12-09-15 -- James Corbett - Richard Gage - Alessandro Fusillo -- MP3's & VIDEO LOADED)
Hour 1 - 3
Hour 1 -- James Corbett (The Corbett Report) talks about Paris, Syria, Russia, Turkey, San Bernardino, Terrorism, and America's interventionist foreign policy
Hour 2 -- Richard Gage (AIA, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) provides an update on the 9/11 movement
Hour 3 -- Alessandro Fusillo (Attorney in Italy) Paris attacks, guns and self-defense in Europe
CALL IN TO SHOW: 602-264-2800
-30-
December 9th, 2015
Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock
on LRN.FM / Monday - Friday
9 a.m. - Noon (EST)
Studio Line: 602-264-2800
Hour 1
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
Webpage: CorbettReport.Com
James comes on the show to discuss Paris, Russia, Syria, Turkey, San Bernardino, Terrorism, and America's interventionist foreign policy
============================
James's previous interviews on the Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Radio Show:
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Guest-Page.htm?No=01092
=============================
TOPICS DISCUSSED...
FEATURED VIDEO
Karl Popper famously said, "A theory that explains everything explains nothing." So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven "climate change" can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to "theories" like this: pseudoscience.
SHOW NOTES
Climate change makes for shorter winters
Climate change makes for harsher winters
Climate change means less snow
Climate change means more snow
Climate change causes droughts in California
Climate change causes floods in Texas and Oklahoma
Climate change makes wet places wetter and dry places drier…
…except when it makes wet places dryer…
Climate change causes more hurricanes
Climate change causes less hurricanes
Climate change causes more rain (but less water)
Climate change causes less rain
Climate change decreases the spread of malaria
Climate change increases the spread of malaria
Climate change makes San Francisco foggier
Climate change makes San Francisco less foggy
Climate change causes duller autumn leaves
Climate changes causes more colourful autumn leaves
Climate change makes for less salty seas
Climate change makes for saltier seas
Climate change causes Antarctica to lose land ice
Climate change causes Antarctica to gain land ice
Climate change makes the earth hotter…
…unless the earth isn't getting hotter…
…in which case climate change can explain that, too.
CLICK HERE FOR SHOW NOTES AND COMMENTS
LATEST ARTICLE
RECENT AUDIO
Interview 1117 - Jim Steele on How Bad Global Warming Science Hurts the Environmental Movement
December 8th, 2015
Jim Steele was the Director of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus of San Francisco State University from 1985 to 2009. Having taught courses on plants, natural sciences, bird banding and bird identificati[...]
Interview 1116 - New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato
December 3rd, 2015
This week on the New World Next Week: new tech aims to authenticate citizen journalist footage; the NSA pretends to shut down its metadata collection program; and a group proposes a third amendment ch[...]
Interview 1115 - New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato
November 26th, 2015
This week on the New World Next Week: a new website helps people understand the dangers of geolocation data in photos; space mining is one step closer to reality; and more Americans than ever understa[...]
Hour 2
Hour 2 -- Richard Gage (AIA, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) provides an update on the 9/11 movement
-30-
Hour 2
Richard Gage
Founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth
Webpage: http://www.ae911truth.org/?
========================
Richard's previous interviews on the Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Radio Show:
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Guest-Page.htm?No=00342
========================
TOPICS DISCUSSED AND REFERENCES...
Firefighters, Architects & Engineers Expose 9/11 Myths (2015) full film. Two minute official trailer
This 90-minute film features a landmark joint presentation by Erik Lawyer, the founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Richard Gage, AIA, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Together they dismantle two dozen myths that comprise the official account of the WTC destruction. They also expose the failure of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to comply with the requirements of NFPA 921, the national guideline for fire and explosion investigations.
Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 with Ed Asner
This is the 15-minute documentary on the explosive destruction of the third skyscraper on 9/11 - World Trade Center 7.
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out
This is the one-hour version of our 90-min DVD on the destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers. It includes 40 technical and building professionals in the fields of high rise architecture, structural engineering, chemistry, physics, controlled demolition, etc.
This is the 45-minute interview that became one of the most watched videos on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program.
