Who Benefits?.....Or, Stop Being Stupid Part 6

By Anna Von Reitz

For those who have been following along, it must eventually occur to them to ask: well, then, who or what is the real enemy?

If Britain and the Holy See---which were supposed to be our Trustees and Allies--- are actually our enemies, then who are our friends?  The Russians?  The Chinese?

War is a Racket - Military Cancer - Time to STOP THE WAR

Make up your own mind, but shut off the controlled media and think about it for a few weeks first.

Former CIA Agent's Message to America - WATCH NOW

Powerful message from former C.I.A. Agent to all Americans.
YOU ARE THE RESISTANCE!



The speaker is named Robert David Steele.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKlKGB3YwjE

Snipers Wanted -

This article appeared just after the Millennium Summit at the end of 1999 and was published at the beginning of 2000,  and is more true now than ever.
The authors are Jim Searcy and Ed Parker

http://www.moresureword.com/guns.htm

When and how are we allowed, morally, to use lethal force to defend our lives, loved ones, and property?
If you have been wondering about where to draw those lines this article will help.

Here is the Catholic view of Self Defense:  From the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917

Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. While differing among themselves on some of the more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their application regarding the right of self-defense. The teaching may be summarized as follows:

Defense of life and person

Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may, out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one's own life to the utmost on account of one's duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity,natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound injustice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.

Defense of property

It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the aggressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor's life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.

Honor

Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one's material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order. With regard to honor or reputation, it is not lawful to kill one to prevent an insult or an attack upon our reputation which we believe he intends, or threatens. Nor may we take a life to avenge an insult already offered. The proceeding would not be defense of our honor or reputation, but revenge. Besides, in the general estimation honor and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.

And here is the writing of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the subject:
If you have never read St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica then you need to know the format. Saint Thomas always puts forth the arguments AGAINST the premise, then answers them one by one and with a summation.

Article 7. Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?

Objection 1. It would seem that nobody may lawfully kill a man in self-defense. For Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): "I do not agree with the opinion that one may kill a man lest one be killed by him; unless one be a soldier, exercise a public office, so that one does it not for oneself but for others, having the power to do so, provided it be in keeping with one's person." Now he who kills a man in self-defense, kills him lest he be killed by him. Therefore this would seem to be unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, he says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "How are they free from sin in sight of Divine providence, who are guilty of taking a man's life for the sake of these contemptible things?" Now among contemptible things he reckons "those which men may forfeit unwillingly," as appears from the context (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): and the chief of these is the life of the body. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to take another's life for the sake of the life of his own body.

Objection 3. Further, Pope Nicolas [Nicolas I, Dist. 1, can. De his clericis] says in the Decretals: "Concerning the clerics about whom you have consulted Us, those, namely, who have killed a pagan in self-defense, as to whether, after making amends by repenting, they may return to their former state, or rise to a higher degree;know that in no case is it lawful for them to kill any man under any circumstances whatever." Now clerics and laymen are alike bound to observe the moral precepts. Therefore neither is it lawful for laymen to kill anyone in self-defense.

Objection 4. Further, murder is a more grievous sin than fornication or adultery. Now nobody may lawfully commit simple fornication or adultery or any other mortal sin in order to save his own life; since the spiritual life is to be preferred to the life of the body. Therefore no man may lawfully take another's life in self-defense in order to save his own life.

Objection 5. Further, if the tree be evil, so is the fruit, according to Matthew 7:17. Now self-defense itself seems to be unlawful, according to Romans 12:19: "Not defending [Douay: 'revenging'] yourselves, my dearly beloved." Therefore its result, which is the slaying of a man, is also unlawful.

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life.

I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted from Augustine refer to the case when one man intends to kill another to save himself from death. The passage quoted in the Second Objection is to be understood in the same sense. Hence he says pointedly, "for the sake of these things," whereby he indicates the intention. This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply to Objection 3. Irregularity results from the act though sinless of taking a man's life, as appears in the case of a judge who justly condemns a man to death. For this reason a cleric, though he kill a man in self-defense, is irregular, albeit he intends not to kill him, but to defend himself.

