Tag Archives: Government

Martial Law Masquerading As Law And Order: The Police State’s Language Of Force

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”

– Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)

Forget everything you’ve ever been taught about free speech in America.

It’s all a lie.

What is this language of force?

Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.

This is not the language of freedom.

This is not even the language of law and order.

This is the language of force.

Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in public and challenge the status quo.

This police overkill isn’t just happening in troubled hot spots such as Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, Md., where police brutality gave rise to civil unrest, which was met with a militarized show of force that caused the whole stew of discontent to bubble over into violence.

A decade earlier, the NYPD engaged in mass arrests of peaceful protesters, bystanders, legal observers and journalists who had gathered for the 2004 Republican National Convention. The protesters were subjected to blanket fingerprinting and detained for more than 24 hours at a “filthy, toxic pier that had been a bus depot.” That particular exercise in police intimidation tactics cost New York City taxpayers nearly $18 million for what would become the largest protest settlement in history.

Demonstrators, journalists and legal observers who had gathered in North Dakota to peacefully protest the Dakota Access Pipeline reported being pepper sprayed, beaten with batons, and strip searched by police.

In the college town of Charlottesville, Va., protesters who took to the streets to peacefully express their disapproval of a planned KKK rally were held at bay by implacable lines of gun-wielding riot police. Only after a motley crew of Klansmen had been safely escorted to and from the rally by black-garbed police did the assembled army of city, county and state police declare the public gathering unlawful and proceed to unleash canisters of tear gas on the few remaining protesters to force them to disperse.

More recently, this militarized exercise in intimidation—complete with an armored vehicle and an army of police drones—reared its ugly head in the small town of Dahlonega, Ga., where 600 state and local militarized police clad in full riot gear vastly outnumbered the 50 protesters and 150 counterprotesters who had gathered to voice their approval/disapproval of the Trump administration’s policies.

To be clear, this is the treatment being meted out to protesters across the political spectrum.

The police state does not discriminate.

As a USA Today article notes, “Federally arming police with weapons of war silences protesters across all justice movements… People demanding justice, demanding accountability or demanding basic human rights without resorting to violence, should not be greeted with machine guns and tanks. Peaceful protest is democracy in action. It is a forum for those who feel disempowered or disenfranchised. Protesters should not have to face intimidation by weapons of war.”

A militarized police response to protesters poses a danger to all those involved, protesters and police alike. In fact, militarization makes police more likely to turn to violence to solve problems.

As a study by researchers at Stanford University makes clear, “When law enforcement receives more military materials — weapons, vehicles and tools — it becomes … more likely to jump into high-risk situations. Militarization makes every problem — even a car of teenagers driving away from a party — look like a nail that should be hit with an AR-15 hammer.”

Even the color of a police officer’s uniform adds to the tension. As the Department of Justice reports, “Some research has suggested that the uniform color can influence the wearer—with black producing aggressive tendencies, tendencies that may produce unnecessary conflict between police and the very people they serve.”

You want to turn a peaceful protest into a riot?

Bring in the militarized police with their guns and black uniforms and warzone tactics and “comply or die” mindset. Ratchet up the tension across the board. Take what should be a healthy exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turn it into a lesson in authoritarianism.

Mind you, those who respond with violence are playing into the government’s hands perfectly.

The government wants a reason to crack down and lock down and bring in its biggest guns.

They want us divided. They want us to turn on one another.

They want us powerless in the face of their artillery and armed forces.

They want us silent, servile and compliant.

They certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully.

And they definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

You know how one mayor characterized the tear gassing of protesters by riot police? He called it an “unfortunate event.”

Unfortunate, indeed.

You know what else is unfortunate?

It’s unfortunate that these overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation and fear.

It’s unfortunate that “we the people” have become the proverbial nails to be hammered into submission by the government and its vast armies.

And it’s particularly unfortunate that government officials—especially police—seem to believe that anyone who wears a government uniform (soldier, police officer, prison guard) must be obeyed without question.

In other words, “we the people” are the servants in the government’s eyes rather than the masters.

The government’s rationale goes like this:

Do exactly what I say, and we’ll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It’s your choice: Comply, or die.

Indeed, as Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:

If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.

This is not the rhetoric of a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

This is not the attitude of someone who understands, let alone respects, free speech.

And this is certainly not what I would call “community policing,” which is supposed to emphasize the importance of the relationship between the police and the community they serve.

Indeed, this is martial law masquerading as law and order.

Any police officer who tells you that he needs tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray to do his job shouldn’t be a police officer in a constitutional republic.

