I too have a dream…
I too have a dream, shared by many, that life on Earth shall not perish, but rather will thrive forever. I dream that all human beings and kindred species will be valued, loved, and revered. I dream we all may quickly learn to see our oneness with fellow humans, kindred species, and with the living biosphere. I dream this motivates us to come together and act swiftly and fearlessly to protect Earth.
I dream that tanks and armaments are once and for all beaten into ploughshares in service to community-based agro-ecology. And that the human family comes together to return to the land to protect and restore ecosystems, weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, allowing being to continue indefinitely.
My dream envisions a world of artisans, craftsmen and women, and agriculturalists, who create something of value through their hands and minds in partnership with a living Earth. I dream that the Jeffersonian vision of decentralized and autonomous agrarian democracy is fully realized in our time.
I dream for the wisdom to see all human life is sacred, and together we only do as well as those that are worst off. Today’s economic inequity is obscene. Desperate poverty means life remains brutal and short for many (including other species). The task of our times is to extend self-actualized, secure life to others without destroying ecosystems and collapsing the biosphere.
And I dream that we have the intelligence, and compassion, to ask the hard questions and do what must be done. How has “development” – destroying ecosystems, killing non-human life, exploiting others – become the meaning of life? What ever became of aspirations for real human advancement in justice, rights and duties, equity, truth and wisdom, love and peace, ending war, and ecological sustainability? Why is it easier to imagine and acquiesce to the end of the world than to conceive and implement significant change in how our society is organized?
Together we are hurtling through space on a living Earth, which our cumulative greedy, violent, destructive ways are destroying. It is time for a reality check – a close examination and adherence to the bottom-line truths required for continued well-being and even existence.
I dream that self-evident truths are recognized, embraced, and acted upon. We are one human family, there is no god, we are entirely dependent upon ecosystems for life – and they are being wantonly destroyed.
In my dream governments respond to the cascade of science and self-evident truths that ecology, justice, and fairness are perishing. Yet if governments fail to cut emissions and protect ecosystems based upon ecological science and self-evident biosphere decline, they will have abdicated, and it will be up to people power to save ecological being.
In that case, my dream is that based upon the knowledge and wisdom of many, autonomous Earth warriors will arise committed to acting decisively – individually and in small groups through acts of resistance, and together en masse swarming upon the destroyers of being – to embrace Earth’s salvation. I dream that a large system of collaborators will rise to support them.
And I am not the only one thinking these thoughts. It is time for courageous freethinkers to come together and undertake personal acts of clandestine resistance and participate in sufficient mass action to avert global ecosystem collapse and achieve a state of greater equity, justice, and sustainability. That is what development means, a real advancement in well-being for all sentient creatures, as together we live in a way that all can enjoy without destroying the biosphere.
The situation could be so severe that the rods will NEVER be removed. Killer radiation continues to spew into the ocean, land and air without comment or care by anyone in power. This is one big reason why the WHO has said that cancer rates will increase by 70% over the next 16 years.
When I got to the village that we used to fly into, before we would fly onto the ice in a helicopter we used to take a hike in the evening, because it’s light until midnight, out to the ice edge. We could walk to one part of the town and look across the ice edge right in front of us. Now that ice edge is 10 miles back from where it was. So this is one place over one short period of time, but it’s an indication or symptomatic of a retreating ice cover.
The Arctic Ocean is leading the way in acidification. Just as there is a long lag time between increasing greenhouse gas emissions and increased temperature, changes in ocean acidity lag very far behind alterations in atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to the February 2014 issue of Environmental Research Letters. What does an increasingly acidic Arctic Ocean mean for that part of the globe?
I’m not an expert on this. But the ecosystems have evolved under a certain pH structure. And once you change that pH, once you make it more acidic, these systems are vulnerable. And once you make it more acidic, it starts with coral. Not so much in the Arctic, but it starts with elements low on the food chain that have ripple effects all the way up the food chain. So if the smallest creatures are most vulnerable creatures and find themselves in an environment that they can’t survive in, it’s got ripple effects throughout the food chain and ultimately reaches humans as well.
What concerns you most about what you studied in the Arctic?
The significant loss of ice in Greenland has me concerned about sea level rise. The loss of Arctic sea ice has me very concerned about its implications for ocean circulation. The climate patterns that we’ve come to rely on for our own regional climate characteristics which affect the crops we grow, how we prepare for storms or flooding or drought and what not, and then third, the energy balance. As we lose ice the rate of warming on the earth continues to accelerate.
