The “food” we eat is not real, and hardly fit for human (or any) consumption.
We Are What We Eat – and we are not “living” because of it.
What colour is the sky?
Seems like utter child’s play, right? Right?
The sky’ s blue, of course! You can certainly go out in broad daylight and confirm that, yes, the sky is, indeed, blue.
But, what colour is it at nighttime? What about at dawn or dusk? What colour is it on a cloudy day? What about those who look up in a big city on a smoggy day?
What about those who were born blind, or those born colour-blind? At night, there seems to be no “sky” at all.
At dawn and dusk, nearly every colour but blue is visible and in a gradient from dark to yellow as it progresses towards the Sun.
On cloudy days, the clouds prevent the sky from being directly observed; so, does the sky still behave on cloudy days like it does on sunny ones?
One would need to go above those clouds in order to find out. Frequent fliers should be able to answer this question.
Similarly, those in smoggy cities will need to be able to view their sky from above the layer of smog itself. Inability to see anything prevents blind people from answering this query via direct observation, so they must rely on intuition and logic. They may accept the sky’s colour as blue because that is what everyone around them says it is; but, it is more likely that the multitude are wrong than right – particularly when it comes to things that cannot so easily be directly observed.
Relying on consensus of the majority is illogical. Colour-blind people have a problem of their own; they can see the sky, but it may not appear blue to them. Again, relying on majority consensus here is illogical; how can we confirm if the daytime sky is truly blue?
How do we know that colour-blind people are not seeing things truer than we “normal” people are?
The multitude are often wrong, so what if the sky is not blue after all?
What even is the colour “blue,” anyway?
Incredibly, something as outwardly straight-forward as “what colour is the sky?” has quickly become a very complex query simply by asking questions no one else feels the need to ask anymore.
A former pastor from Michigan discovered the hard way that informing people of their rights under the law as jurors doesn’t sit well with the U.S. government when a judge sentenced him Friday to eight weekends in jail, six months of probation, and fines — all for passing out pamphlets discussing jury nullification.
Keith Wood contends passing out the information is well within his constitutional rights to inform potential and selected jurors that, enshrined in the Bill of Rights lies the potent ability to find a defendant not guilty if the law in question is unjust, flawed, or otherwise untenable — even if the accused indeed technically violated.
Jury nullification thus arguably acts as citizens’ access to checks and balances: When legislators craft worthless, harmful, inequitable, or just plain ‘bad’ laws, jurors can, in essence, refuse to enforce any punitive measures — refusing to find a person guilty of breaking a law that never should have been inked into the books.
This tool shines most prominently when used consistently to thwart oppressive policy. Illustrative of this principle is continued federal prohibition of cannabis and transformed public sentiment, as anti-marijuana propaganda falls apart at its politicized roots for the incarceration nightmare it created — among many others. Jurors faced with a choice in guilt of sending a nonviolent drug offender to prison might instead find the concept of incarcerating this petty ‘criminal’ who had done no harm to another unethical and ill-conceived — and choose instead a finding of not guilty to compensate for the unjust law.
Read *more* by clicking the link:
The ‘race for the cure’ is one of the greatest sociomedical cons ever pulled off by the pharmaceutical industry. Here’s how it works:
First, the drug companies take over the cancer non-profits by donating huge sums of money and getting their own executives on the boards of these organizations. From there, all decisions by the cancer non-profits are made to protect the interests of drug companies. Today, virtually all cancer non-profit groups are actually Big Pharma front groups that push cancer treatment, but never prevention (because actually preventing cancer would harm the profits of drug companies).
Next, these cancer front groups pull off a double-whammy con job by first convincing people that money is the only obstacle to finding a “cure” for cancer. Then they convince people to actually hand over money for the right to run around in circles so they can feel like they’re helping to find this so-called cure.
Checkout the rest of this story by clicking below.
You can also see more of Mike Adams comics there as well.
***and for the record, I don’t agree with all of his ideas or opinions.