From Ron Calzone…Please click through and read the docs attached:

How should Missouri respond to the Syrian refugee situation? Since immigration and naturalization are clearly constitutional functions of the federal government, what can Missouri do, constitutionally, if we decide that we don’t want refugees resettled here?

I’m proud of my friends who have asked what the Christian’s responsibility is in the matter. What does the Bible teach about situations like this? How should that affect what Missouri decides to do? How should that affect what Christians should do?

We’ll explore the constitutional and scriptural answers to all of those questions in detail, below, but we’ll start with a summary answer and warning about empty political responses to the overwhelming pubic outcry against resettlement of these unfortunate refugees in the United States.

  • The United States should not accept refugees from places that are hot houses for anti-American sentiment.
  • The Missouri General Assembly should immediately enact laws establishing legislative oversight of any state involvement in any resettlement program. Budgetary solutions are not enough, it should be a crime for state officials to violte these laws. (e.g. The General Assembly, not the governor or bureaucrats, should have the final say.)
  • Both the Constitution and the Bible place the responsibility of relief and other benevolent acts to refugees and other displaced people on the private sector.

<Click here to finish reading this message in your browswer>

Forward this to your state Rep and Senator. Ask him or her to commit to settling for nothing less than a new law that establishes legislative oversight of refugee resettlement.

For liberty,

– Ron

Parsing poli-s[eak is like learning the language of Ingsoc…Orwellian “newspeak”. if you prefer. That’s what Governor Nixon’s official statement on bringing Syrian refugees into Missouri is like. …What?

Here it is for those who haven’t yet seen the “official response”:

“The safety of Missourians is my highest priority, and the terrorists who were involved in planning and perpetrating the attacks in Paris must be caught and brought to justice,” Governor Nixon said. “The screening process for refugees is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and I call on our federal partners to implement the strongest possible safeguards to protect our state and nation.”

KY3 News asked the governor’s spokesperson to clarify his stance Monday afternoon.  The governor’s office said, “the statement speaks for itself.”


Emergency Medical Care to be Discussed at Campaign for Liberty Meeting
The Howell County Campaign for Liberty Group will meet Thursday, November 19, at 7 pm at Chen’s Garden restaurant, 1705 Gibson, in West Plains according to group president Don Eagleman.  Keynote speaker of the evening will be Mary Price, a registered nurse with more than 20 years of experience who will speak on advanced first aid and providing medical care in emergency situations when there is no doctor available.
Copies of the General Assembly Roster 2015 which has contact information for our state and federal elected officials will be available at this meeting.  Copies of the US and MO constitutions and Howell County Campaign for Liberty Group business cards will be available as well” Eagleman said.
“The group will also discuss the current political situation in Missouri, the US and internationally, including the tax protest and DNR land grab in Oregon County, and the recent town hall meeting held by Lt Gov Peter Kinder in West Plains.”

I just received this from Rep. Mike Moon, along with a note asking that others do the same, and also encourage your State representatives and Senators to do the same….That is, to write Governor Nixon and request that he enforce the duty of government, which is to protect our borders and our rights.

Here is the note Rep Moon sent to Governor Nixon:

November 15, 2015

Honorable Jeremiah “Jay” Nixon

Office of the Governor

P.O. Box 720

Jefferson City, MO  65102


Considering the recent terrorist attacks on Paris and the probability that refugees awaiting

placement in the several United States are sympathetic to the terrorists (and that they themselves

may, in fact, have intent to carry out acts of terror within the several United States) and in an

effort to secure our borders and offer protection to our residents, I call on you to use your

authority as Governor to exercise the U.S. Constitution’s 10th amendment to oppose the

relocation of any and all refugees within the borders of the state of Missouri.

(Click on title to go to the source)

A shorter version of this post ran as an op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News on October 6, 2015.

The ubiquitous blue “Like” or “Share” buttons that you see all over the Internet are hiding an ugly secret. Starting this month, Facebook will use them to track your visit to every Web page that displays the buttons—even if you don’t click on anything. Facebook will use the data it collects to build a detailed dossier of your browsing habits, meticulously logging every site you visit, so it can finally learn those last few details about your life that it doesn’t already know. And there’s nothing you can do about it, short of staying totally logged out of the social media site or tracking down and installing a special browser extension to protect from this kind of sneaky behavior.

And who wants to bother?  Yeah it’s creepy, but maybe you don’t care enough about a faceless corporation’s data mining to go out of your way to protect your privacy, and anyway you don’t have anything to hide. Facebook counts on that shrug of your shoulders; indeed its business model depends on our collective confusion and apathy when it comes to privacy. And that’s wrong, as a matter of business ethics and arguably in a legal sense as well.

Facebook’s response to criticism of the new massive increase in tracking has been to claim that it’s not a problem because the company allows users to opt out of the program. But that excuse—and others like it across the industry—is disingenuous and fundamentally unfair in two important ways. First, when users opt out, Facebook doesn’t actually stop tracking their browsing habits. It merely stops showing the user so called “interest-based” ads. In other words, Facebook doesn’t allow us to opt out of being tracked all over the Internet; it merely allows us to hide that fact from ourselves.

