Category Archives: Corruption
Words of Wisdom from a young mind more than two years ago: Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and the John Birch Society
“When the bill comes due, whenever that is, you must comply”
Oh me, oh my, the “vatican assasins” joke between Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones seems so much more funny now, tee hee.
Alex Jones works with the John Birch Society?!
In April 2006 Jones interviewed John McManus, the president of the John Birch Society. Jones told him:
“I want to work with you guys, to see you grow.”
infowars.com/articles/commentary/alex_jones_interviews_mcmanus.htmMcManus replied that he was:
“looking forward to seeing the relationship continue”.
What relationship? Why would Jones be working with the John Birch Society? Jones avoids articles from Hufschmid and Bollyn, but he promotes articles from the John Birch Society, such as this silly article about the 4th of July:
The John Birch Society is lying about the September 11 attack, and other Jewish crimes. It may have been an honest organization when it was founded, but it is definitely controlled by Zionists today.
The John Birch Society doesn’t blame Israel or Zionists for anything, which is why David Eisenberg joined and was promoted to the JBS Council:
Okay, conspiracy theorists…you have been blown away with the Ron Paul turncoat….how are you going to think your way through this one?
I have come across a terrific, critical thinker but obvious Alex Jones, Ron Paul supporter. And, don’t get me wrong, I was one of those just a few days ago. I guess if Alex Jones can flip-flop, Ron Paul can join in too, and it seems anyone at will can change friends and affiliations to serve their purposes, who am I to be any different, eh?
We have to all assess the new conspiracy possibilities with an open mind and open heart, and look into the relationships that might give us a clue on what up with that, dog?
Who really is Ron Paul? He doesn’t seem on one hand to be the guy we thought he was, that is, unless we can rationalize the move to save our image of him as the conspiracy believer, playing the game as long as he could, to have some influence over the world, to tell us all what’s really going on.
But shhhhh, don’t bat an eye when Ron can’t admit that 911 was an inside job, even though the John Birch Society professes it, and he can stand up as a speaker once in a while to rousing applause. Play the game, won’t you?
Well, here is my good YouTube friend who is rationalizing now for himself. He is a great critical thinker. I would describe him as possibly where a typical Ron Paul supporter who wants to hold onto the ideal that the Pauls are good, Alex Jones is for real, and we are party to a group that will eventually wake everyone up. Our job has just begun, and the keyboard is looking to smoke over the next several weeks:
So welcome, from Lexington, Kentucky and the rest of the world, to the new game of Conspiracy theory, part two!
Missions Impossible: Which will be harder – analyzing Alex Jones, or ensuring once bitten, twice shy?
Alex Jones says he has known the Paul family for 17 years, but doesn’t have a clear handle on where Ron Paul stands on a fundamental issue like 911, and it is unclear how much influence Jones has had directing the Paul political campaigns
Well, today was Alex Jones’ litmus test.
The politician turned traitor that Jones claims he has known well for 17 years has suddenly turned on his followers. It was a sudden shock for most of us, but not for Webster Tarpley, who said he has professed the turncoat of Ron Paul as early as January of this year. For Alex Jones, despite covering for Ron Paul just days ago amidst bombshell information from Webster Tarpley, he now says he saw it coming for a while now. Make sense? No, not really.
Today, on his radio show, Alex Jones came to the conclusion that “he isn’t going down with the ship”, but bizarrely seemed to know what the Pauls were thinking. Where did he get confirmation of this, when he later said he would need to speak with Ron Paul to clarify his position? Which was it – – he knew their reasoning or he would need answers?
It would seem it was time to put a little distance between him and the Paul connection to save his own hide. Yet, the apologies and direction were still on the agenda, and Jones went as far as to tell his audience that it would be better to have Obama in office again, so we could expose his agenda.
Alex explained he could see the problems with the Paul campaign strategy taking form, yet was vague on his understanding of who was at the helm directing the Pauls. There was inconsistency in his account of events: first claiming he figured it out on his own, but later said he spoke to the Paul family, and told them “not to go down that road”. So, which is it: communication with his friends of 17 years, or completely on his own?
And evidence shows that Ron Paul has consistently denied being a 911 truther, but Jones explained that four years ago Paul admitted to false flag terror. Are we to believe that with Jones’ warning before 911 that it was going to happen that Ron Paul would not have been party to that information? Friends for 17 years and not a tip off to stop Ron Paul for voting in favor of the Afghan invasion?