“There’s no question what an added meter or two of sea level rise coming from the Greenland ice sheet would mean for coastal regions. It’s very straightforward.”
Of those three, I think the sea level rise is the most concerning. Not because it’s the biggest threat, although it is an enormous threat, but because it is the most irrefutable outcome of the ice loss. We can debate about what the loss of sea ice would mean for ocean circulation. We can debate what a warming Arctic means for global and regional climate. But there’s no question what an added meter or two of sea level rise coming from the Greenland ice sheet would mean for coastal regions. It’s very straightforward.
Some scientists are predicting the Arctic will begin to see periods where it is ice-free in the summer as early as next summer. The US Navy has released a study predicting this will begin by 2016. Whenever it begins to happen, and as it becomes ice-free for longer periods during the summer, what will this do to planetary weather systems?
We don’t know for certain. What I will say is this is a major perturbation to the climate system. Humankind has never known an ice-free Arctic as far as we can tell. You remove this cap of ice that helps keep us cool and maintain the Thermohaline circulation, things like the Gulf Stream and other northern latitude ocean circulation features, and we don’t really know what the outcome would be.
We just know that we’re effectively taking a sledgehammer to the climate system and in my view it’s scary and insufficient to simply hope for the best.
What’s happening is that temperatures in the Arctic are even rising faster than they are at the Equator. The falling temperature difference between the two is deforming the Jet Stream and slowing the speed at which the Jet Stream is circumnavigating the globe. Waves are stretched out vertically, making cold air move down from the Arctic through the middle of North America, while warm air is moving up from the South into the Arctic, creating huge temperature anomalies in many places, as illustrated by the animation below.
All available data indicates that the US military has been experimenting with weather modification for over 60 years. Their interest and involvement with climate engineering is all about power and control. There is nothing benevolent in this equation in regard to the motives behind manipulating Earth’s life support systems though some sources will try to convince us otherwise. A document drafted in 1966, recently located from the NASA archives, outlines the ongoing and expanding US weather modification programs at that time. These programs were well funded having budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars even then.
So what is the US military and its NATO allies doing to mitigate the risk of climate change? They are fully engaged in massively destructive global geoengineering programs. SRM (solar radiation management) and SAG (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) are likely only a part of the lethal aircraft spraying programs going on above our heads day in and day out. Those in the military that carry out the climate engineering programs are being told they are doing something for the common good. This could not be further from the truth and it is imperative that our military brothers and sisters wake up to the fact that they are literally carrying out weather and biological warfare against their own countrymen.
The links below illustrate a few of the existing documents and articles regarding the US military and its urgent concern over the state of global climate. These links are of great relevance.
“The American Lifestyle is not negotiable” Dick Cheney
“War Will not end in our Lifetimes” Dick Cheney
Of the 7.7 million bpd of crude oil imports, 3.5 million bpd (45 percent of the total) came from OPEC countries. Saudi Arabia was our largest OPEC supplier at 1.3 million bpd (17 percent of the crude import total). But our biggest supplier of crude continues to be Canada. The 2.6 million bpd of crude we got from Canada in 2013 represents a 66 percent increase in the past 10 years and made up a third of US crude oil imports in 2013.
Top 10 Sources of US Crude Oil Imports in 2013 (million barrels per day).
Related Article: Black Gold: U.S. States Where Oil Is King
While Canada has become a much more important source of US crude oil, imports from Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Iraq, Nigeria, and Angola have all seen double-digit declines over the past decade. These import declines are a result of a nearly 2 million bpd drop in our import demand, plus Canada’s increasing share of our business.
Why Do Events in Iraq Affect US Oil Prices?
The question often arises, given Iraq’s relatively small contribution to the US oil supply picture, why events there should impact prices here. As I explained last week in The Oil Markets as a Thanksgiving Turkey, Iraq’s oil production has risen 8 years in a row, and makes up 3.7 percent of the world’s oil supply. We imported 340,000 bpd of oil from Iraq in 2013, less than half of the all-time high of 795,000 bpd we imported from Iraq in 2001.
But over the past eight years, while Iraqi oil production was increasing by 1.3 million bpd, global oil consumption has increased by 6.9 million bpd. The increases in production in Iraq, along with the even greater production gains in the US, have struggled to keep up with rising demand. This has meant little spare capacity in the system, and with a globally traded commodity like crude oil, potential disruptions in supply make traders nervous and they bid prices higher.
Thus, even if we imported no oil at all from Iraq, oil that might be removed from the global supply tends to have a disproportionate impact on the price with supply and demand in such tight balance. There is no better illustration of this than Canada, a net exporter of crude oil. They are seeing gasoline prices hit record highs, showing that one doesn’t have to be a net importer of oil to feel the pain of higher oil prices.
