Was the King eating people during the American Revolution?

For all their talk of the barbaric cannibals, it appears that European nobles were hypocrites and worse. Not only eating flesh and drinking blood, but even distilling remedies from graves and ancient Egyptian tombs.

They have lbeen famed for their love of lavish banquets and rich recipes. But what is less well known is that the British royals also had a taste for human flesh.

A new book on medicinal cannibalism has revealed that possibly as recently as the end of the 18th century British royalty swallowed parts of the human body.

This may lend some credence to the conspiracy theory which exists today accusing the monarchy, and assorted powerful persons of the world, of being flesh eating cannibals and Reptilian shape-shifters with a taste for human blood. Then again, the Royals may not be the only ones...

'Occasionally a patient might shortcut this system. At one early sixteenth-century execution in Germany, 'a vagrant grabbed the beheaded body "before it had fallen, and drank the blood from him..".'

The last recorded instance of this practice in Germany fell in 1865.

Always the fuckin Germans, lol.

You can read a full report here:



Citing security risks, Pentagon asks nation to 'move on' from bin Laden

What a bunch of horseshit. They haven't shut the fuck up about Bin Laden since the hour the fist building fell, now suddenly they tell us to shut up and forget OBL ever existed. Okay Pentagon and affiliated government officials, how about you show us the proof that this whole thing hasn't been a steaming pile of horse-apples right from the very beginning. And while you are at it, we will take the death photos and DNA evidence as well.

WASHINGTON (RNN) - Top Pentagon officials expressed concern Wednesday over the sensitive details revealed to the media about the assault that killed former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

"It is time to stop talking, and we have talked far too much about this. We need to move on," said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen during a joint news briefing with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. "It's a story that if we don't stop talking, it will never end, and it needs to."

Complete brief at link:


"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." ~Adolf Hitler

Is this it?! Has the end of the world begun in Colorado?

HAZMAT situation in Pueblo West

Breaking news in Pueblo West--- 25 people have shown up at the Parkview ER off Highway 50 complaining of nausea, vomiting, and eye irritation. Ambulances from across the area have been called in to help and it has been declared a HAZMAT situation.

We have a crew heading to the scene---we'll bring you more as we get it.


Blimey! UK coppers disarm machete-wielding madman without killing him

If this had happened anywhere in the U.S., the man with the machete would have been shot dead within 30-seconds. At the very least, tazed to death, like the guy in Brooklyn who was armed with a light bulb.

You can see for yourself the comments made by American cops over at PoliceOne.com

Posted by Sheepdog525 on Friday, May 20, 2011 12:37 AM Pacific Report Abuse
Decisions, decisions....which weapon to use...12 gauge with slugs, or the MP5...Yep, lets go with the MP5 this time....Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrt(click, reload) Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt. Disregard EMS...send a mop and bucket. Yep, we could definitely take care of business here in Texas.

Posted by m107 on Friday, May 20, 2011 05:29 AM Pacific
These officer had plenty of options at there disposal here. They even had lethal force options present, why they chose not to go for it I don't know. Last time I checked the vehicle is a really big slow moving bullet and can do the job.

Posted by yobtab on Friday, May 20, 2011 03:19 AM Pacific
35 officers with shields? or one with a lethal force option? You decide...

How about one with some common sense and decency who doesn't crap his pants every time he sees a bad guy?

Botox Mom was a hoax

Well well, another media sham. Another good reason to not trust the news. It appears that the entire story was a hoax, that the child is not even a pageant contestant, and that they didn't even use their real names in the interview. The mother was paid $200 by British tabloid The Sun to carny out the media campaign. Sadly, the child actually did get taken away from the mother, and now she is being accused of having form of Munchhausen's Syndrome. Nevermind of course, the fact that the blame really lay with the media for starting this whole thing and then running with the ball for ratings. Some are calling this is a hoax, I call it a psyop. Look at the buzz it created. Do you really thing the powers-that-be were not collecting data on everyone's tweets and FB posts to get a profile of public reactions? This is how social engineering works people. This was an experiment, a data-mining psychological profiling operation, not a hoax. Just like the Airforce One flyby over Ground Zero a few years ago.



Insanely lucky baby and mother

After this accident the driver of the black SUV was issued a citation. But after reviewing the traffic cam, the citation was rescinded, amazingly enough. either way though, you want to see lucky? Neither the kid nor the mother were seriously injured by this accident...

Redneck knock-out


Stolen police car, fail

In the first few seconds it sounds like the suspect got tased a number of times before he decides to hit the road. Well, if you're gonna go down, might as well make it big I guess.This dude has balls of steel even if he can't drive for shit, lol.