You would think knowing the Paul’s, Jones would have a better grasp on the stance Ron Paul had on something so fundamental as the 911 attacks, but we are still left with little to back the closeness of him to the Paul family.
A strange aura of cult-like qualities come to the Jones game-plan.
His staff, we are told, were all in shock to admit that Jones was right again, on his assessment of the Ron Paul errors. Aside from always being right, he also seems to command total control at all times.
The off the cuff, end of day sharing of ideas over a few drinks the other night had Webster Tarpley in the driver’s seat for a change, and he made the most of it.
Those nasty batteries just would not die,. They kept going, and going, and going. It was not in the cards to come up with an excuse to control the “crazed” Webster Tarpley, as Jones described him, who really rose to the occasion and did really well to get some well thought out information to the fore. It was a proud moment. Divine intervention as Tarpley described it. Jones claimed he was not censoring Tarpley. And why should he?
Censorship? Strange for a man that prides himself on honesty and a “bring it on” attitude. After all, isn’t Jones the guy who never screens the calls, and also doesn’t need a teleprompter. And by extension, wouldn’t care how good intel came out, or how it was unleashed, right?
The radio show today was full of interesting tidbits of unleashed frustration. Jones said he is a little tired of those who have little knowledge trying to tell him the way it is. It got me thinking to research when else that has been an issue.
In this YouTube clip, Jones explains that those who refute him are losers, and jealous, powerless people. Half of the alternative media sites out there, he says “talk about Alex Jones”. Don’t start to focus on Jones, because he wants it “to be about the information”. Why would fellow Christians be jealous of a man that sees power as something that should be strived for, and despite the constant pounding that it is not about Alex Jones, whenever he looks over his shoulder, he sees those jealous types that wish they had as much influence and visitors to their site as Jones does. In a cult, there is always the explanation to refute the outcasts that are critical of the cause, is there not?
I’ve been down the block a few times and have witnessed the warning signs to watch for that would have people influenced in a cult-like setting, For one, there needs to be vulnerability, and what better way than to explain that the sky is falling and Turkey Lurkey is going down?
I am not saying there isn’t a global problem. And I am easily swayed by people who fight corruption or stand up for human rights and liberties. You will recall perhaps that I started this blog quite convinced I would stick to the injustice suffered by Jerry Moyes being taken to the cleaners and once of little value to the shift in the NHL, he was tossed aside like last year’s laundry. Kind of like the feeling many of us have today with the news of Ron Paul.
Today was damage control and perhaps too to see where he stood, and how bad it was. To that end, Jones was quick to summarize how we felt: betrayed and feeling that the campaign was a cash grab perhaps in the latter months. Not too nice a feeling. Can you imagine those that were hoping Ron Paul was for real, and perhaps also bought Facebook at $38, and maybe had some money in MF Global? Don’t show those guys a rope, okay?
In the end times, there would be plenty of deception and isn’t it a strange vision that two men can mirror the metaphor – – the vision of Obama standing in front of an adoring crowd not much different that that of Ron Paul serving a similar pose over the last several months.
It was time to direct the anger of the masses. To focus on what to be mad about. It was Ron Paul’s comment to “be respectful”.
Did you listen with a half-hearted zeal today? Were you assessing Alex Jones and wondering if he were part of the club that would justify not wanting to “go down with the ship”? Were you thinking back on past claims and wondering where Alex got his intel?
Alex is real, right? That’s what he tells us all the time. “At least I’m real”.
With a heavy heart I cannot at this stage fall hook, line and sinker. Instead I have a mission. To analyze Jones as I have done for Glenn Beck, and see what I find.
This will require looking at inconsistencies. It will mean analyzing demeanor. It will require research to check what was unleashed in the very loaded Tarpley interview that Alex has advised us he was thinking about today. A little late I would say, and only when a caller mentioned Webster Tarpley did Jones mention he wanted him on the show soon.
Think to yourself. Have you ever been tough loved by a friend that tells you something you disagreed with, but later learned was true? Where and who is the first person you run to: your friend of course, and with it some remorse. That, I was waiting for on the show but it did not surface until late in the game.
Also, when Webster Tarpley had informed Jones in the interview that he had pegged Ron Paul since January, Jones did not acknowledge him for that today or give him credit, but instead seemed to backpedal to look like he had it all figured out. Sorry, but the way it seemed to be. Either Alex Jones does not like to admit being schooled, or there is another reason.