All that stuff in the First Amendment (about freedom of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances) sounds great in theory. However, it amounts to little more than a hill of beans if you have to exercise those freedoms while facing down an army of police equipped with deadly weapons, surveillance devices, and a slew of laws that empower them to arrest and charge citizens with bogus “contempt of cop” charges (otherwise known as asserting your constitutional rights).

It doesn’t have to be this way.

There are other, far better models to follow.

For instance, back in 2011, the St. Louis police opted to employ a passive response to Occupy St. Louis activists. First, police gave the protesters nearly 36 hours’ notice to clear the area, as opposed to the 20 to 60 minutes’ notice other cities gave. Then, as journalist Brad Hicks reports, when the police finally showed up:

They didn’t show up in riot gear and helmets, they showed up in shirt sleeves with their faces showing. They not only didn’t show up with SWAT gear, they showed up with no unusual weapons at all, and what weapons they had all securely holstered. They politely woke everybody up. They politely helped everybody who was willing to remove their property from the park to do so. They then asked, out of the 75 to 100 people down there, how many people were volunteering for being-arrested duty? Given 33 hours to think about it, and 10 hours to sweat it over, only 27 volunteered. As the police already knew, those people’s legal advisers had advised them not to even passively resist, so those 27 people lined up to be peacefully arrested, and were escorted away by a handful of cops. The rest were advised to please continue to protest, over there on the sidewalk … and what happened next was the most absolutely brilliant piece of crowd control policing I have heard of in my entire lifetime. All of the cops who weren’t busy transporting and processing the voluntary arrestees lined up, blocking the stairs down into the plaza. They stood shoulder to shoulder. They kept calm and silent. They positioned the weapons on their belts out of sight. They crossed their hands low in front of them, in exactly the least provocative posture known to man. And they peacefully, silently, respectfully occupied the plaza, using exactly the same non-violent resistance techniques that the protesters themselves had been trained in.

As Forbes concluded, “This is a more humane, less costly, and ultimately more productive way to handle a protest. This is great proof that police can do it the old fashioned way – using their brains and common sense instead of tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray – and have better results.”

It can be done.

Police will not voluntarily give up their gadgets and war toys and combat tactics, however. Their training and inclination towards authoritarianism has become too ingrained.

If we are to have any hope of dismantling the police state, change must start locally, community by community. Citizens will have to demand that police de-escalate and de-militarize. And if the police don’t listen, contact your city councils and put the pressure on them.

Remember, they are supposed to work for us. They might not like hearing it—they certainly won’t like being reminded of it—but we pay their salaries with our hard-earned tax dollars.

“We the people” have got to stop accepting the lame excuses trotted out by police as justifications for their inexcusable behavior.

Either “we the people” believe in free speech or we don’t.

Either we live in a constitutional republic or a police state.

We have rights.

As Justice William O. Douglas advised in his dissent in Colten v. Kentucky, “we need not stay docile and quiet” in the face of authority.

The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.

Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).

This emphasis on nonviolence goes both ways. Somehow, the government keeps overlooking this important element in the equation.

There is nothing safe or secure or free about exercising your rights with a rifle pointed at you.

The police officer who has been trained to shoot first and ask questions later, oftentimes based only on their highly subjective “feeling” of being threatened, is just as much of a danger—if not more—as any violence that might erupt from a protest rally.

Compliance is no guarantee of safety.

Then again, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peopleif we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to tyranny.

The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.

Indeed, had Christ merely complied with the Roman police state, there would have been no crucifixion and no Christian religion. Had Gandhi meekly fallen in line with the British Empire’s dictates, the Indian people would never have won their independence.

Had Martin Luther King Jr. obeyed the laws of his day, there would have been no civil rights movement. And if the founding fathers had marched in lockstep with royal decrees, there would have been no American Revolution.

We must adopt a different mindset and follow a different path if we are to alter the outcome of these interactions with police.

The American dream was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.

It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still we must try.

Source: ZeroHedge

How The FBI And DOJ Criminalize Honest Citizens While Allowing The Criminals In Washington To Get Away With Treason

https://i0.wp.com/www.naturalnews.com/gallery/640/Business/Business-People-Puppets-String.jpg

(NaturalNews) Regardless of your political affiliation, this is a must-read article because it describes in raw, naked detail how the FBI / DOJ justice scam really operates in America. Remember, thanks to the absolute corruption of Washington D.C., “justice” really means “just us.” In other words, the politically connected elite write laws and carry out the selective prosecution of laws solely to serve their own self-interest.