"If you gonna be a monkey, be a mothafuckin gorilla!" ~Redman

Will warrantless search set strangler free?

During the pre-trial hearings of the murder case against Robert Loucks, accused of strangling his live-in girlfriend to death last December, Dutchess County Sheriff's Deputy Benjamin Sistarenik testified how he came to discover the victim's body in the home Loucks shared with Storms.

On December 3, Deputy Sistarenik along with Deputy Janine Arsenault questioned Loucks at the home as to the whereabouts of Ms. Storms, after concerned family members reported she had missed a meeting with CPS workers in which she was to regain custody of two of her children. Loucks stated that he and Storms had an argument in the pre-dawn hours of December 2, that she had left the residence, did not return, and that he had no idea where she might be.

The two deputies returned to the home the next afternoon to investigate further, accompanied by Heidi Pulver, grandmother of one of Storms' children. Deputy Sistarenick testified that Deputy Arsenault had told him that their commanding officer at headquarters, Lt. John Watterson, had decided they should try to find a way inside the house. Sistarenik found an unlocked window, poked his head inside, to see Loucks standing in the living room. Loucks allegedly then invited the three of them into the house at which time Sistarenik did a quick search.

Loucks was then driven to Sheriff's headquarters by Deputy Arsenault under the pretext of filing a missing-person report, while Sistarenik stayed behind and re-entered the home to conduct a more thorough search, although police had no warrant to conduct a search. A point raised by defense attorney Steve Patterson at the hearing.

"Did you ask Mr. Loucks if you could look around after he left?" Patterson asked Sistarenik.

"No," the deputy replied.

During this subsequent search, that was conducted without permission and without a warrant, the Deputy discovered the body of Tyrese Storms in the walk-in closet of the master bedroom, behind a pile of clothes.

"She was clearly deceased," the deputy testified. "The missing-persons case was clearly now something more."

Clearly. But what is not so clear, is by what right the Deputy made his discovery. Sadly, because of the heinous nature of the crime, I do not expect any public outrcy over such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. But is that not how our liberties are always trampled, how it has been done by tyrannical despots all through the ages? Today it is an alleged murderer's rights who are trampled, tomorrow, your rights my friends. That is the nature of the game. Once you cede power to the rulers, the only way to ever get it back is revolution. Of course, no one wants to see a killer go free, which is why it is so important to have competent police, not courts who will infringe upon your rights simply because the police cannot do their jobs properly and within the bounds of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." ~Blackstone's Formulation
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry
“In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.” ~Thich Nhat Hanh

The report from Poughkeepsie Journal can be found at this link:


EDIT to add:

It appears as though the deputy who made the discovery, without a warrant or even permission to be in the house, may be guilty of a felony under NY State law. No charge has been filed against the deputy of course, no disciplinary action taken, and it probably won't do anything to help get Loucks a fair trial at this point either. But it appears that in the United States, a police officer can commit a felony in order to obtain evidence.
S 140.17 Criminal trespass in the first degree.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he
knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building, and when, in the
course of committing such crime, he:
1. Possesses, or knows that another participant in the crime
possesses, an explosive or a deadly weapon; or
2. Possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun, as those terms are defined
in section 265.00, and also possesses or has readily accessible a
quantity of ammunition which is capable of being discharged from such
firearm, rifle or shotgun; or
3. Knows that another participant in the crime possesses a firearm,
rifle or shotgun under circumstances described in subdivision two.
Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class D felony.


CPS takes 8-year old away from Botox Mom

When I first saw this story, I thought the mother was half insane, but really I was not at all surprised. The narcissism in our society, particularly among women, is everywhere. This is just another example of it. Now clearly the woman should not be administering Botox to her 8-year old, but the news today is that CPS has stepped in and taken the poor kid away from her mother. Was that really necessary? I think not. An interview with the family, some monitoring perhaps would be in order, give the mother some proper parenting lessons, but taking the kid away is overkill and just about as stupid as the mother giving her kid the friggin Botox in the first place. And is it just me, or is it really creepy how this reporter keeps stressing that the child is okay? I think things just went from bad to worse for that poor kid.

Here's an original report...

NY to create violent offender registry

Just what we need, another bullshit boutique law.