Tarpley had mentioned Freemasonry and that Ron Paul was part of that club in the interview. And wasn’t it downplayed by Jones in the interview and not brought up today on the show.
We were left with repeated “they are good people” comments on the Paul family, with no mention that he is willing to turn a critical eye to what Tarpley had uncovered based on good research. Jones is inconsistent in defending as insignificant this matter when he has explored this aspect of Freemasonry as significant at higher levels, which there is evidence of for Ron Paul. Masonry at high levels is considered a satanic cult, and it’s members looking to control the earth (globalists).
I also learned from other sources that Ron Paul supports no minimum wage. That would be consistent with the globalist’s job to drive down wages, as when we looked at Roger Altman and his ties to Chinese investment in the failing U.S. economy. Couple this fact with the proposed budget cut that Ron Paul had, leaving most to suffer who are on food stamps, and masonry seems to be sounding possible here.
So, prepare for a ride. We will be watching Jones carefully as we did with Glenn Beck, as he does the same to Ron Paul.
A couple “missions impossible”. Deep down I feel like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I’d prefer to come to the conclusion that Alex Jones IS for “real”, but I will not fall victim to being sucked down the rabbit hole. I have allowed that one too many times already.
The worst form of “ineptness” may be in deceiving those who look up to you
It is my belief that the support of Ron Paul by the Patriot Movement has been based largely on the assumption that Paul was really a truther after all.
After his comment in the early part of 2012 related to 911: “Bush knowing about this?”, I have to solemnly question where exactly he remains on the issue of 911 truth.
In the now, dare I say famous can of worms interview with Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley dropped an important bomb of infomation that would suggest Ron Paul may not be the man with the mission many of us thought he was.
Specific allegations from Tarpley were based on fact. Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion because he truly believed bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on 911. He has not changed his point of view on that despite Alex Jones’ reasoning in the interview that Paul was aware of false flag attacks. Even in the GOP debates, with Paul in battle with Rick Santorum, the infamous booing of Paul occurred because of his mention of the US’s aggressive foreign military policy. What it really did was slap 911 truth in the face, and solidify the false belief that bin Laden was the culprit. In hindsight, it could have been brilliant political theater.
The reason a critical eye of Ron Paul must be had now is because of the supporters he has accumulated that would likely buy into everything he suggests. Dare we ask how many Paul supporters are on food stamps out of the 60% + that would be out of luck with the $ 1 Trillion slashing of the Federal budget?
In the GOP debate, we can think back on how much time was spent on national defense strategy. Odd when the economy was tanking, you would think it would be down on the list of priorities. Again, it solidified the argument that 911 was instigated from cave dwellers in Afghanistan not because of a conspiracy. Have we all been duped into believing that Ron Paul secretly agrees with us, while over the years dodging the bullet, or in some cases coming out boldly to whole-heartedly spell it out? And if Ron Paul can be persuaded to vote for war because of bin Laden, would Rand be equally accomodating at the suggestion Iran held dangerous nukes?
If we look at Tarpley’s argument that Ron Paul was there to take votes away from Romney’s GOP competition, that should make us more careful not to assume Paul was there to support the Patriot movement unquestioningly. He has not given us assurance that he is indeed on our side. That is, that there is a global mission to a One World Government. Liberty and Freedom at home is not good enough, when you don’t admit the bigger picture. However, he has discussed his fear of a North American Union, but isolating that issue without admission of the bigger picture is in itself suspect.
And, the cash infusion from Bilderberg at this stage is extremely suspect. The stretched argument that Paul cannot control who injects $2.7 million into his campaign is weak, and as Tarpley points out, it did not come from just any Bilderberger, it came from Thiel, who sits on the Bilderberg Steering Committee.
Ask some waitresses in Europe how generous a Bilderberger who just hit the winfall like Zuckerberg was, when he wouldn’t tip. $2.7 million must come with some strings attached for sure. And rumor has it that the Bilderbergers weren’t too generous inside the Marriott in Chantilly either. So the big campaign infusion is very questionable. Ride off in the sunset, huh? Imagine how Alex Jones would use that information against any other candidate that got the windfall from a Bilderberg steering committee member.