Beyond Misinformation booklet (See PDF link above)
This booklet compares the points of evidence in the destruction of the 3 skyscrapers as promulgated by NIST vs. the facts in the scientific forensic evidence, the videos, and the eyewitness testimony.
==============================
9/11 FIREFIGHTER BLOWS WTC 7 COVER-UP WIDE OPEN
Eyewitness account of WTC 7 - InfoWars
Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, a 32-year veteran of both the New York Fire Department and the New York Police Department, about his incredible first-hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7.
Hour 3
Hour 3 -- Alessandro Fusillo (Attorney in Italy) Paris attacks, guns and self-defense in Europe
-30-
Hour 3
Alessandro Fusillo
Alessandro Fusillo (Attorney in Italy and Germany) on the Paris attacks, gun control, and self-defense in Europe
Webpage: http://www.studiolegalefusillo.com/
==================================
Alessandro's previous interviews on the Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Radio Show:
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Guest-Page.htm?No=00995
==================================
TOPICS DISCUSSED...
Feature Article • Global Edition
Gun Rights
Apparently the story is confirmed that people carrying guns in Paris DID shoot back at terrorists
Donna Hancock
There were several articles published about this, but strangely enough only Spanish websites and one French website ran the story...
The story about the drug dealers seems to be confirmed.
I found these other articles with the same story:
http://lasillarota.com/detienen-narcos-colombianos-ataque-en-restaurante-de-paris#.Vk5MxHYvfIU
http://lmshow.entravision.com/2015/11/16/sicarios-colombianos-mataron-a-terroristas-en-paris/
Strange enough, only Spanish websites and one French website run the story. If you look it up in English the search doesn't yield any result.
========================================
Feature Article • Global Edition
Gun Rights
Second Amendment For Europe by Alessandro Fusillo (Rome)
Alessandro Fusillo
Individual defense is much stronger and effective than the defense organized by the States. Governments really have a very weak interest in defending their citizens as individuals, i.e. to enhance and protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happines
Written by Alessandro Fusillo
Date: 11-19-2015
Subject: Gun Rights
Second Amendment For Europe
By Alessandro Fusillo
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The terrible facts of Paris still linger in our minds and hearts. Dozens of innocent people murdered without any reason while they were in a restaurant enjoying a dinner with friends, attending a soccer match or a rock concert. It's violence without sense. No one is secure any more. The terrorists can strike everywhere, anytime and, as the news keep repeating, it's impossible for any police force to protect all citizens everywhere against such random violence. Newspapers and televisions keep repeating this depressing message. A feeling of impotence and fear is spreading in an atmosphere of gloom and despondency.
I recently visited Arizona and friends invited me to a very fine show in Phoenix. Visiting a theatre or a concert is a heartwarming experience. It's free market at work. The actors and musicians sell their services and the spectators buy them. Each party gains. It's a win-win game. Especially if like in the USA no public authority is involved and the show makes its revenue from the tickets and not from some kind of subvention.
The theatre in Phoenix was completely sold out and thousands of persons occupied every available seat. Would an attack like that in Paris have been possible or conceivable in Arizona? I don't think so. Why? It's simple, because the people in Arizona are basically armed to their teeth and are allowed to carry concealed arms without a permit. Imagine the three or four terrorists entering the theatre in Phoenix. For sure upon entering the theatre and opening fire they would have murdered many innocent spectators, but they would have faced an armed response by a huge number of persons. What would have happened? The terrorists would have been rightly and justly killed way before they could even think of wreaking such damage and suffering as they did in Paris. In Paris the "special forces" of the police intervened when the terrorists already had run out of ammunition, the only reason why they couldn't continue to murder.
An attack in a restaurant or at a sports venue in Arizona would have had the same predictable outcome. The attacked innocent persons would have opposed an armed response.
By the way, my friend in Arizona, a true man of peace, owns several handguns and two assault rifles. Of course he means no harm, but he rightfully claims his right to defend himself from an attack.