The NY State Senate is expected to pass a bill dubbed "Brittany's Law" requiring violent offenders to register for life in much the same way sex offenders are required to register. Offenders will be required to register where they live, and will have their profile posted in a public-access website. The bill is named for 12-year-old Brittany Passalacqua who was murdered in 2009, along with her mother Helen Buschel, by Buschel's live-in boyfriend John Brown. At the time of the double-murder, Brown was on parole after serving time in prison for shaking a baby.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not making the connection here. How would such a law have saved the lives of this woman and her child? Right off the bat we see that the mother was clearly not the best judge of men seeing that she and her daughter have different last names. So then this woman takes in a crack-smoking ex con. Now don't get me wrong, this Brown character is obviously a first class scumbag who should have fried for what he did. But I still don't see how some registry would have been of any help when clearly the mother was lacking in enough common sense to protect herself or her child from scumbags like that.

So how would it have helped her to know where this guy lived? She knew where he lived. In her place. She also knew he was a violent felon, but still chose to take him into her home.

This law is a waste of resources at best. If someone is a violent felon, that is already a matter of public record. This is just another way for the state to lock people up for petty reasons and sucker the taxpayer into paying for it. It's a scam, it's not going to save anybody. If someone is so dangerous that they need to be put on a registry, then maybe they should not be let out of prison in the first place. When they are let out of prison, they have paid their debt to society, their time is done. They should not have to check in with police for the rest of their lives because they got into some bar fight in their 20's.

I don't expect anyone to have any common sense on this though. No one is going to have the balls to stand up and say "hey, maybe we should not do this." After all, "it's for the women and children." The first person who stood up and actually said this law might be a bad idea would be committing political suicide and would be labeled as a lover of child killers. So once again, bullshit rhetoric and emotional appeal, rather than common sense, wins the day. The state just won't be happy until every last one of us is being tracked and monitored.

Here is a link to a brief in the Poughkeepsie Journal:


Right to bear arms, by permit only

This is what happens when you are required to ask "permission" to exercise your rights.

Freedom a threat to police

A recent brief on PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement personnel to share information, declares "sovereign citizens threat to cops." What a shame that the police are so far around the bend, that they don't even realize the oath they took to uphold the Constitution was an oath to defend these principals, not to declare the adherents a threat. This is the true face of the police-state today, and a clear example of the perverted justice they uphold.

Government corruption, economic ruin and wanton violence against the people by a paramilitary police-state apparatus, has never been more prevalent or obvious. Yet in propaganda pieces like the segment from 60 Minutes that I will share here, the powers-that-be resort to flawed logic and rhetoric in order to make their case that freedom is bad, and that people who adhere to the founding principals of this nation are a threat to the nation. Yet they will show no proof that the claims of a sovereign are either incorrect or illegal. I'll let you go ahead and watch the clip first, then we'll talk more about it...

Normally I think 60 minutes is a fantastic program. But this time it seems clear that they are being used as a propaganda tool, just like every other mainstream media source. Right off the bat, they try to portray sovereign citizens as some sort of new-fangled organized "movement" when really that is not the truth at all. They are not a society, they are not an organization, they are not a political movement. Tthey are citizens, just like you and I, who adhere to strict interpretations of our Constitution and who seek to legally unbind themselves from a complex web of statutory contract law.

This is a concept that is really not understood by the layman, and I am not about to explain it all here. I do suggest you look more into it yourself though by surfing the web a little and learning about it. But as an example to the reader, let us take a look at your driver's license and all the statutory regulations that go with the "privilege" of driving. The fact is, you have a Constitutionally protected God-given right to freedom of movement by whatever means you so happen to choose. So where do the police get the power to issue you a ticket for driving with s suspended driver's license, or for not paying the state tax to have your car registered? You gave them the power. When you signed on the dotted line to get your state-issued driver's license, you made a contract agreement to abide by the state laws or "codes" of the road. The sovereign refuses to be subject to or bullied into contract agreements that are contradictory to the liberties spelled out in the Constitution. That's it. It has nothing to do with shooting people, has nothing to do with taking control of the government (we are the government, in theory anyway), has nothing to do with recruiting new adherents to a Conservative wet-dream. The sovereign has many different social ideals, economic beliefs, and religious values even if it is no religion at all. That really is the entire point. Freedom.

So now the government has declared folks who take the Constitution literally to be "among the nation's top domestic terror threats" because some have become violent. If we are going to use that criteria, I suggest that perhaps it is the police who are among the nation's top domestic terror threats. When was the last time a sovereign citizen molested your child at the airport? When was the last time a sovereign citizen tore off your wife's clothes because she called for help, and then laughed about it (last second of vid)? When was the last time a sovereign citizen smashed a man's face in for using a video camera in his own front yard? When was the last time a group of sovereign citizens beat up on unarmed women in a restaurant? When was the last time a sovereign citizen got away with murder because of corruption and lies? When was the last time a gang of sovereign citizens broke into a war veteran's home and executed him in front of his wife and child?