And if you’re not part of the politically connected elite, you’re automatically guilty and will sooner or later be prosecuted under some wildly exaggerated, arcane rendition of a law that’s never applied to people like Hillary Clinton.

Here’s exactly how the FBI and DOJ carry out their “justice theater” that’s essentially nothing more than gross injustice that exists in violation of the rule of law.

Step 1: Generate hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations that ensnare anyone who might be targeted for scrutiny

The first step in achieving selecting prosecution is to pass so many laws that no human being can possibly be innocent of them all.

Read the book Three Felonies a Day to learn the startling truth that the average American unknowingly commits three felony crimes each day (thanks to all the insane laws on the books).

The point is that no ordinary person can survive scrutiny without being arrested, prosecuted and jailed.

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/screen-shot-2016-07-05-at-10-46-50-pm.png?w=750&h=464

Step 2: Practice selective prosecution to target your political enemies while looking the other way for your political friends

Since everybody is guilty of three felonies a day, the job of the politically-motivated FBI or DOJ simply becomes one of choosing whom to target.

Since every person in America can be brought up on criminal charges if their actions are sufficiently scrutinized, the goal of criminalizing the government’s enemies is achieved in the simplest manner possible: Focusing surveillance and scrutiny on those individuals the political regime wants to imprison.

And now that the federal government has all your financial records, email records, search engine queries, web surfing activities and even your careless social media posts, they can easily easily link you to any number of crimes you unknowingly committed by violating the multitude of confusing laws you didn’t even know existed.

While people like Hillary Clinton get away with treason by claiming they “didn’t mean to do it,” when the FBI comes knocking on your door, they’ll calmly explain to you that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

See, laws are for the little people like you and me… not for the Washington elite.

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13615355_1206202882732483_7249814043789875030_n.jpg?w=750&h=485

Step 3: If your political friends happen to get caught breaking the law, refuse to prosecute them… problem solved!

Despite the best efforts of the corrupted mainstream media to cover up the criminal behavior of the political establishment, every once in a while some member of the political elite gets caught engaging in a violation of law that’s so heinous, it can’t be swept under the rug.

What to do in such situations? Just “pull a James Comey” and announce to the world that you refuse to prosecute the person who violated those laws. After all, prosecutorial discretion means that “career prosecutors” who work for DOJ can decide to ignore the criminality of all their friends.

And who are their friends? Remember that all the prosecutors who work for DOJ are paid by the government. They know where their paychecks come from, and they fully realize that if they ever attempted to prosecute someone with sufficient power in government, their own careers would be destroyed.

Thus, the primary function of the DOJ becomes one of suppressing the sheeple while protecting the criminal class of Washington political operatives.

Step 4: Arm up all federal departments with military weapons while calling for the complete disarmament of the population

Another important step in accelerating the FBI / DOJ war against the American people is to call for the mass disarmament of the citizenry while ramping up the paramilitary wings of every major government agency with a huge influx of military weapons.

Today, right now, the EPA runs its own paramilitary organization, complete with weapons of war to be trained upon U.S. citizens. From Circanews.com:

The U.S. Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service doesn’t seem like a Wild West sort of federal agency since its biologists mostly check on the human health impact of animal and plant species.

But it reported buying $4.7 million in high-powered weapons, ammunition and military gear during the last decade, including shotguns, night vision goggles, and propane cannons, according to federal purchasing records reviewed by the nonpartisan government spending watchdog openthebooks.com.

It turns out that U.S. federal agencies are spending between $150 million and $200 million per year on military gear and weapons. While this is happening, the very same government criminals who are granted selective immunity against prosecution for treasonous acts are all over the mainstream media calling for the complete disarmament of the population.

All the guns in America, it turns out, belong solely in the hands of the government… according to government. Funny how that always leads to genocide and tyranny, isn’t it?

Step 5: To sweep up even more citizens into prosecutions, plot acts of domestic terrorism, then recruit low-IQ citizens who you then “catch” in the act

Here’s an irrefutable fact about the FBI that very few people realize is true: The agency routinely plans domestic terrorism attacks and draws up the plans and equipment to carry them out. FBI agents then run around the bad parts of town, recruiting hapless (and sometimes even HOMELESS) victims to carry out those acts of terrorism so they can be conveniently “caught in the act.”

Right before the bomb goes off, the FBI swoops in and declares victory for “stopping domestic terrorism.” Yet, in all these cases, it was the FBI that masterminded the acts of terror in the first place.

We have extensively documented this fraudulent phenomenon here on Natural News, including in this article review of the book “The Terrorist Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terror.” The New York Times has ever covered the FBI’s fake terror plots, believe it or not.