As the EPA appears poised to OK new herbicide duo containing 2,4-D, watchdogs sound alarm.
by Andrea Germanos
Over half a million people including scientists, doctors and food safety advocates have urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not to approve a new herbicide mix proposed by Dow because they say it would open the floodgates to a vast increase in toxic spraying that puts public health and the environmental at risk.
At question is Dow AgroSciences’ Enlist Duo herbicide, a mix of 2,4-D and glyphosate—the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup—made to be used on 2,4-D ready corn and soybean crops. Dow states that its proprietary blend “will control and help prevent further development of herbicide-resistant weeds” on the genetically engineered crops.
Food safety, environmental and health watchdogs, however, say that it’s an unsustainable and harmful approach to dealing with the problem of herbicide-resistant weeds, or “superweeds,” that exist because of the systemic issues underlying the “genetically engineered crop strategy” that keeps farmers on a “pesticide treadmill.”
If you don’t know what aspartame is by now it’s about time you pay attention. It’s in about 6000 products currently, so you might want to watch out.
Their is much controversy surrounding one of the world’s most popular artificial sweeteners, aspartame (aka NutraSweet, aminosweet, Equal). This has continued for about 30 years after the chemical was first pushed through the regulatory process by big pharmaceutical interest, despite all the well-documented side effects. Still today many people are unaware of the aspartames’s horrible history, not to mention what aspartame is made from and how it affects the body and brain. Many people think aspartame is just another FDA-approved sugar alternative that must be safe, otherwise it wouldn’t be on the market, right? Wrong. Truth about aspartame is much more dark, especially how the chemical sweetener got market approval. There’s is also much more to the aspartame story that you may have never heard before. You can thank the government’s conflict of interest with powerful drug companies. Below are 5 important reasons to never consume anything with aspartame ever again:
Let’s add California and Arizona to the list as well.
|“Google is taking a Bloomberg inspired step toward “curbing gun violence”. Once again demonstrating the level of ignorance that is prevalent in liberal corporate settings, the software company has decided to expand their ban on firearm-related content.
Right. Google (ya know, the company that tracks your every move online) is trying to keep us safe.”
by Paul Fassa
From Africa there have been stories of mothers being hunted down by armed soldiers as they try to escape villages with their children to avoid having them receive oral polio vaccines (OPV), known to produce adverse reactions, including polio itself. This might be expected in third world countries, but the same essential tyranny has also been occurring in America.
As an adult, you can still manage to avoid toxic cancer treatments and toxic vaccinations, but if you attempt to seek alternative cancer treatments for your child, you risk your freedom and endanger your family.
You could be charged as a criminal and your child will be abducted by a local Child Protection Services (CPS) agent, and then forced by court order to undergo chemo. Gun point medicine includes vaccinations too.
Actual Forced Chemo Cases
Jim and Donna Navarro’s child Thomas was diagnosed with brain cancer when he was four. Donna was a former RN with emergency room and military experience. She knew chemotherapy was very toxic. She and Jim agreed to allow partial tumor removal with surgery while looking for a safer yet effective treatment.
This overwhelming yet cleverly obscured phenomenon of extremely patient and devious long range planning by the changing guard of the occult driven “powers that be” is of paramount importance.
This “patience of the planners” aspect eventually becomes evident to any sincere researcher, and literally haunts and even taunts with its seductive perfidy. Even putting your finger on this slippery subject is a chore, since we don’t think like they do and we have a hard time even conceiving of such inter-generational, pathological conniving, the complete fulfillment of which most of whom would knowingly not see in their lifetimes.
It’s beyond us. And that’s the key. They’re not normal. Something very powerful and sinister is driving them.
Fully developed conscious humans wouldn’t plot and scheme for generations to take over the world at any cost to its inhabitants. Most humans inherently trust and positively contribute in conscious, natural ways, endeavoring to pass on to their progeny loving wisdom and a better world. We natural born world citizens believe in the decency of humanity and that natural and spiritual laws are clearly delineated via the simplest observations of the world around us and the revelations of our awakened conscience.
Love and truth are not all that complicated.
Oregon police plan ‘no refusal’ blood-draws for drivers
2014 06 26
Police are announcing a blitz of forced ‘no-refusal’ blood-draw warrants for drivers this holiday weekend. In Oregon, and many other states, drivers that are suspected by police of driving under the influence are presented with a choice: submit to a Breathalyzer search or lose your driver’s license for a year. From a driver’s perspective, however, submitting to a Breathalyzer presents some problems. …
Gary Harrington, the Oregon man convicted of collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his rural property surrendered Wednesday morning to begin serving his 30-day, jail sentence in Medford, Ore.