Friend or no friend, it’s time to separate the job from the bias and get down to work. We will see if the friendship of Tarpley and Jones can endure the truth that Tarpley dropped. And, if I might add, having analyzed the interview again, Tarpley is genuinely a friend to Jones, and his suggestion Alex should have run for President seemed rather heartfelt. Tough love if you will. I think Jones needs to do some soul searching on this one, and decide which friend is more honest and forthright – – the guy who eludes to be on his side, or the one who blasts reality square between the eyes.
And, are we left with a mystery to solve on where Ron Paul and now Rand Paul really stand? Is that grey area really good enough at this point in American history? At a crossroads doesn’t even begin to explain the magnitude where truth is needed, and clarity should be a given.
Ron Paul is at best a mysterious, mythical father figure that we “hope” sees it the way we would like him to see it, and we must somehow read between the lines, because, “shhhh, he can’t lead on that he is really one of us, and he can’t bring it up”.
That argument has now become dangerous for a myriad of reasons, most of which were uncovered eloquently by Webster Tarpley.
As Dan Rather would now reflect on his memoirs of past, and future moving forward, “follow the money”.
Money and promise of payoff are there. Ron Paul may have conveyed some interesting ideals over the years, but he is ready to retire and hand it over to Rand from here.
Some say that it is Rand that is to blame and will ruin what dad has accomplished. I prefer to think based on the support one has for the other, that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The mission at this point might be to accept the limitations of not taking it to where it needed to go a long time ago. To compromise oneself on exposing full truth is not good enough. Or, to deceive or have some faction of supporters wishing you were on their side may even be worse.
We are talking life and death here.
Tarpley mentioned something that should be important to us all. He suggested that Rand may be persuaded to allow a war with Iran. That would mean he would be a bigger ally to Romney, and might explain why a meeting took place between them. You would have to surmise that the “meeting” was the result of past “working together”, and to get to the point of deciding if he would be second in command must suggest they are pretty good bedfellows regardless of the outcome. Stop making excuses that I hear, like, “well, if Rand turns out not to be VP, then we can all go back to the Paul love-in, right?”
I don’t think so. For now, I will leave you with this. Despite the exposing of the shill who is Glenn Beck, we can safely say he did his political hit piece in 2007 for a time like this:
Might explain why a third party run is not in the picture. It would take votes away from Mitt Romney, and it would not allow a show of how many Patriots would support Ron Paul. A shame if it was all a smokescreen.
The Patriot Movement has prided itself on awareness of 911 and it’s effect on our liberties. Are we sure our political leader shares the same sentiment?
Further to our last article on Webster Tarpley’s apparent sudden attack on Ron Paul, the creative thinking juices have been kicking in big time. Tarpley had some thinking going on before he came with the crashing news. I don’t believe he would attack Paul without having observed his political wielding, and it makes me wonder where exactly is the head of Ron Paul in this Presidential race?
And, as mentioned, we compared Alex Jones the hypothetical candidate to the real Ron Paul candidate. How would they differ out of the gates? What would be their platform and talking points? How aggressive would one be compared to the other? Rhetorical no doubt – – Alex Jones, if he were to stick to his mission of global awareness would be clear on his stance:
- 911 would be an inside job, and no war would be justified unless it were real
- Bilderberg would be on the table
- The Fed would have to go
- on social policies, it’s hard to say. Jones is a compassionate guy and I am sure it would be tough to justify the pulling of social benefits. Instead, writing off the illegitimate debt would be on the table. If the US could reduce it’s debt because it was a ponzi scheme, there would be money for social programs.
So there we have it. The Ron Paul wish wash on 9/11 and voting in favor of the Afghan war because he believed Osama bin Laden was a threat flies in the face of Alex Jones’ warning ahead of time that the attack on 911 was a false flag.
I suppose then, Ron Paul was not in communicato with Alex Jones pre-911 because if he were, he might have had a different vote on the war effort to oust bin Laden.
But that is the point in listening to interviews in the past, isn’t it? Ron Paul in interview with Alex Jones never seemed to come right out in agreement with all of Jones’ talking points.
After the first Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, in 2008, a fine young fellow had a chance to ask Ron Paul what he thought it was the Bilderbergers were doing at the conference: Here is how he handled it:
Alex Jones has always said Ron Paul isn’t perfect but “he’s the best we got”.