Also, check out these stories: FBI intercepts its own terrorist plot against US Capitol, Pentagon and FBI halts terror plot dreamed up by the FBI, then claims victory against terrorism.

Like almost everything else done by the fraudulent federal government in America, the FBI is mostly a theatrical production company engaged in elaborate street theater. We now know that most of the so-called “crimes” that are halted by the FBI actually consist of drugged-out patsies who were recruited by the FBI to carry out FBI-inspired terror attacks. Meanwhile, any actual criminals who commit actual crimes — like Hillary Clinton — are given a free pass even when their crimes violate national security.

The FBI, much like the DOJ and every other federal agency, has become a joke… a hollow shadow of its former self and the laughing stock of informed citizens everywhere. The public perception now is that the only crimes the FBI seems to be able to stop are those crimes its own agents dreamed up in the first place. Yet the agency can’t seem to nail the worst criminals of all… the ones in power in Washington who commit the most heinous crimes against the entire nation by selling out the White House to foreign interests.

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/torches-and-pitchforks.jpg?w=500

Why the citizens are nearing REVOLT

This is how it all works today in the corrupt America we are all desperately trying to save from sinking into despotism. The rule of law has been abandoned everywhere in Washington, and now the agencies of the federal government clearly exist for no other reason than to consolidate power in Washington, no matter what methods of tyranny and totalitarianism must be unleashed against the citizenry.

Those citizens, it turns out, are nearing a state of mass revolt. The obvious criminality in Washington has gone too far. The cover-ups are too numerous. The weaponization of government against innocent people is modeled after totalitarian regimes that almost always end in genocide. Today in America, there are journalists who sit in prison for no reason other than the fact that the government did not like what they reported. There are ranchers in prison who were convicted of the same “crime” the BLM carries out routinely (accidentally burning too much acreage in a controlled burn of rural ranch land). There are whistleblowers in prison who tried to warn the public, but the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the other presidential administrations combined… across the entire history of America.

The last straw is now the government’s brazen attempt to completely disarm the citizenry — an effort aided by the truly retarded verbal grunts of Hollywood morons like Matt Damon (who now insists that only government officials should have guns, not citizens). This effort will be accelerated in the near future with larger and more numerous false flag shootings, staged by the same theatrical production agencies that already stage fake terror plots to claim victory for “stopping terrorism.” Do you think you know the real story of the Sandy Hook massacre? Watch this video to learn about the ACTORS who played key roles as both parents and FBI swat team members (yes, the same guy plays both roles in all the media coverage).

Elaborate theater to weave a prison for your mind

It’s all theater, friends. The media, the FBI, the DOJ, the U.S. Senate, the Federal Reserve and even the rule of law. It’s all elaborate theater carried out as a prison for your mind, to keep you occupied, confused and manipulated so that you never figure out the greater truth that threatens the entire corrupt establishment.

What greater truth is that? The simple fact that all government power is granted by the People and can be instantly taken away by the People with nothing more than a consensus decision. Government and the rule of law exist as nothing more than consensus mental constructs — structural delusions of the mind that are widely shared and thus believed to be real. But government can collapse in an instant when the fraudulent promises of government suddenly collapse in the minds of the populace. Hence the need for drastic, elaborate financial theater to create the illusion of a booming economy even as we teeter on the verge of global, systemic economic collapse.

(By the way, “faith” in fiat currency is also a mental construct that can be shattered in an instant. The only reason another person accepts your green paper dollars as money is because you both share a false believe in the agreed-upon underlying value of the digits printed in cheap ink on near-worthless fiber. If that illusion of value is shattered in both your minds, dollars immediately collapse into worthlessness because they have no tangible value. All fiat money systems are run entirely on FAITH… and faith is fleeting when it comes to money.)

The illusion of government power depends on the continued indoctrination and intimidation of the enslaved masses

Those who run government fully realize that they are a tiny minority who rule only by fiat. Their rule depends entirely on the masses believing in the delusions played in for their minds by the ruling elite. If that delusion were to ever be shattered and the people realized how they were being fraudulently manipulated and exploited, the political elite wouldn’t survive even 24 hours (and there would be a dire shortage of rope in the D.C. area in particular).

That’s the bigger, deeper picture of what’s really happening around you right now. You are living in a nation that’s run by a corrupt, criminal elite who carry out campaigns of elaborate delusion to enslave and manipulate the clueless masses who keep robotically voting for their very own slave masters. Any person who attempts to free the slaves is deemed an enemy of the state and is subjected to selective prosecutorial scrutiny to have them imprisoned (as described above).

