for’ revolution. This distinguished us from pacifist anarchists and reformist anarchists, but otherwise was not too specific. L&R was against capitalism, but would not commit itself to ‘socialism’, which was associated with State ownership.

There were different views on other issues, such as African-American liberation. A minority was for the Race Traitor program: racism was the main issue in the U.S.; everything else was secondary; white anarchist should not raise their views in the African-American community. Other people had other views which also revolved around similar white-liberal guilt feelings. The problem was not so much this or that opinion on any particular topic but the lack of a serious attempt to study past theory and to develop it further. From the beginning there were people who regarded any attempt to root L&R in anarchist tradition was something ‘cold’. There were no required readings for all members nor regular study classes. Even by the end, there were people who insisted that theory was something which they would develop out of their experience. Theory is, ultimately, nothing but the codification of many people’s experience. But this approach meant constantly reinventing the wheel, and repeating previous generation’s errors. However, it is not surprising that U.S. anarchists should have followed the empiricism and crude pragmatism of U.S. political culture.

The organization had an empirical ‘laundry list’ of good causes it was for (such as women’s liberation, queer liberation, prison abolition, and so on). It tried to work out a better, more thorough and lengthy, program. For years, at the conferences, it discussed parts of an improved program. But this process was inconsistent. By the time L&R dissolved, the program was still unfinished. Ron Tabor, an ex-member of the old RSL, tried to do serious theoretical work. He sought to rethink the meaning of Marxism from an anarchist perspective. While his previous pamphlet, A Look at Leninism, was widely distributed, the organization stopped publishing his articles critiquing Marxism in the newspaper. People just weren’t interested enough, they said.

Nevertheless, good work was done. A small number of real collectives existed and were tied together throughout North America. A real effort was made to support a Mexican group in producing a Spanish paper and literature.

We organized important U.S. support for the Zapatista rebellion (although politically this never went beyond being radical cheerleaders, instead of discussing the possibilities of a Mexican revolution). A continental anarchist paper was produced for nine years, on a more-or-less monthly basis. Some activities were done on a federation-wide basis, including participating in several national U.S. demonstrations.

However from the beginning there had been certain undemocratic aspects of what many members meant by ‘revolutionary anarchism’. One was a widespread sympathy for Leninist-Stalinist movements of the ’60s and ’70s. Many members admired the Weatherpeople, the German Red Army Faction, the Black Liberation Army, and other groups who wanted to create revolutionary dictatorships over the mass of people. The very last L&R issue included a very favorable article about imprisoned members of the Weatherpeople, titled, Enemies of the State. It would have been better titled, Enemies of This State, Friends of a New State.

The other undemocratic weakness was the lack of interest in, or orientation to, the North American working class. At most there was a patronizing acceptance that some of us were interested in workers as workers. As an influential member told me, workers did not identify as workers. When a major student strike broke out in New York City public colleges, our members did excellent work in organizing and leading it (‘leading’ in a non-authoritarian way). But they sneered at the idea of orienting the student struggle toward the workers (who, at the time were also struggling against the city government over comparable issues).

Later, our Detroit members got involved in support work for the striking newspaper workers. Our people put out a flyer raising the general strike. L&R people in New York did not want to cover this in the continental paper. One member asked if the ‘general strike’ was a ‘Trotskyist idea’, so little did they know anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist history.

Ultimately, contempt for the workers, their organizations (unions), and their struggles, must be undemocratic. It leads to a view that a little group of young radicals, mostly college students and ex-students from the middle classes, can transform society by themselves – without going deep into the working class and the oppressed sections of society. This is consistent with an identification with radical Stalinism.

A final conflict broke out during the last two years of L&R. Chris Day, a founder and influential member (that is, a ‘leader’) had concluded that it was time to abandon anarchism. He told people informally that we had reached the limits of the anarchist ‘milieu’ and it was time to move on. He wrote a paper on The Historical Failure of Anarchism, emphasizing the programmatic weaknesses of anarchism. He declared that no revolution could succeed without a centralized, regular army and a revolutionary state. A group formed around him, particularly of people who had never had to chose between anarchism and authoritarian Marxism. Although they suddenly discovered the value of the international working class, their new-found Marxism was not of any of the libertarian or humanistic varieties (autonomes, council communism, CLR James, Eric Fromm, Hal Draper, etc.). It was Maoism – one of the most Stalinist, authoritarian, versions.