Second and more importantly, the new tracking violates consumers’ expectations. The Federal Trade Commission’s longstanding Fair Information Practice Principles begin with the concepts of notice and choice. Companies are expected to make consumers aware of information collection and give consumers control over how their information is used. When we click a “Like” button, we expect Facebook to take note. But when we visit a website and don’t click the button, we’re given no indication whatsoever that Facebook is still keeping track of that visit, much less given the ability to control what Facebook does with that information.

Of course, Facebook is hardly the only offender. Google and its manufacturing partners have been shipping millions of low-cost notebook computers, known as Chromebooks, to schools around the country for use by students in the classroom and at home. The devices are wonderful—powerful, secure, and easy to use. And they come with “completely free” Google Apps for Education services including classroom tools, email, document collaboration, and calendaring, among others.

Google’s Chromebooks as used in schools also come with “Chrome Sync” enabled by default, a feature that sends the student users’ entire browsing trail to Google, linking the data collected to the students’ accounts which often include their names and dates of birth. Google notes that the tracking behavior can be turned off by the student or even at a district level. But as shipped, students’ Chromebooks are configured to send every student’s entire browsing history back to Google, in near real time. That’s true even despite Google’s signature on the “Student Privacy Pledge” which includes a commitment to “not collect … student personal information beyond that needed for authorized educational/school purposes, or as authorized by the parent/student.”

EFF and other digital privacy groups have been actively engaged with the technology sector in an attempt to convince companies to place meaningful limits on various forms of consumer tracking. Earlier this year, EFF, along with eight other privacy organizations, left a multi-stakeholder process intended to develop a privacy-friendly set of best practices for companies using facial recognition, led by the National Telecommunications Information Administration. We insisted that companies must give regular people the choice of whether to participate in a face recognition database, or, in other words, operate their facial recognition systems on an opt-in basis. Our demand isn’t crazy; it is already the law in Europe. But when the companies made it clear that in this country they were only willing to provide an opt-out for people who proactively put themselves on a do-not-track list, we walked out. There was no point to our continued participation in a process dominated by companies who insist on maintaining a privacy model that depends on consumers not knowing their rights, or even the fact they’re being tracked.

It’s incredibly difficult for even the most concerned consumers to figure out who’s collecting data about them, much less exercise any control over what companies do with that data. It took us at EFF some serious research—and an hour-long conference call with Google engineers, lawyers, and PR reps—to figure out how Google treats student-browsing data. Because the companies make it so difficult for privacy-conscious consumers to figure out when, where, and how they’re being tracked, users are left with only one real choice: apathy, which companies then use as an excuse to further escalate and obscure their tracking behavior.

There is no excuse for making it so difficult to get the answers to questions as simple as “are you tracking our students?” Don’t even try asking the companies what they do with the behavioral data they’re gathering about us: other than using it for behavior advertising, they won’t say. And for those of us who have opted out of behavioral advertising, the companies have given no justification for continuing to collect our data. We have no way of knowing what they’re using our data for, and that’s a problem.

Companies across the tech industry claim that they honor our privacy and endeavor to treat users with respect. And I have no doubt that the vast majority of engineers, designers, and policy makers working in Silicon Valley want to do the right thing. My message to the companies then is this: if a new feature, system, or app will impact users’ privacy, just ask the users for their permission first. Providing an opt-out after the fact demonstrates a total lack of commitment to users and is fundamentally unfair.

If a business model wouldn’t work if users had to opt in, it deserves to fail.

From the Missouri Precinct Project:

Below you will find an important email we are forwarding from Kelly Pascucci regarding “smart meters”.  Kelly works tirelessly to educate Missourians on the dangers of “smart meters”.  “Smart meters” are not only a health threat, but also a threat to privacy and liberty.
“Smart meters” are intrusive…they allow power companies to collect detailed information about people’s lives and is an invasion of privacy.
Once installed, they may pulse electromagnetic radiation into a home, emitting bursts of radio frequency thousands of times a day thus posing a health risk for many.
    “We want to put an end to bullying, manipulation, threats and extortion fees from the utility companies to customers who refuse to conform to the     smart meter program”  Kelly Pascucci. 
Because “All politics is local”
—– Forwarded Message Re: Smart Meters from Kelly Pascucci
be sure to see links at bottom of email—–

Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 12:37 PM
Subject: Smart Meters – Still resisting, educating, and helping