In fact, the only reason I am still allowed to function as a relatively free citizen in this nation is because my articles simply aren’t popular enough to warrant the effort of oppression. I’m relatively safe, in other words, because my reach is so tiny compared to the mainstream media. Interestingly, that also means that you who are reading this are among the top 1% of the most informed individuals in the world. You are reading and learning about these eye opening, fundamental truths that 99% of the population will never encounter (partly because the 99% don’t have the mental fortitude to even face reality in the first place, since believing in popular fairy tales requires no real effort… and besides, there are Oreo cookies that need licking, right?).

As long as the system can continue to censor my message and keep it restricted to less than 1% of the population — via Google and Facebook censorship, mostly — then I will be “allowed” to continue my work because it doesn’t legitimately threaten the establishment in any serious way. But if my message ever somehow explodes in popularity and breaks through 10% of the population, then I would be in serious danger and would be silenced in one way or another. Remember, selective prosecution can target ANYONE and indict them for unknowingly committing three felonies a day.

Have no fear, however: My message of truth is not of much interest to 99% of the population. They are far too happy in their Golden Corral, GMO-infested junk food eat-a-thon fairy tale illusions to ever bother investigating reality. There is virtually zero risk to the establishment that my words will ever be embraced by more than a tiny fraction of the population. Deep truth, it seems, has never really been that popular in delusional societies.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming…

by Mike Adams | Natural News

Playing The Government’s Game: When It Comes To Violence, We All Lose

 https://i0.wp.com/api.ning.com/files/6A05RJELsOArr-QJZkN2S-zKiN774*PtDxqE2n-HD9bc2BLODdE2jne48WcuZjiO*3DATB6Adbc6Y4RvD0hFYaCp1mIxa9nQ/ARM.jpg

“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”  – John Lennon

Yes, the government is corrupt.

Yes, the system is broken. By broken, I mean it’s “dysfunctional, gridlocked, and, in general, incapable of doing what needs to be done.”

Yes, the government is out of control and overreaching on almost every front.

Yes, the government’s excesses—pork barrel spending, endless wars, etc.—are pushing the nation to a breaking point.

https://i0.wp.com/api.ning.com/files/nCeZ1KiqCuZgh4Sq4-34-irUkdePcngOyQLzUD4mlwzCV79tir6YqhTYgdPGUo315wqzYSckmGgdx8HLtiGpBbsWn2TqcUE4/newAUG.jpg

Yes, many Americans are afraid. Who wouldn’t be afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government?

Yes, the citizenry has little protection against standing armies (domestic and military), invasive surveillance, marauding SWAT teams, an overwhelming government arsenal of assault vehicles and firepower, and a barrage of laws that criminalize everything from vegetable gardens to lemonade stands.

Yes, in the eyes of the American surveillance state, “we the people” are little more than suspects and criminals to be monitored, policed, prosecuted and imprisoned. As former law professor John Baker, who has studied the growing problem of over criminalization, noted, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime.”

Yes, the United States of America is not the democracy that is purports to be, but rather an oligarchy ruled by a wealthy corporate elite.

Yes, politics is a sham. Average Americans have largely lost all of the conventional markers of influencing government, whether through elections, petition, or protest, have no way to impact their government, no way to be heard, and no assurance that their concerns are truly being represented.

Yes, the Obama administration’s efforts to identify, target and punish “domestic extremists” through the use of surveillance, corporate spies, global police and the Strong Cities network sends a troubling message to all Americans that any opposition to the government—no matter how benign—will be viewed with suspicion and will likely be treated with hostility.

Yes, we have reached a tipping point. The freedoms we once enjoyed are increasingly being eroded: speech, assembly, association, privacy, etc.

Yes, something needs to be done about the government’s long train of abuses, power grabs, erosion of private property, and overt acts of tyranny.

Yes, many Americans, increasingly dissatisfied with the government and its heavy-handed tactics, are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.”

https://i1.wp.com/api.ning.com/files/FLP1JPTpU*NXYFQaUmWwyNdGGBxzfoY4YmujJoDN3ZVmdB*fgt7EWrx8-XuAJGySDvl3bq*HKPGxeVhaTaSDuw__/Logo.gif

No, violence is not the answer.

A handful of armed protesters are not going to fix what’s broken in the government by forcing a showdown with government agents. In fact, this kind of scenario plays right into the government’s hands by provoking a violent confrontation that allows government officials to sanctimoniously justify their use of surveillance, military weaponry and tactics, and laws criminalizing guns and hate speech in order to target anyone who even vaguely resembles an “anti-government extremist.”