“I’m sacrificing my liberty so we can stand up as a country and stand for our liberty,” Harrington told a small crowd of people gathered outside of the Jackson County (Ore.) Jail.
Several people held signs that showed support for Harrington as he was taken inside the jail.
Harrington was found guilty two weeks ago of breaking a 1925 law for having, what state water managers called “three illegal reservoirs” on his property. He was convicted of nine misdemeanors, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined over $1500 for collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his property.
Panopticon is highest rated and most viewed Dutch documentary of last year. A free documentary about the rise of the surveillance state by Peter Vlemmix. Broadcasted in several countries and hundredthousands online views
Synopsis: Control on our daily lives increases and privacy is disappearing. How is this exactly happening and in which way will it effect all our lives?
For the first time, a whistle-blower from within the DIA complex confirms the existence of a massive deep underground military facility located beneath the airport The Denver International Airport (DIA) is nestled on a vast 53 square mile complex and is owned and operated by the City of Denver. In fact, it’s the largest airport in the United States, in …
Dripping with testosterone, US police departments are militarizing as if preparing to be in a war zone.
Fifty years ago this month, the United States began raining down bombs on Laos, in what would become the largest bombing campaign in history. From June 1964 to March 1973, the United States dropped at least two million tons of bombs on the small, landlocked Southeast Asian country. That is the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years — more than was dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II. The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs, which had about a 30 percent failure rate when they fell from American planes over large swaths of Laos. Experts estimate that Laos is littered with as many as 80 million “bombies,” or bomblets — baseball-sized bombs found inside cluster bombs. Since the bombing stopped four decades ago, tens of thousands of people have been injured or killed as a result. We are joined by Karen Coates and Jerry Redfern, co-authors of “Eternal Harvest: The Legacy of American Bombs in Laos.”
Unexpected new allies are surfacing in the fight against the anti-democratic Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a secretive and extreme deal that experts say would make the Internet more censored, expensive, and policed.
With the next round of negotiations imminent – taking place in Ottawa from July 3-12 – Hollywood bigwigs including Jay Leno and Ellen Degenereshave implored the community to boycott an iconic Beverly Hills hotel owned by the Sultan of Brunei, one of the original signatories to the TPP in 2005, and the location of a recent round of TPP negotiations that took place last August.
The boycott emerged following an announcement from the Sultan that Brunei would beginphasing in a harsh new penal code, and has celebrities and other Beverly Hills locals calling on the U.S. government to expel Brunei from the trade agreement.
Hollywood is only the latest to join the growing list of opponents to Brunei’s inclusion in the TPP deal. Already, 119 members of congress have signed a letter demanding that Brunei be expelled from the agreement due to harsh punishments for homosexuality and adultery that the United Nations has condemned as contravening international law and has called “cruel and inhuman.”
(…Stop for a moment and think. If we had just fought to the death to “hang together or hang separately” to break away from Britain and Monarchy rule, would we then go out and design our “Indpendent” flag in the exact same colors, red, white and blue, of the British Flag (with the Red cross inside)???? the same colors as the new Soviet Union flag (red, white and blue)????)
As the United States government continues its war against the nation created in 1779, it has become all too obvious that many Americans, although they will talk about the Bill of Rights, remain unclear as to what it says and what it means. Partly that is due to endless government and corporate media spin, and partly because the language spoken in this nation has changed so much from the time of the writing of the Constitution to the present day, that many people are confused as to what was actually intended. On the occasion of the New York Times publishing an op-ed calling for the abandonment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I offer some clarification.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Founding fathers saw how religion, blended with civil power, led to abuses of the people. The disagreement between the Catholics and Protestants, expressed through the armies of rival factions, had almost destroyed the British Empire. The Founding Fathers understood that their very new and still fragile nation would not survive any internal religious wars. Many colonists had come to the New World to escape religious intolerance, and the Founding Fathers understood that the only way to guarantee religious freedom for all was to deny civil power to all religions. That is the meaning of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” although it is often misquoted by church leaders as “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion” as justification for favorable tax practices. What this provision of the First Amendment meant was that no one religion would receive preferential treatment over any other. There would be no official state religion of the new nation.