But, we in the truth movement were moved into the awakening because of 911. It was fundamental in the understanding that the Patriot Act was brought in to strip away our rights, and 911 was not only to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but also to declare war on the American people. It was the smoking gun that woke us up. You would think the leader, the Presidential candidate for true hope and change would support this fundamental idea. Well, not so:
There’s more to be said. I fear we are just getting started. Stay tuned to Tarpley. I know I will be paying more attention to his political analysis, as he has awoken me to the inconsistencies in the Paul argument that we did pretty good.
I like Luke Rudkowski’s idea of hitting politicians with the hard questions. Well, here’s one for Luke. Get in front of Ron Paul and ask him if he thinks 911 was an inside job. What will you think of his answer then?
Pretty good isn’t good enough in a crisis of this proportion. If this is the best we got for hope of liberty and freedom, we are in dire shape.
Tarpley attacks Ron and Rand Paul as self-serving sellouts
On the GCN Network, way at the bottom of choices is “World Crisis Radio”. That is the show hosted by Webster Tarpley (tarpley.net).
Complete with classical music leading into breaks, Tarpley has been a weak sister for years, taking a second or third seat to the likes of Alex Jones, Max Keiser, and others, with his methodical, well thought out arguments to what is happening in a global, geo-political landscape.
Libertarians critical of Webster Tarpley would describe him as a bit of a socialist who sees a place for government entitlement programs, describing healthcare as a “right” that was indeed part of the Constitution.
In the interview below, Tarpley and Jones duke it out.
Tarpley has come out swinging with accusations that are at the very least intriguing:
- Ron Paul is the vote-taker from Mitt Romney’s opponents throughout the presidential debates
- Rand Paul has met with Romney to discuss a possible VP position, but Romney does not need him as the tide has turned politically, and Mitch Daniels could now be the VP choice
- Ron Paul’s $1 Trillion promise to cut the budget would be devastating to those on food stamps and lead to deaths.
- Ron Paul’s campaign goal was nepotism, by providing insider jobs for family, and I suppose the biggest of these is securing a future for Rand.
- Bilderberg would be well-served by the harsh line of a libertarian economic crash, where it would hold support for pulling the rug out from under those that rely on government
And futher, where is the power of the people who rely on their pension plans and trade unions to secure their wealth? Good arguments all, that deserve an answer. We looked closely at the apparent mission of Glenn Beck: to diffuse awareness of the Bilderbergers, and to support the quashing of pensions and trade unions.
But there have been some aspects that Tarpley mentions that might tie into other past events.
Neil Calvuto, in discussion with Ron Paul a while ago mentioned something that seemed rather strange – – that there would be a place in government for Ron Paul somewhere.
Ron Paul would not comment or touch on the issue of the birth certificate of Obama, nor would he come out directly on the issue of 9/11 truth. To put it in comparative terms, what campaign platform would Alex Jones have if he were running for President? I think we can see where there has been compromise at the very least, and if you are going to convey victory on the ideal of unleashing “ideas”, why not go for broke?
However, Tarpley is assuming many things also, and Alex Jones may have lost some composure in defending the only man in Congress close to defending the liberties of Americans.
Ron Paul has repeatedly stressed that it is a mission of ideas. The idea that the Federal Reserve should be abolished; that wars should be declared by Congress not the United Nations; that they need fiscal policy based on sound currency.
Perhaps Tarpley is missing these crucial ideas that are the true Ron Paul victory despite the outcome of the Republican leadership convention. As Jones would say, “nobody can stop an idea whose time has come”. The idea of liberty is here.
And Tarpley describes marijuana as a narcotic, and perhaps misses the idea that the war on drugs is really a war to ensure the profits go to the globalist bankers – – a big business that fuels their agenda. Of course we know that Ron Paul has injected the common sense idea to make drugs legal, that would in turn stop the cartel profiting from the scheme. On the issue of ensuring people die because of food stamp programs being slashed: I cannot see Ron Paul wanting that to be the result. However, the globalists sure would.
Bilderberg and the globalist controllers would know they have an obstacle in Ron Paul and Rand Paul. They would be well aware that using them for their gain would be prudent to further their agenda.
With Peter Thiel’s contribution to the Ron Paul campaign and Rand Paul’s discussion with Mitt Romney, that might have enough political analysts making or supporting similar arguments to Webster Tarpley.
You have to hand it to Alex Jones in one sense: He knows that by releasing this video, this argument is now on the table and won’t leave. And, with a quest to uncover all truths, I am sure he will give it the justice it deserves.