Take the latest spectacle in Oregon, for example.

Armed activists led by brothers Ryan and Ammon Bundy have occupied a federal wildlife refuge. The Bundys (infamous for their 2014 standoff with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights on federal land in Nevada) are protesting the government’s prosecution of two ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, who have been sentenced to five years in prison for allegedly setting back fires on government-owned land in Oregon. (Mind you, the government owns more than half the land in Oregon.)

Few conflicts are ever black and white, and this situation involving the Bundys, the Hammonds and the BLM is no exception. Yet the issue is not whether the Hammonds are arsonists as the government claims, or whether the Bundys are anti-government extremists as the government claims, or even whether ranchers should have their access to government-owned lands regulated as the BLM claims.

No, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the larger question at play here is who owns—or controls—the government: is it “we the people” or private corporations?

https://i2.wp.com/api.ning.com/files/j5WbzQSo3h-5DY1*FVoNbfYoKdY89ySXVLl-yUu3toYOYdfqFDgOZsqYJ7ACz7GL-OCbghFqbSNxnUbSKq6FZyGfvB8NepeV/wethepeoplehavehadenough.jpg

Are American citizens shareholders of the government’s vast repositories, or are we merely serfs and tenant farmers in bondage to corporate overlords? Do we have a say in how the government is run, or are we merely on the receiving end of the government’s dictates? What recourse do we have if we don’t approve of the government’s actions?

Almost every struggle between the citizenry and the government is, at its core, about whether we are masters or slaves in this constantly evolving relationship with the government.

  • Do parents have a right to allow their children to play outside alone, or must they abide by the government’s dictates about how to raise their families?
  • Do activists have a right to freely associate with one another, assemble in public, and voice their opinions publicly or privately, or must they be constrained by what the government and its corporate partners deem to be appropriate?
  • Do residents of a community have to obey whatever a police officer says, lawful or not, or do Americans have a right to resist an unlawful order without getting shot or arrested?

It doesn’t matter what the issue is – whether it’s a rancher standing his ground over grazing rights, a minister jailed for holding a Bible study in his own home, or a community outraged over police shootings of unarmed citizens – these are the building blocks of a political powder keg.

Much like the heated protests that arose after the police shootings in Ferguson and Baltimore, there’s a subtext to the Oregon incident that must not be ignored, and it is simply this: America is a pressure cooker with no steam valve, and things are about to blow.

This is what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent.

As psychologist Erich Fromm recognized in his insightful book, On Civil Disobedience: “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary). He acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle.”

Let me say it again: an armed occupation of a government property only plays right into the government’s hands and increases its power over the citizenry. Yet it speaks to a growing tension over how to bring about meaningful change when dealing with a government that refuses to listen to its citizens.

This is what happens when people get desperate, when citizens lose hope, and when lawful, nonviolent alternatives appear pointless.

Whether the parties involved are blameless or not, whether they’re using the wrong tactics or not, whether their agendas are selfless or not, this is the face of a nation undergoing a nervous breakdown on all fronts.

Now all that remains is a spark, and it need not be a very big one, to set the whole powder keg aflame.

The government has been anticipating and preparing for such an explosion for years. For example, in 2008, a U.S. Army War College report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order”—all related to dissent and protests over America’s economic and political disarray. Consequently, predicted the report, the “widespread civil violence would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremes to defend basic domestic order and human security.”

In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines right wing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Left wing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.

Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably.

That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist. Under such a definition, John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams—all of whom protested and passionately spoke out against government practices with which they disagreed—would be prime targets.

https://i2.wp.com/api.ning.com/files/EDr-zswlq3OtCe-tZKX0dS6htzGwvE44KSvuw7wLpEZZaCl6QXDEB5bKV2sp*6osJACAc5EGSa4hmU-pRkm6GLcPswSN8gBz/AmRRON_CH3_Hectagon.jpg

Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home, lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist. Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the UN’s Strong Cities Network with its globalized police forces, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label and target individuals as “extremist.”

All that we have been subjected to in recent years—living under the shadow of NSA spying; motorists strip searched and anally probed on the side of the road; innocent Americans spied upon while going about their daily business in schools and stores; homeowners having their doors kicked in by militarized SWAT teams serving routine warrants—illustrates how the government deals with people it views as potential “extremists”: with heavy-handed tactics designed to intimidate the populace into submission and discourage anyone from stepping out of line or challenging the status quo.