In Europe an armed reaction would have been impossible – and indeed it was as Paris' tragic facts witness – because we have strict laws prohibiting most of the people from owning and carrying around firearms. Hence, we are defenseless. We can't meet violence and coercion with an equal amount of violence. Self-defense is forbidden by law. In fact in most countries a home-owner who shoots an armed trespasser faces big problems and possibly substantial jail time.
No one among the very intelligent mainstream commentators of the Paris terrorist attacks voiced this simple and evident truth: we have the right to defend ourselves; we should be allowed to carry our arms in order to meet violence with violence! As Roman military writer Vegetius famously said: si vis pacem para bellum; if you want peace, be prepared for war. Unfortunately even if what is going on is a war, as French President said, we can't be prepared for it, but we have to put all our trust in a police force that turned out to be incapable of defending the citizens.
This is my proposal. Let's work for a second amendment for Europe. The American Constitution may have a lot of defects and may have not prevented the American government from an abnormal growth that none of the founding fathers could even imagine, but it is nonetheless a beacon of liberty and justice, at least for Europe. Let's adopt the good things from America, let's introduce the Second Amendment in every European constitution. Cives arma ferant: let the citizens bear arms.
Instead, what many commentators said was that the correct reaction should be to suspend the civil liberties, to endow the States and the police forces with even more powers and to imitate the American example of the Patriot Act. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before", like Rahm said. That's the spirit. We don't imitate the good things form America, but the worst.
On the contrary, we should think of ways to take our defense in our own hands. The right to carry arms and to be able to defend ourselves cannot be infringed. It's a fundamental right as important as the right of free speech or the religious freedom. On a closer look it's much more important than the latter fundamental rights because a dead person won't be able to express any thoughts or to profess any religion.
This is especially true, because all police officers and governmental bureaucrats clearly said that they won't be able to defend us in theatres and restaurants form random violence. If they aren't then we should be able to try our own defense.
Moreover, did France's strict firearms laws stop the terrorists from achieving their bloody and inhuman goals? Not at all. If I'm up to evil and wrongdoing I won't be stopped by a law forbidding the use of firearms. Firearms laws simply enhance the black market and drive up the process of illegal arms. Thus, the laws regarding the prohibition of firearms reveal themselves in their utter stupidity and uselessness. Such laws don't prevent criminals from killing and wreaking havoc, but they prevent normal citizens form defending themselves.
Sadly few in Europe will think, let alone voice publicly such a thought. We are so used to our armless condition that thinking out of the box will be very difficult or even impossible.
These considerations may be useful for a reflection about violence from a libertarian point of view. Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism can be summed up in the non-aggression principle. Violence and coercion may not be initiated against other human beings. Thus, homicide, rape, theft and fraud are clearly prohibited by libertarian legal principles because all of these criminal acts entail the initiation of violence against other peaceful human beings.
Yet, libertarianism does not prohibit any kind of violence. Violence aimed at defense from aggressive and coercive acts is admissible. In fact it's a stronghold of liberty against all persons who wish to encroach and limit our freedom. Hence, violence – defensive violence – is part and parcel of libertarian philosophy. A libertarian who is against the initiation of violence may and will resort to violence and force in order to repeal an attack.
Individual defense is much stronger and effective than the defense organized by the States. Governments really have a very weak interest in defending their citizens as individuals, i.e. to enhance and protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A simple look at the way the police forces act is a sufficient proof. Whereas a President or chief of State has a big bodyguard at his disposal and can be reasonably sure that he won't be victim of random violence, the common citizens enjoy almost no protection. Of course this happens because it isn't true that we are equal before the law. Some, like presidents and chiefs of States, are much more equal than the commoners. The latter may be gunned down by terrorist fanatics. At the end of the day, no one really cares.
What the State will not allow is an attack to its officials and to face an armed citizenship that at some point may affirm that it is fed up by the violence and coercion coming from the State and may begin to resist. This is the biggest fear of any government, a much bigger fear than that of a bunch of terrorists. Bearing such truth in mind it's easy to understand why the mainstream media almost unanimously didn't even mention the obvious: if the victims had been armed, the effectiveness of the attack would have been much less and probably there wouldn't have been any attack at all.
Give us our arms and leave us in peace!