As Tarpley pointed out in the interview, “maybe I’m doing God’s work after all”.
Fluoride isn’t the only common chemical that is being promoted globally (although strangely fluoride is a municipal decision??).
Aspartame affects the nervous system & the endocrine system.
It affects the neurotransmitters in the brain, decreasing the levels of serotonin.
It becomes wood alcohol in your system when ingested – – a poison.
There is a large concentration of phenylalanine in aspartame.
The 1976 Groliers encyclopedia states cancer cannot live without phenylalanine. Phenylalanine makes up 50% of aspartame.
Phenylalanine is one of the essential amino acids found in proteins, but I am one of the believers that amino acids should be eaten in combination, not in isolated form. Nature provides amino acids in combination; only man isolates them for processing purposes.
Phenylalanine is found naturally in foods such as eggs, milk, bananas, and meat. If you are PKU (Phenylketonuric) or sensitive to phenylalanine, you will react to the phenylalanine in aspartame. You may want to get a blood test to check for this condition. Over the past 20 years, humans have become more aware of PKU reactions because human beings began using isolated phenylalanine to the degree it is harmful to some individuals, many as aspartame side effects. My suggestion would be to research PKU and phenylalanine extensively. Phenylalanine can be very harmful to diabetics.
Formaldehyde from aspartame cannot be removed from the body as can formaldehyde attached to pectin in fruit consumption. It therefore accumulates in the body.
In the late ’70’s Donald Rumsveld was made CEO of Searle and he lifted the company up, making it profitable. With Aspartame, he used political influence with the Regan Administration, altering the FDA to finally rush through the approval despite the Public Board of Inquiry’s adamant suggestion that the product could be responsible for brain tumors.
Okay, all health professionals in City Council, raise your hand!
Is there a doctor in the house?
According to the latest article on fluoridated tap water in the Hamilton Spectator (May 19th, 2012), the City of Hamilton spends $1 million of taxpayer money to medicate its’ citizens with fluoride.
Let’s first take a look at the bigger, global goings-on:
Black is now white; right is now wrong; slavery is now freedom; the Constitutions and Rights of the people are being quashed globally; police beat citizens dressed up like Darth Vader; Perceived Democracy has been replaced with dictatorships clamping down on the people ; criminals go free for global financial fraud while farms that provide raw milk are swat teamed, and non-medical people get to now decide how to medicate the population. Yeah, that about sums it up.
Don’t believe me – – google it.
So, with our water supply…..
Health Canada shows up to support the municipalities “deciding on their own” to maintain the fluoride in their water. The municipalities look to the Feds to provide evidence of fluoride safety, yet the Federal Government has no say whether a given municipality should put fluoride in the water. I suppose it fits the New World Disorder and by standards of today makes sense.
Who then determines the so-called safe fluoride levels? And, who ultimately is responsible for making that judgement? If fluoride has been linked as a toxin to cause dental fluorosis, bone cancer, and other cancers, not to mention autism, etc, is it really worth spending money on it?
Ingesting fluoride is supposed to be beneficial to your teeth? Think about this.
If car wax made the paint last longer, would you put it in the oil reservoir or in the gas tank? Ingesting into the bloodstream is going to find it’s way to your teeth, and the drug will know the exact proportion to “bathe your teeth”? Is that what we are supposed to believe?
Oh, and fluoride is to know better than to end up in other organs to do God knows what too, right? It won’t land in organs and create cancer, or in the brain, creating autism, right? Where is the support to assure us of this?
And, again, the best part, is the municipality gets to decide if the toxin is added to the water supply. The councillors of the City, because they are all trained and experts in medicine, toxicology and how it affects the human body?
At the risk of repeating myself again, is this sounding crazy to anyone else?
Plants use Carbon dioxide to produce oxygen, and we are actually short. Should we be taxing the air we breathe as ridiculous as that sounds, while we say, “take your fluoride kids!” Or how about in England, where wearing a cross as a sign of one’s faith should be outlawed?
Is there a rational person in the house? Or how about a sharp lawyer who sees where his client could get some compensation for negligence due to a municipality playing doctor with its’ citizens – – a slam dunk? Careful counsel, you might think you are helping but may end up being disbarred for being the new criminal – – dare I say a conspiracy theorist. How dare you?