What we’re grappling with is a double standard in what the government metes out to the citizenry, and how the citizenry is supposed to treat the government.

SWAT teams can crash through our doors without impunity, but if we dare to defend ourselves against unknown government assailants, we’ll be shot or jailed.

Government agents can confiscate our homes, impound our cars and seize our bank accounts on the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing, but we’ll face jail time and fines for refusing to pay taxes in support of government programs with which we might disagree.

Government spies can listen in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, and even enter our bio metric information into DNA databases, but those who dare to film potential police misconduct will likely get roughed up by the police, arrested, and charged with violating various and sundry crimes.

This phenomenon is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s battalion of laws and law enforcers: its police officers, technicians, bureaucrats, spies, snitches, inspectors, accountants, etc.

This is exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared: that laws and law enforcers would be used as tools by a despotic government to wage war against the citizenry.

That is exactly what we are witnessing today: a war against the American citizenry.

Is it any wonder then that Americans are starting to resist?

by The Rutherford Institute

Judge Authorizes “Personal Ruin” For Christian Florist

gay-marriageby Bob Unruh | WMD

A judge in Washington state on Wednesday authorized the “personal ruin” of a florist whose Christian faith prevented her from promoting a same-sex wedding and who was sued by both the state and the homosexual couple.

The Alliance Defending Freedom confirmed that Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom granted a summary judgment in the case against Barronelle Stutzman, meaning the case will not proceed to trial. A trial had been scheduled for March 23.

It was Ekstrom who said last month that Stutzman personally was liable for the claims against her, placing her business assets, her home and personal savings at risk.

The judge ordered that the state and the homosexual plaintiffs, each of whom filed lawsuits, could collect damages and attorneys’ fees from Stutzman.

“The message of these rulings is unmistakable: The government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner.

“The two men had no problem getting the flowers they wanted,” she said. “They received several offers for free flowers, and the marketplace gives them plenty of options. Laws that are supposed to prohibit discrimination might sound good, but the government has begun to use these laws to hurt people – to force them to conform and to silence and punish them if they don’t violate their religious beliefs on marriage.”

Stutzman said, “America would be a better place if citizens respected each others’ differences and the government still protected the freedom to have those differences. Instead, the government is coming after me and everything I have just because I won’t live my life the way the state says I should. I just want the freedom to live and work faithfully and according to what God says about marriage without fear of punishment. Others have the freedom to say or not say what they want to about marriage, and that’s all I’m asking for as well.”

Robert Ingersoll sued Stutzman for “acting consistently with her faith,” ADF said.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson then also sued, based on details he learned in news reports.

When Stutzman declined to provide Ingersoll flowers, he was referred to several other willing florists and was offered free flowers.

“A government that tells you what you can’t say is bad enough, but a government that tells you what you must say is terrifying,” said Waggoner. “The lesson from the court’s decisions is that you put your home, your family business, and your life savings at risk by daring to defy a government mandate that forces you to promote views you believe are wrong.”

In a summary judgment, the judge decides the case without having witnesses testify.

Ekstrom adopted Ferguson’s claim that Stutzman violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination and its Consumer Protection Act.

“The court somehow concluded that forcing Barronelle to create expression against her will does not violate her free speech and free exercise rights under the state and federal constitutions,” said ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “To the contrary, this ruling ignores the pre-eminent civil right law of our nation – the First Amendment – and allows the state to force citizens to choose between conforming their beliefs to the state’s ideology and suffering severe consequences.”

Stutzman operated under the name Arlene’s Flowers of Richland, Washington.

According to arguments in the case, Washington officials believe the state’s statutory protections for homosexuals trump the Constitution’s protection of religious liberty.

ADF had argued that the flower corporation was set up under a Washington law that protects personal assets except in cases of knowing fraud, deception or theft, none of which is alleged in the case.

The Truth About Climate Change

What’s really going on?

by Kit Daniels | InfowarsThe Truth About Climate ChangeThis polar bear isn’t suffering from “climate change” – he’s just swimming at the zoo.

Man-made “climate change” is largely a myth promoted by politicians to scare the public into accepting a vast expansion of government to supposedly stop “global warming.”

Global warming is a manufactured problem played up by the government to instigate a public reaction – fear – the government then exploits to offer a predetermined solution: the expansion of government at the public’s expense.

This strategy, now known as the Hegelian Dialectic, has been used successfully by politicians for millennia to expand government, which can only grow at the expense of individual liberties.