A small number of us began to resist, at first by writing counter documents. We were mostly, but not entirely, former members of the RSL, and were mostly older than the average member. What was upsetting and confusing to us was that most L&R members did not react to the dispute. They stayed out of it. This nonreaction was helped by the neo-Maoists’ maneuver of rarely stating openly that they rejected anarchism. Instead the group talked around this. They made hints, and then denials, and then direct statements, and then withdraw the statements. If people wanted to ignore the issue, it was made easy for them. We, the group that said there was a crisis, were treated as troublemakers.

As we saw it, the issue was the rejection of anarchism for Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. We were accused of being dogmatic, not active enough, being troublemakers, wrong on any number of other issues, and so on. There is a myth in the present anarchists movement that L&R collapsed due to weakness over African-American liberation. This was never a major dispute inside the organization, although perhaps it should have been. It was raised at the last minute, the main supporter of Race Traitor politics blocing with the Maoist faction. But it was never the issue in the faction fight, that being anarchism versus Maoism.

Behind the fight and then collapse of Love and Rage was broader historical trends. About the same time that L&R dissolved, our Mexican section also came apart. The Quebecois network which had put out the anarchist Demanarchie also broke down. And the British group, the Class War Federation, also dissolved. While there were specific issues in each case, behind them all was the long lull in the broader movement. People were discouraged. In our case, anyway, people were looking for some alternative.

Marxism had been discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the officially pro-market turn of the Chinese. But it still had the attraction of its history of revolutions and its vast amount of theoretical work, unlike anarchism. It was, and still is, a real pole of attraction for many. L&R had a brief meeting to formally dissolve the federation. The Maoist group, and those it had attracted, formed Fire By Night, for a short time. Soon they were to dissolve into the Leninist milieu. Our group has put out the anarchist journal, The Utopian ( http://www.utopianmag.com). Otherwise individuals have continued to engage in the anarchist movement in various ways. Within two to three years of L&R dissolution, there was a large upturn in the anarchist movement, but there was no continental anarchist federation to participate in it. Lessons of the Love and Rage Federation

When I think over my experiences in L&R (as well as earlier experiences), I reach the following three main conclusions:

(1) There is a need to balance activism with theory. An activists’ program needs to be based on a theory of the world, what causes oppression, what would liberation mean, what sectors of society can overturn oppression, and what can we do to help them to move toward liberation. Otherwise we are just actively jumping around. If anarchists are not to be outdone (once again) by the Marxists and other authoritarians, we have to know what we are doing. Not that every member of an anarchist federation has to fully agree with the same ideas, but there needs to be a core of members with a common approach. This does not mean that we can do nothing without a full-grown theory. Unlike the Marxists, we do not have a set of sacred books to learn from. But as we participate in struggles, anarchists should be simultaneously working on theory. There should be study groups, a common set of readings, and a lively theoretical journal.

(2) There needs to be an orientation to the working class. This is not only for theoretical but for strategic reasons. There is no other oppressed group which has the potential ability to shut down capitalist society – and to start it up again. Only workers – as workers – can do this. No other grouping is oppressed at the heart of the process of production or has the self-interest to create a classless society. This was the insight of anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarchists must continue to participate in and champion the struggles of women, queers, of oppressed races and nations. Their oppression is as real as that of workers. Their movements are as essential for liberation. But just as their issues must be raised in the class struggle, so the class struggle must be raised in them. This means participation in workplace concerns. We need to develop a serious and positive view of unions, and a set of tactics for dealing with them.

(3) There is a need for a democratic organization of revolutionary anarchists – if we are not (once again) to be outorganized by the Marxists. There can be no abstractly preordained structure for such a democratic organization, except that it be democratic. Much depends on the circumstances. The principle is that it should be as decentralized and directly democratic as possible but as centralized and coordinated as is minimally necessary. This is not a party, which is an organization for taking power (by election, or by control of a revolution). This is an instrument for participation in popular struggles and for encouraging the people to take over themselves. An anarchist organization is part of the process of popular self-organization, not its opposite. But, as is said in the Organizational Platform of Libertarian Communists, it needs some personnel chosen by the membership. They should be elected on the basis of their politics, not their personalities or their location! s. I believe it is essential for such a democratic, programmatic body to be elected to oversee publications, and other literature, as well as to do a certain minimal amount of coordination and reacting to emergencies.

All these points are controversial among anarchists. But I have seen, all too often, the victory of the authoritarians, statists, and Marxists, over the anarchists and libertarian socialists. We have a chance to change that awful history, if we are prepared for it.