And the favorite excuse of the apologists? "Cops are just people too." You're goddamn right they are just people too, which means they have no fucking right to do the shit that they do no matter what some court rules. The courts, no matter what they decide on paper or in collusion, have no fucking right to decide that you no longer have your Constitutionally protected God-given rights of free men. They have no right to tell you that you cannot protect yourself against a home-invasion.

Of course, court mandated and approved supra-Constitutional police powers aside,  there are also plenty of cases of police officers committing actual crimes as well, not just abusing the rights of citizens. Blatant criminal acts that sometimes we actually hear about, on that occasion when such acts make it to the light of day through the blue wall of silence and multilayer system of corruption, cronyism, and propagandist white-washing. So if we are going to use the "few bad apples" excuse for police, who we should actually expect to be held to a higher standard with all of their power and authority, not a lower one, couldn't that same "few bad apples" excuse be used for any other group, including citizens?

So let us be clear here. I am not defending the actions of this man and his son who went over the edge and chose to murder two police officers for no obvious reason. That is not freedom, that is not liberty. I do not endorse violence for the sake of violence or to make some bullshit statement. But I will say this. With more and more proud, freedom-loving Americans being shoved around one too many times and left no place to turn, it hardly surprises me to see things like this happen, where folks decide they have had enough, and decide to shove back. Nevertheless, portraying some down on his luck supposed scam artist and his son as the spokespersons for citizens who value the Constitution is like saying that Biggie Smalls spoke for all New Yorkers.

In the first segment of the clip they focus on the actual shooting. I don't see anything in that video that would justify the actions of that man and his son. Of course, there might be something in the editing that I am missing. But really, I am a firm believer in "live to fight another day." I see no reason to kill a police officer unless a police officer is about to kill you, or to kill anyone else for that matter unless your own life (or another innocent) is in danger. As much as I "hate" cops from an ideological standpoint, I hate no cop personally just because of what he does for a living. (I've also met a criminal or two that were actually real good people, if misguided.) So seeing that bit of video, where the chief arrives at the scene, that got me choked up. I can hardly imagine what that must have been like.

Nonetheless, with the two shooters dead 90 minutes later, I wonder if the Chief is looking for someone else to blame. Indeed, even 60 Minutes calls sovereign citizens the Chief's obsession. A natural, psychological, human coping mechanism to try to find someone to blame for such a shocking and tragic loss, but it was not some movement that killed his son and son's partner any more than it was their job that killed them. It was a young gunman and his father, who are now dead. There is no one else that can be blamed.

Next up in the piece we hear from J.J. McNab, a self-employed, self-avowed "expert" on sovereign citizens who's last job was as a financial planner. I see nothing in her resume that says she is lawyer, much less a Constitutional scholar. Yet 60 Minutes interviews her as if she were indeed an authority, when clearly she is not. She begins with an erroneous and inflammatory statement claiming that the sovereign citizen claims they are "above the law" when in fact the exact opposite is true. The sovereign citizen sees that the government, the courts, and the police, are putting themselves above the law. And that of course is my very own interpretation, since the whole point of being a sovereign is that nobody tell you what to think or can tell other people what you think. Maybe she should look up the word sovereign.

She goes on to talk about the sovereigns' "twisted" view of history, yet she is no historian at all by any credential. She claims that people of the 18th century saw themselves as free of all legal constraints, and that sovereign citizens today also believe that and want to "return" to that time. The fact is, that people of the 18th century very much believed in the rule of law, a just law, prescribed by the document they put forth called the Constitution. The core values of what made this nation a nation in the first place, free of tyranny and oppression. The values which inspired a Revolution and set men free to prosper in a nation where one man would never have to bow before another. So then the question really becomes, at what time did the government see fit to deviate from that rule of law, from this promise of liberty?

The segment then goes on to equate sovereigns with anti-government forces. How can the people be anti-government in a true democratic republic when the people are the government? They equate the movement with terrorism, and even racism but then in the same breath say that black actor Wesley Snipes used "sovereign language" in trying to combat the IRS. 

Back again to the self avowed expert who now profiles what to look for in a sovereign citizen. A30-35 year old (white man) in economic dire straits who has probably lost their job and their wife. Many are "paranoid, conspiracy theorists" according to her. Nevermind the fact that she is not a psychologist or in any position at all to judge whether or not someone is paranoid, and nevermind the very relevant questions that so called conspiracy theorists put forth. There was once a time when people who said the world was round, or who believed in the Mafia were conspiracy theorists too. Simply more vilification of any who dares to question the status quo. And of course, nevermind too that profiling disillusioned white men is about as ignorant as saying a nigga from Brooklyn is probably a cop killer.