Reply to Objection 4. The act of fornication or adultery is not necessarily directed to the preservation of one's own life, as is the act whence sometimes results the taking of a man's life.

Reply to Objection 5. The defense forbidden in this passage is that which comes from revengeful spite. Hence a gloss says: "Not defending yourselves--that is, not striking your enemy back."

Here is the Catholic view of Just War:  From the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917

War, in its juridical sense, is a contention carried on by force of arms between sovereign states, or communities having in this regard the right of states. The term is often used for civil strife, sedition, rebellion properly so called, or even for the undertaking of a State to put down by force organized bodies of outlaws, and in fact there is no other proper word for the struggle as such; but as these are not juridically in the same class with contentions of force between sovereign states, the jurist may not so use the term.

However, a people in revolution, in the rare instance of an effort to re-establish civil government which has practically vanished from the community except in name, or to vitalize constitutional rights reserved specifically or residuarily to the people, is conceded to be in like juridical case with a State, as far as protecting its fundamental rights by force of arms. 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

John Locke on the right of revolution:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s2.html

The arbitrary use of authority is called tyranny. Such is the tyranny of an absolute monarch, of a council, of a class, or of a majority. The liberty of the subject is based on the doctrine that the State is not omnipotent. Legally omnipotent every State must be, but not morally. A legal enactment may be immoral, and then it cannot in conscience be obeyed; or it may be ultra vires, beyond the competence of the authority that enacts it, in which case compliance with the law is not a matter of obedience, but of prudence. In either case the law is tyrannical, and "a tyrannical law, not being according to reason, is not, absolutely speaking, a law, but rather a perversion of law" (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II.92.1 ad 4). Man is not all citizen. He is a member, a part of the State, and something else besides. "Man is not subservient to the civil community to the extent of his whole self, all that he is and all that he has" (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II.21.4 ad 3). To say nothing of his eternal interests in his relations with his Maker, man has even in this life his domestic interests in the bosom of his family, his intellectual and artistic interests, none of which can be called political interests. Social and political life is not the whole of human life. Man is not the servant of the State in his every action. The State, the majority, or the despot, may demand of the individual more than he is bound to give. Were human society a conventional arrangement, were man, being perfectly well off in isolation from his fellows, to agree by way of freak to live in community with them, then we could assign no antecedent limits to civil authority. Civil authority would be simply what was bargained for and prescribed in the arbitrary compact which made civil society. As it is, civil authority is a natural means to a natural end and is checked by that end, in accordance with the Aristotelean principle that "the end in view sets limits to the means" (Aristotle, Politics, I, 9). The immediate end of civil authority is well set forth by Francisco Suárez (De legibus, LII, xi, 7) as "the natural happiness of the perfect, or self-sufficient, human community, and the happiness of individuals as they are members of such a community, that they may live therein peaceably and justly, with a sufficiency of goods for the preservation and comfort of their bodily life, and with so much moral rectitude as is necessary for this external peace and happiness". Happiness is an attribute of individuals. Individuals are not made happy by authority, but authority secures to them that tranquillity, that free hand for helping themselves, that restful enjoyment of their own just winnings, which is one of the conditions of happiness. Nor does authority make men virtuous, except according to that rough-hewn, outline virtue, which is called "social virtue", and consists mainly of justice. When the ancients spoke of "virtue" being the concern of the State, they meant justice and efficiency. Neither the virtue nor the happiness of individuals is cared for by the State except "as they are members of the civil community". In this respect, civil differs from domestic, or paternal, authority. The father cares for the members of his household one by one, singly and individually. The State cares for its members collectively, and for the individual only in his collective aspect. Hence it follows that the power of life and death is inherent in the State, not in the family. A man is hanged for the common good of the rest, never for his own good.


Liberalism Condemned:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm

Memorial Day - The truth about War

THE CULTURE OF WAR

The reality of war by Paul Fussell.

Combat veteran Paul Fussell talks about the culture of war.

How something inherent evil is glamorized for the sake of a few at the cost of many.