Wayne Price
From Northeastern Anarchist #3 Fall 2001
Text taken and edited for layout and typos by libcom from http://nefac.net

Advice to a Generic Candidate Reply

Article by Fred Reed.


Last night on the lobotomy box I encountered yet another candidate for the presidency, a Mr. Sanctorum, threatening to make war on Iran. I can’t decide whether the idea is more frightening than fascinating, or fascinating than frightening. I do suggest that the combined candidates do not have the military competence of a stuffed bear. Given that the principal business of the United States is war and preparation for it, do we want a martial analphabetic in charge? One does not let children play with chain saws. (From all of this I exempt Ron Paul, who appears to be sane.)

To save the republic, if any, from another routine military disaster, I offer the following thoughts.

To begin, I will ask the following questions of the candidates, and for that matter of Mr. Obama, and of the Secretary of Defense, a generic bureaucrat.

Can you explain: Convergence zones, base bleed, Kursk, range-gate pull-off, artillery at Dien Bien Phu, IR cross-over, Tet and queen sacrifice, Brahmos 2, CIWIS, supercruise, side-lobe penetration, seven-eighty-twice gear, super-cavitating torpedoes, phased arrays, pulse Doppler, the width of Hormuz versus the range of Iranian cruise missiles, DU, discarding sabot, frequency agility, Chobham armor, and pseudo-random PRF?

These, gentlemen, are the small talk of serious students of the military. Here I mean men like David Isby, author of such books as Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army forJane’s, which you likely have never heard of, or William S. Lind, probably the best military mind (though, or because, not a soldier), that I have encountered. If you are unfamiliar with them, and with the things listed above, you are unfamiliar with the military. Yet you campaign for possession of the trigger.


Texas woman accused of beheading, eating infant son Reply



  • Otty Sanchez is accused of decapitating and mutilating her infant son, Scott Wesley Buchholz Sanchez, who was born June 30. Photo: Courtesy Photo / SL

    Otty Sanchez is accused of decapitating and mutilating her infant son, Scott Wesley Buchholz Sanchez, who was born June 30. Photo: Courtesy Photo / SL


The 33-year-old woman who police said decapitated her infant son and ate parts of his body had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and postpartum psychosis before the slaying at a North Side home this weekend, the family said Monday.

Otty Sanchez confessed to killing Scott Wesley Buchholz Sanchez on Sunday with a steak knife and two swords before mutilating the corpse and eating body parts that included the brain, nose and toes, police said.

She has been charged with capital murder and remained under 24-hour observation Monday at University Hospital, where she was treated for self-inflicted knife wounds.


Microsoft Patents ‘Avoid Ghetto’ Feature For GPS Devices 7



Microsoft has been granted a patent for its “avoid ghetto” feature for GPS devices.

A GPS device is used to find shortcuts and avoid traffic, but Microsoft’s patent states that a route can be plotted for pedestrians to avoid an “unsafe neighborhood or being in an open area that is subject to harsh temperatures.”

Anarcho-Sellouts Reply

Article by Richard Spencer.


I can’t say that I’ve been supportive of the “Anonymous” online movement—the collective of hackers associated with, among other things, the outlandish wiki-page Encylopedia Dramatica, the antiwar Wikileaks.com, and various denial-of-service attacks against Master Card, PayPal, and the federal government. That said, even if their ideology was something on the order of “FUCK EVERYTHING!!!”-Anarcho-Leftism, Anonymous certainly had the right enemies: political correctness, the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve System, etc. That’s a start.

Moreover, Anonymous represents something that is necessary, if potentially toxic—a vanguard that aggressively calls out the System as morally and intellectually bankrupt. (We and Anonymous can be allies, if not quite friends.)

Looking at Anonymous’s latest project, however, the thought crossed my mind that it 1) had been captured by the System 2) was a group of System operatives all along, or 3) includes people so deluded by the System’s ideology that it is unwittingly working on the System’s behalf.


Marine biologist could get 20 years in prison for feeding whales 1

Article by Eric Pfeiffer.


A California marine biologist is facing up to 20 years in prison and half a million dollars in fines for allegedly feeding a group of killer whalesand then altering footage of the incident and lying to authorities.

In addition to her carrying out maritime research, Nancy Black operates the popular Monterey Bay Whale Watch tours and has been featured on PBS, National Geographic and Animal Planet. But on Wednesday, Black was charged with four violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Black’s attorneys say she was only doing scientific research.

If she’s convicted, Black could face up to 20 years in prison and half a million dollars in fines. She could also be fined up to $100,000 for each whale feeding charge, which also carries a year in prison sentencing term.