The Bush administration used the strategy successfully in 2003 when it gained enough public support for the invasion of Iraq by claiming the country had weapons of mass destruction, and the war ultimately expanded the military-industrial complex and America’s emerging police state.

Today “global warming” is used as the bogey man because it allows the United Nations to scare the world’s population into believing “man-made climate change” is too big of a threat for their country to handle alone and thus it can only be “defeated” through the expansion of the U.N. at the expense of their nation’s sovereignty.

And state-funded scientists are given thousands and even millions of dollars to help promote the myth of “global warming” by fitting their data into the fearmongering agenda.

“This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution – in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible,” G. Edward Griffin wrote in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. “Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare.”

“Accuracy in these predictions would not be important; their purpose would be to frighten, not inform.”

And the latest claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record certainly rejected accuracy in favor of fear.

“Any temperature claim of ‘hottest year’ based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous ‘hottest years,’” Marc Morano of Climate Depot reported. “This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges.”

“The claim of the ‘hottest year’ is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts; ‘hottest year’ claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18-plus-year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ [in warming.]”

The standstill he refers to can be found in Remote Sensing Systems satellite data that shows there has been no significant rise in global temperature since Oct. 1996, which is more than half the 36-year satellite record.

And this pause in warming could last at least another decade.

“The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with ‘substantial confidence’ that the science was settled and the [climate change] debate over,” climate analyst Lord Christopher Monckton wrote. “Nature had other ideas.”

The First Question to Ask After Any Terror Attack: Was It a False Flag?

https://i0.wp.com/fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/297/6/b/post_apocalypse_new_york_city_by_myjavier007-d6rokbe.pngSource: Zero Hedge

Governments from around the world admit they’ve used the bully’s trick … attack first, and then blame the victim:

  • Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”.   The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found:  “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the “Incident” was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….”    And see this
  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.  Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
  • Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War, and Putin
  • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence
  • The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
  • 2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
  • And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals
  • The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war
  • A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists
  • The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on
  • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing
  • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
  • Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)
  • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
  • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
  • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”
  • Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters
  • Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers)
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
  • United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

  • Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians
  • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)
  • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
  • Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters
  • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
  • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
  • The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists
  • High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government
  • The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others
  • Britain’s spy agency has admitted to (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target

So Common … There’s a Name for It

Painting by Anthony Freda

The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:


False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
– Plato

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
– U.S. President James Madison

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
– Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

 “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

People Are Waking Up to False Flags:

People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war.

More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before.

Obamacare Architect Credits “Lack of Transparency” and “Stupidity of the American People” for Passage of Healthcare Law

Screen Shot 2014-11-10 at 6.40.35 PM
by
Michael Krieger

The Incredible Lies and Coverup Used To Get ObamaCare Passed:

The architect of Obamacare, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, said that it was the “stupidity of the American voter that allowed Obamacare to be passed”. After the passage of Obamacare, in true Nazi fashion, all key members of the Obama White House disavowed all knowledge of Gruber and the part he played. Hitler had Albert Speer, and Gruber fulfilled the role of chief architect for Obama. Funny how history keeps repeating itself, isn’t it?

Earlier today, I published a post titled, Inside the Mind of an Oligarch – Sheldon Adelson Proclaims “I Don’t Like Journalism, which zeroed in on the condescending attitude oligarchs and their technocrat minions have toward the general population. I wrote:

 The term oligarch is reserved for those with extreme wealth who also want to control the political process, policy levers and most other aspects of the lives of the citizenry in a top-down tyrannical and undemocratic manner. They think they know best about pretty much everything, and believe unelected technocrats who share their worldview should be empowered so that they can unilaterally make all of society’s important decisions. The unwashed masses (plebs) in their minds are unnecessary distractions who must to be told what to do. Useless eaters who need to be brainwashed into worshiping the oligarch mindset, or turned into apathetic automatons incapable or unwilling to engage in critical thought. Either outcome is equally acceptable and equally encouraged. 

It’s quite timely that those words appeared on the site the same day that a video clip emerged of MIT economics professor, and the architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, admitting that the legislation was intentionally complex and misleading in order to pass Congress and elicit limited outrage from the “stupid” American public.

The Hill reports that:

An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter” helped Congress approve ObamaCare.

He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn’t know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval. 

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Gruber made the comment while discussing how the law was “written in a tortured way” to avoid a bad score from the Congressional Budget Office. He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public. 

The arrogance and destructiveness of this man knows no bounds. Look at how excited he gets, flailing his hands all over the place as he discusses the gigantic deception that is Obamacare.

The full clip can be found on UPenn’s website.