The Culture of War  / Paul Fussell


For much more from this Author  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCryQXWRnCI

Anonymous: The real terrorist Are Right Here At Home, Not Overseas

The real terrorists are in the US Government!

 

The wars are immoral. The wars are Illegal. The wars are without the consent of "We the People" because they were never declared wars by the US Congress.

Withdraw your consent by boycotting anyone who supports the wars. Throw out the Neo-Cons and the leftists who support the wars.

Elect Ron Paul as president.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

Do your part at home to get out of the system that supports these wars. Boycott foreign goods. Barter and trade with your neighbors. Visit with them. Turn OFF the TV. Get your news from the Internet.

Read this blog. http://www.paulstramer.net  and send this link to everyone you have an email address for.
Our blog has many links to much good information in every article.

There are over 930 articles on this blog. Use the search feature to type in a keyword.
This blog goes world wide and has had over 48000 unique visitors.
Just look at the revolver map on the right side of the blog.

Get on our mailing list for Lincoln County Watch by sending a blank email to our email box with the word subscribe in the subject line.  mailto: pstramer@eurekadsl.net  You will be notified when a new article comes up. Or just subscribe to the blog and follow it on line here
 http://feeds.feedburner.com/http/paulstramerfeedburnercom

You can also just subscribe to the blog on the right side of the blog itself by simply entering your email address. This is not the same as our mailing list for Lincoln County Watch, which sends other subjects that are not posted to the blog.

Decentralize by trading at the local level and patronizing local businesses instead of big chains. Get your food from local farmers when you can instead of big grocery stores.

Our future does not depend on who is president so much as the movement toward freedom and the number of people who are part of it, because they understand the principles involved. So education is the key, and willingness to get out of our comfort zone to promote freedom is the answer.

God Bless you All.
Paul Stramer

LEGAL NOTICE: The Authors specifically invoke the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, without prejudice, on this website. The information posted on this website is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this website may be reproduced unless by written consent. You hereby have written consent to post any individual post from this website containing this copyright to any other blog or email only if you post the whole and unaltered article including this copyright, and give proper credit to the author, and a link back to this blog at http://www.paulstramer.net/. This applies only to articles written by Paul Stramer. ©2005-2012 by Montana Business Communications (PDS) All rights remain in force. Removing this notice forfeits all rights to recourse. Copyright strictly enforced © The videos are third party and not covered by this legal notice.

Sunday Prayers for Patriots from the Mass in Time of War

Wars and rumors of Wars are a prediction of the end times in the Bible. Here is how we should pray in these times, which seem to be upon us in the present day.

Introit Px. 24, 6, 3, 22
Remember, O Lord, Thy bowels of compassion, and Thy mercies that are from the beginning of the world, lest at any time our enemies rule over us: deliver us, O God of Israel, from all our tribulations. (Alleluia, alleluia.) To Thee, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul: in Thee, O my God, I put my trust; let me not be shamed. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Prayer:
O God, Who dost stamp out wars and vanquish the assailants of them that hope in Thee, help us when we cry to Thee, that the ferocity of our enemies may be brought low, and we may praise Thee with unceasing thanksgiving. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen

Lesson from Jeremias the Prophet Jer. 42, 1, 2, 7-12
In those days all the captains of the warriors came near: and they said to Jeremias the prophet: pray thou for us to the Lord thy God. And the word of the Lord came to Jeremias. And he called all the captains of the fighting men that were with him, and all the people from the least to the greatest. And he said to them: Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, to whom you sent me, to present your supplications before Him: If you will be quiet and remain in this land. I will build you up, and not pull you down: I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for now I am appeased for the evil that I have done to you. Fear not because of the king of Babylon, of whom you are greatly afraid: fear him not, saith the Lord: for I am with you, to save you, and to deliver you from his hand. And I will show mercies to you, and will take pity on you, and will cause you to dwell in your own land, saith the Lord almighty.

Gradual Ps. 76, 15, 16
Thou art the God that alone dost wonders: Thou hast made Thy power known among the nations. v. With Thy arm Thou hast redeemed Thy people, the children of Israel and Joseph.