Good Morning,
Wanted to touch base with this great group of people who are aware and willing to defend the sovereignty of their homes.  Not that you need a pat on the back from me, but you all are to be commended for educating yourselves on this issue and not accepting the utility company’s script that these meters are mandatory, “you’ll like it” and “it’ll be good for you”. There are few people with the American spirit who understand that we have freedoms, but they need to be guarded and practiced.  You are that awesome group!
I have very good news for everyone.  Representative Tim Remole (District 6) will file another bill this upcoming legislative session that gives Missourians analog choice without extortion fees.  We want to put an end to bullying, manipulation, threats and extortion fees from the utility companies to customers who refuse to conform to the smart meter program.
This is the plan, we need EVERYONE to participate:
  • 1.     Contact your Representative and let him/her know that a bill will be coming up with regards to smart meter opt-out.  You’re requesting that they support this bill.  This will be your FIRST contact. They may not know anything about smart meters except what the utility lobbyists are telling them.  Be patient with them and help them understand YOUR perspective.  More than likely they have no idea about ALL the violations.  I have a presentation for this purpose, just ask and I will make it available.
  • 2.     Educate your family, friends and neighbors.  I have beautiful printed fliers for you to distribute in your neighborhood, groups, or church.  If you contact me I can mail them to you.  Attached is a pdf (front/back) for your review.  Another option, a 2-page attachment that you can print out and share “What does it mean to accept a smart meter on your home or business?”
  • 3.     Be a mentor to your contacts and help them in their awareness process and ask them to contact their Representative too.  Please direct people to “Take Back Your Power Como” FB page.  This works for those who want to learn without pressure and at their own pace.  I will have Missouri updates on that page as well.
When we have a specific bill number I will let you know, but not having a bill number should not be a deterrent from talking to your Representative and getting others to contact them as well.  When session officially gets started they are exceptionally busy so now is the time to capture their attention, get to know them and/or their legislative assistant.  We need to contact them early and often.  It can be through snail mail, e-mail, personal visits, or phone calls.
We will get nowhere if only a few people engage their Representatives.  We need hundreds, yes hundreds to rattle the cage.  “The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property…[Therefore,] whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people…by this breach of trust they (the government officials) forfeit the power the people had put into their hands…and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty and provide for their own safety and security.”  John Locke
I realize that we would all rather be doing something else, but I think we all have awakened to the fact that we’ve not engaged far too long and it has cost us dearly.  We don’t want to lose any more freedoms so our Representatives need to know us BETTER than the paid lobbyists.
Here is my latest fave article with regards to debunking the smart meter lie.  And if you haven’t heard we have made 2 episodes of an Ameren Missouri couple that have been injured by AMI smart meters.
Kelly Pascucci
Take Back Your Power Power Como “like” on FB

A frightening revelation about the “climate change” treaty that is coming up soon:

The official draft text of the climate treaty for the soon-to-start UN Climate Summit in Paris proposes to establish a global Supreme Court that would rule on issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.”

Tucked away on page 19 of the 34-page document is the call for establishing an International Tribunal of Climate Justice. The text, which is still heavily bracketed with text that hasn’t been completely resolved and agreed upon, reads:

An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as [A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.


Courting Climate Tyranny

With all the world’s politically correct politicians and all the world’s “progressive” journalistas and Big Media commentariat daily hyperventilating over the ever-growing list of alleged threats and catastrophes caused by global warming, it might be expected that there would be some mention of this planned environmental judicial system for the planet. However, since the text was released on October 20, there has been a virtual blackout in the major media regarding this revolutionary development. The only mentions that one is likely to find with search engines are alarms being sounded by critics — the climate realists who reject the apocalyptic predictions (and discredited pseudo-science — see: herehere, and here) of the multi-billion-dollar global warming lobby.

The censoring of any coverage of the planned UN Climate Tribunal by the major media is not surprising; They have been completely over the top in their promotion of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW) hysteria and would not want to jeopardize the globalist agenda by drawing attention to the dangers of establishing a planetary judicial authority.

This follows a distinctive pattern: We have seen a similar media censorship of the regional and global tribunals that la and WTO treaties. It was only years later, when these courts began assaulting U.S. sovereignty by overruling U.S. laws and U.S. court decisions, that the subversive nature of these judicial bodies became apparent. Then the erstwhile supporters of these treaties (such as Senator John Kerry, now Obama’s secretary of state and a promoter of the climate treaty) claimed that they had no way of knowing that these international courts would eventually subvert U.S. sovereignty. These claims of invincible ignorance don’t wash, of course, because this magazine, among other critics, warned repeatedly that this is precisely what would happen.

The same pattern is screamingly evident in the case of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreements to merge the United States, respectively, with Pacific Rim countries and the European Union. The so-called mainstream media have seen fit to censor any criticism of (and virtually any mention of) the dangerous tribunals (here and here) that would be established by these treaties.

As we  reported in February of this year, the International Tribunal of Climate Justice comes to us courtesy of  the Marxist regime of Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, a close comrade of Cuba’s Fidel Castro and an ardent admirer of Communist China’s founder/mass-murderer Mao Tse-tung. “In April 2010,” we reported, “Comrade Morales convened the ‘World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth’ in Cochabamba, Bolivia, which drew thousands of true believer Red-Green activists from across the planet. The outcome of that confab, the ‘Cochabamba Statement,’ calls for ‘the equitable allocation [of] atmospheric space between developed countries and developing countries during the period 1750 to 2050 based on the principles of equity and historical responsibility, and the needs of developing countries in order to achieve their economic and social development and poverty.’”

continue reading