In the next segment they do a real hack job on the guy trying to explain what sovereignty is all about, so I don't have too much there to comment on, other than to say I don't trust the government any more than he does. Any true patriot will distrust their government.

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~George Washington

But just after that, they go on to talk about different seminars and "scams" that are all over the internet. On that point, I do offer a word of caution. There are indeed many scams out there. Even someone as affluent as Wesley Snipes found out the hard way that trying to pry oneself out of the web of contract law is next to impossible. I do not declare myself a sovereign for that very reason if no other. Not because they are wrong mind you, but because I do not have the time, education, or skill to dedicate myself to the subtle nuances of sovereign law. One slip-up, and you wind up in the penitentiary with Wesley. But it can be done...

...and stuff like that folks, is why the system will degrade you, smear you with propaganda, imprison you, and ultimately murder you if they get half a chance. Because being a sovereign is a direct threat to your God-given rights. One mis-step, and they will come down on you with all the fury Hell hath to offer.

Nonetheless, as I said, it can be done, in more ways than one too. A smart sovereign would never go out and make a spectacle of themselves as a would-be martyr gunned down in some delusional blaze of glory. The true sovereign is the one who knows how to navigate this complex web of deceit, which is more than a century in the making. The true sovereign, and the real threat to the usurpers, are the sort of folks they point out in the next segment. The ones who use the system, against the system. What the 60 Minutes reporter calls "retribution" is completely legal, and some might say, completely justified. In that segment, they actually admit that sovereigns are not the "delusional" sort that JJ McNab tries to portray. While she claims these folks have turned off their "common sense switch," many have used the system's own rules and statutes against gate-keepers. The same sort of loopholes that might leave you stranded by the side of the road after police have impounded your car for a dirty license plate, or being charged with felony assault of a police officer for farting at a cop.

Next segment we have a judge from Queens holding court in Rosendale NY, a small local community I know well, claiming he is scared to death when he learns that some moron in his court over a misdemeanor traffic ticket had "contacts" with the West Memphis shooters. Number one, I would like to know what contacts that actually was. Passed eachother in some chat forum, subscribed to the same newsletter? Second of all, does he really expect us to believe that a judge from Queens who worked 30 years in the penitentiary with the most depraved human beings alive has never felt unsafe in his life before coming up against the "sovereign citizens"? Even in the video segment it appears that the judge himself can't even hold back his laughter.

And did you get a look at those goofballs that are this supreme threat to national security? To this judge to the point that he is sleeping with a gun under his pillow? Newsflash judge, if you are that scared maybe you should start lobbying the state to stop shutting down mental health units. Is the crux of this whole report telling the American people that our entire nation is about to be brought down by the Three Stooges? Seriously? Now Wesley Snipes, I might have bought that one.

Back again now to the brief segment with the man 60 Minutes has labeled as the "sovereign guru." The man is completely reasonable talking about the Second Amendment, and the purpose of the right to bear arms. He is absolutely right, it was never meant to protect our right of suck hunting. It was put into the Constitution to provide a sovereign natural right to resist tyranny, by force if necessary.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." ~Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Quick cut to the police Chief who's son was murdered, who states, "Obviously the guy is crazy, and I think he should be brought up on charges."

There you have it folks, in clear. no uncertain terms, according to the police chief of West Memphis, if you believe in the Constitution, "obviously" you are crazy and should be brought up on charges.

"If they want to come after me, I'm very easy to find. The polic Chief in West Memphis, Arkansas... If they come after me, I have absolutely no problem with it, and might even like it."

"...and might even like it."

"...and might even like it."

Spoken like a true pig there Chief.

Rodney King trial evidence, LAPD radio transmissions, 1:13 a.m. from Powell and Wind to the foot patrol: "I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time."

Now don't get me wrong, if someone killed my boy, I might feel the same way. But what the chief fails to recognize, is that no one went after his boy. His boy went after them.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~Thomas Paine


Operation Vampire killer 2000: American Police Action Plan for Stopping World Government Rule

Rogan Mattock reporting for the Station.6.Underground.

Latest Headlines

Which Mythical Creature Are You?                         Sexy Out of This World Aliens                         Is That a Ghost or Just a Dirty Lens                         Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?                          Do You Know Vampires?                          Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse                          Ten Amazing Urban Legends That Are Actually True                          Unbelievable UFO Sightings                          Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Search This Blog