Alleluia, alleluia Deliver me from my enemies, O my God, and defend me from them that rise up against me. Alleluia

Tract Ps. 102, 10
O Lord, repay us not according to the sins we have committed, nor according to our iniquities. v. O Lord, remember not our former iniquities: let Thy merices speedily prevent us, for we are become exceeding poor. v. Help us, O God our Saviour: and for the glory of Thy name, O Lord, deliver us: and forgive us our sins for Thy name's sake.

Alleluia, alleluia. v. Deliver me from my enemies, O my God: and defend me from them that rise up against me. Alleluia. But I will sing Thy strength: and will extol Thy marcy in the morning. Alleluia.

Gospel Matt. 24, 3-8
At that time: The disciples came to Jesus privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the world? And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in My name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. And you shall hear of wars, and rumors of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes in places: Now all these are the beginning of sorrows.

Offertory. Ps. 17, 28, 32
Thou wilt save the humble people, O Lord, and wilt bring down the eyes of the proud; for Who is God but Thee, O Lord?

Secret
Be appeased, O Lord, by the sacrifice which we offer, that it may deliver us from all the evil of war and set us in the security of Thy protection. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen


Communion. Ps. 30, 3
Bow down Thy ear, make haste to deliver us.
 
Postcommunion
O God, Who hast dominion over all kingdoms and all kings, Who dost heal us by smiting and preserve us by pardoning, stretch forth Thy mercy toward us, that we may employ for the uses of correction the tranquility and peace secured by Thy power. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen

Do the Power Elite Need another False Flag Event?

Excuses for more War are what this is all about. This will come to and end because of one fact. We can no longer afford these expenses, regardless of and proposed justifications for further wars.
Paul.
http://www.thedailybell.com:80/2479/Does-the-Elite-Need-a-False-Flag.html

The Daily Bell, Friday, June 10, 2011 – by Staff Report

Panetta to inherit Afghanistan dilemma ... With Americans still coming home in flag-draped caskets from Iraq, CIA director Leon Panetta (left) revealed a surprising – and to many, no doubt, confusing – fact. "There are 1,000 al-Qaeda that are still in Iraq," he said. "We saw the attack that was just made the other day. It too continues to be a fragile situation." That's right - 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq where the U.S. has fewer than 50,000 troops. In Afghanistan, where there are twice as many American troops, intelligence estimates put the number of al Qaeda at no more than 100, reports CBS News senior national security correspondent David Martin. – CBS

Dominant Social Theme: It's a long, hard road to victory.

Free-Market Analysis: Americans are war-weary but Leon Panetta (left) sees reasons to fight on. Al-Qaeda is still active and as long as al-Qaeda exists (see above article excerpt) America needs to fight. The struggle is taking place "Over There," so Americans do not have to fight al-Qaeda "Over Here." CIA Director Panetta made his remarks on Capitol Hill where he attended a hearing regarding his confirmation as Secretary of Defence.

Read this entire article here:
http://www.thedailybell.com/2479/Does-the-Elite-Need-a-False-Flag.html

Upcoming US Nuclear Event?

http://www.thedailybell.com/2422/Upcoming-US-Nuclear-Event.html

The Daily Bell,  Tuesday, May 31, 2011 – by Staff ReportThe stage has been set for a nuclear false flag in America. Many in the alternative media have wondered if a false flag nuke attack within America is a real possibility. Would they do it? Who would it be? What cities would be targeted? Recently, The New York Times reported that the United States is running out of a rare gas that is used to detect smuggled nuclear materials. The reason given is that one arm of the Energy Department is selling the gas much quicker than the other is able to accumulate it. While this could possibly be a legitimate reason, it seems highly suspicious that a government that is installing a police state nationwide to supposedly save us from terrorists would be unable to obtain the gas needed to detect smuggled nuclear weapons. Wouldn't a nuclear attack on America be the MOST important threat to combat? Unfortunately there is a long history of suspicious nuclear activity in the United States, with cover story after cover story being spread throughout the corporate controlled media. At this junction in history it seems prudent to lay out some of the more ludicrous stories that have been planted into the minds of the American people. – Intel Hub

Dominant Social Theme: Why the heck would they do something like that? It's idiotic. The only people planning to blow up the world live in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Free-Market Analysis: Could the Anglo-American power elite sponsor a nuclear attack on American soil in order to deepen the phony war on terror? Would this group of old men running the world's most powerful banking families, be so devious? According to Intel Hub, the answer is yes.

