In all the news reporting I heard/watched today there was only one voice of reason, and it came from a 10 year old Canadian child – whose father died in the 9/11 attacks. The child asked his mother why there was no trial. Great question, but it was totally ignored. I was surprised it even made it on-air. In subtraction to this, there was no mention of what criminal charges were laid against Osama, or his accomplices. There was no mention that the FBI never even laid charges against Osama. There was no mention of all the mistakes and investigative inconclusiveness in the 9/11 reporting. Just a big parade of rhetoric.

The USA is the most proud nation I can think of. So proud that many Americans are offended when another country does not accept the USA’s interpretation of good politics. The USA has a fantastic Constitution, whereby the land is ruled by law and not men. Fair and just at it’s very core. Each state is sovereign in the union and they’re free to make laws that do not infringe upon the rights of others, as per the Constitution.

WAIT! That’s not at ALL what we know the USA to be like. They invade other countries after the dictators they push into power fail to follow the status quo, for obviously bull**** reasons that don’t matter in the long run because they never leave – regardless of mission success or fail. The US imposes its military might all over the world – all in the name of liberation, freedom, or defence of their borders – but they do not adhere to the rules by which they want the other countries to operate and they mass-murder hundreds of thousands of non-combatants in the process.

Why is this relevant? The rule of law puts the law in front of the emotions, power or influence of any man or group of men. – Man, in this context simply means human. – The rule of law levels the playing field so that no matter where a person originates; no matter a person’s finance; no matter that person’s influence; that person is granted the same rights and freedoms as any other man.  What is the point of laws if a specific group of men are exempt from them? And if there are exemptions – who has the power, right or authority to make such exemptions? How did they get that power? If one man can have his human rights taken away, then so can yours be taken away. If it is OK to murder Osama for crimes he is assumed to have committed, because he was hard to find, then it is ok to murder anyone else, including you.

Without the rule of law we have anarchy. This is where humans are supposed to be separate from the animals. Our ability to create complex social structures, instead of survival of the fittest, which is what the US is doing. The US the fittest and they’re imposing their will while we watch, while the middle-east is bombed into the stone-age. Who do you think the military machine will turn against when the middle-east is crushed?

Osama is dead – officially. That’s the news. Celebrating the death of a man, and the justification for his murder by soldiers, on another nation’s land, without permission/clearance/knowledge, is disgusting. I am ashamed to be part of a society that celebrates such barbaric ideals right in the face of law, democracy and human rights.

“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

- Martin Luther King Jr.

In case I have not made my point clear: Had Osama been killed in a fire-fight as the soldiers attempted to arrest him, that’s an expected possibility of war. Had the media reported that, without celebration, then that’s news. However, the news reporters and the people interviewed, all celebrated that a man was intentionally killed, and only a 10 year old kid saw how that goes against everything we stand for and teach.

A seven month old baby has miraculously survived being shot after the parents killed themselves and their two year old son, citing fears over a lack of government action on global warming.

Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, are said to have shot their young son in the back, killing the toddler instantly.

Neighbors called the police, after complaining of a stench coming from the house.

Police broke into the property and discovered the horrific scene three days after the shooting, the Latin American Herald reported Saturday.

Still alive, but covered in blood, the baby was rushed to the hospital where it was revealed that the bullet from her father’s handgun had somehow missed all the child’s vital organs, lodging itself in her chest.

In a suicide note, reportedly discovered by police, the couple cited their extreme fears over the effects of global warming.

The couple were said to have expressed anger at the government in the letter for not doing more to avert a worldwide environmental crisis.

The baby is now under observation in a hospital in the town of Goya in the north of Argentina.

Doctors have told the media that the child is out of danger and should make a good recovery.

The tragic story is clearly an isolated incident, yet it highlights the fear with which some people are receiving the constant drumbeat about anthropogenic global warming.

Clearly this couple were either already very much deranged or were so terrified that they ended their own lives believing that they were contributing to the destruction of the planet.

It is not surprising to hear of an incident like this, particularly in the face the  concerted agenda to link global climate change with overconsumption and overpopulation, offering up depopulation policies as a possible solution.

Linking environmental policy to agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.

One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.

In 2007, the group also published a report announcing that children are ‘bad for planet and ‘having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanor in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

The same talking point has been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.

While you may think ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.

Last December’s Copenhagen Summit even heard suggestions from Chinese delegates for a global population control program to tackle global warming.

Alex Jones’ Films Endgame and Fall Of The Republic address the hijacking of the environmental movement in more detail.