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” — Thomas Paine
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” — Thomas Jefferson
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” — John Adams
“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” — Thomas Jefferson
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” — James Madison
The provision of the First Amendment regarding free speech and a free press was intended not to protect lies, as many politicians and media like to proclaim. Lies do not need protection, nor should lies be protected. The First Amendment protection for freedom of speech and the press was to protect the truth from those in power for whom the truth was a threat, to protect the truth from those who would rule by lies and deceptions.
The provision of the First Amendment regarding the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances was intended to guarantee that when We The People spoke, the government would be forced to listen. And while the government might not choose to respond to the grievances, the First Amendment denies them the ability to pretend the grievances do not exist. This provision was based on the British government’s practice of banning public protests, in order to pretend that their subjects were happy and content, because nobody spoke out.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In the days when this amendment was written, the militia meant every adult able to bear arms. The militia was not the regular army. The term “regulated” was not a legal term at that time, but a mechanical one. A regulator was any mechanical device used to make something work better. A spin-ball governor was used to “regulate” the speed of a steam engine, as one example. A “Well Regulated” militia meant a militia with all the proper equipment needed to do their job better. That meant good weapons with good sights. After all, what use is a militia if they cannot hit what they are aiming at? And note that the word used is “arms”. Not just “firearms”, but “arms”, meaning every possible weapon that might be used in a military confrontation between the government and the people.
The Second Amendment is not about target shooting or hunting. At the time, hunting was indispensable for survival in the new nation, especially when food crops were unavailable. To deprive the people of their hunting weapons was to condemn them to death by starvation in the winter months. Military commanders of the time viewed hunting weapons as off limits. When Lieutenant Colonel George Monro surrendered Fort William Henry to Major General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm during the French and Indian Wars, the civilian militia serving the British were allowed to take their weapons with them when they left. When the British marched on Concord, triggering the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the start of the American Revolution, it was to seize military arms, not hunting weapons.
By the very inclusion of the terms “militia”, “security”, and “free state” it is clear that the Second Amendment is referring to military arms. The Founding Fathers understood that it was only because the people had been in possession of military arms that they were able to resist the economic enslavement of King George’s Currency Act, created under pressure from the then-private central Bank of England. Absent those arms in the hands of the people, the banker-imposed poverty would have continued indefinitely.
“The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” — Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father
The Founding Fathers, while acknowledging the need for some form of government, knew all too well from thousands of years of human history that government is not automatically the friend of the governed, and had to be kept under tight control.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” — George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790
Following the Revolution, the Founding Fathers created a nation with power and authority reserved to the people. In order to avoid despotic rule, the government was broken into three separate parts, so that the natural tendency for government to seek more power would be turned against itself and not the people. Strict limits were imposed on the government itself, to keep the government the servant of the people.
“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do it all on their separate and individual capacities.” — Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
The Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment because they understood that any system of government is only as good as the people who are in that government. They understood that political power attracts the very sort of people who should never be allowed to have it. And they understood that no matter how limited government was at its creation, over time all governments tend towards oligarchy, cease to be the servant of the people, and seek to become the masters.
“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” – Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)
In short, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is and was ever intended to be about protecting We The People from the government of the United States.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This amendment was created by the Founding Fathers as a response to the British practice of random searches of homes, businesses, and persons, again as an attempt to terrorize the colonists into silence and inaction as the Currency Act looted the profit of their labors for the Bank of England. The intention of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent the government from entering your home, place of business, or searching your person simply because they wanted to, or as part of a general campaign of intimidation. Evidence of actual wrong-doing, and not just disagreement with the government, had to be presented by the police to the courts, for a warrant for such invasion to be granted. Although neither the telegraph or telephone existed at the time the Fourth Amendment was ratified, under the 9th Amendment, 4th Amendment protections extend to new technologies. In the present day that includes computers and cell phones, although the government, attempting to justify the NSA spying on all Americans takes the position they do not.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is one of the most important Amendments, yet one of the most overlooked. This Amendment makes it clear that the people have additional rights over and above those enumerated here, and that the non-inclusion in the Constitution cannot be used as an argument denying those rights. This Amendment was added by the Founding Fathers who were well aware that the future would bring changes to the world which they could neither predict nor prepare for. Among their own members was Ben Franklin, whose own discoveries and inventions made it clear the world was changing in unpredictable ways. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that the people would need and automatically enjoy additional rights that arose as the nation grew, and that the government was not allowed to deny the people basic rights simply because new methods of communication and industry were developed. This, it can be argued that the current government’s insistence that electronic mail not enjoy the same Constitutional protections as paper mail is a clear violation of the 9th Amendment.