Read the rest and then get ready:
 
http://www.thedailybell.com/2422/Upcoming-US-Nuclear-Event.html

WE ARE AT WAR

By Michael LeMieux

February 8, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael144.htm

The war is for your heart, and mind, and soul. Freedom and eternity are at stake.
The future of our children is at stake in this war. It's an information war and soon will be a war for physical things, and maybe our lives.

THE ANATOMY OF AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION?

By Greg Evensen
December 3rd, 2009
NewsWithViews.com







There is no one left to turn to for relief from an onslaught that would have been a declared war had it come from another country. We as a nation of citizens, have been brutalized so badly by criminals inside the government, that we could have easily justified the use of deadly force to beat back the pillaging of our homes and communities. And diabolically, this has been done by the very people who were allowed a seat of power over us by our own vote.

The ongoing war for liberty is being waged on a thousand fronts. City and county governments have been persuaded by government agents to buy into Agenda 21 at all levels and adopt the radical environmentalist agenda. These local maniacs have done so eagerly. They revel in the appearance of solidarity both socially and politically with those who want to see swamp dwelling muskrats be able to retain attorneys should their habitat be threatened. Utterly blind deceit and a spirit of delusion reigns. Churches and cities have joined in efforts to provide illegal aliens (illegal here meaning ILLEGAL) “sanctuary” in direct and open violation of federal law. You know, the kind of federal law that says you can’t shoot FBI agents on sight or that you MUST pay a voluntary illegal federal income tax, or call a sodomite evil, to just name a few minor federal laws. But then, since when has consistency or lawful conduct ever meant anything to BATF, FBI, IRS, CIA, DEA or NTSB agents that were at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, Flight 800, New York, the Pentagon, Dallas, etc., etc., etc…..We have been misled, lied to, confused, plotted against and abused by lawyers representing all of these entities so many times, that every last one of the perpetrators would have been hung in the public square 120 years ago.

Instead, patriots, citizens, civic groups and moms and pops have been the target of these same self-serving, power infested dirt bags simply because they wanted the truth and were not going to accept any other made up version of Washington’s idea of “truth.”

Read these articles and judge for yourself!

http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg146.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg145.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg144.htm

Greg Evensen is an award winning former Kansas State Trooper and Kansas Marshal. He speaks across the nation for Patriot groups and is available to come to your area as well. Call 906-367-0505 or e-mail him at greg@theheartlandusa.com.

Website: http://www.theheartlandusa.com/
E-Mail: greg@theheartlandusa.com

Here are the links to all the videos in the series.
Can somebody prove this wrong?
part 1 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvUh5guvIvU
part 2 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_VYSglZfm0
part 3 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=proBFUpMM9c
part 4 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGseEK-Sgg
part 5 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP_vnPlCJz0
part 6 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYegj2JqhX8
part 7 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI-K2NNCD0s
part 8 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2jLZgmW7Yg
part 9 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn1_9KCE-Lc
part 10 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BcbpekuUGk
part 11 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P-MRz7YqX4
LEGAL NOTICE: The Authors specifically invoke the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, without prejudice, on this website. The information posted on this website is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this website may be reproduced unless by written consent. You hereby have written consent to post any individual post from this website containing this copyright to any other blog or email only if you post the whole and unaltered article including this copyright, and give proper credit to the author, and a link back to this blog at http://www.paulstramer.net/. This applies only to articles written by Paul Stramer. ©2005-2009 by Montana Business Communications (PDS) All rights remain in force. Removing this notice forfeits all rights to recourse. Copyright strictly enforced © The videos are third party and not covered by this legal notice.