This article on LewRockwell.com today is from “Flex Your Rights,” which states that you have the right to remain silent when interacting with government police. Of course you do. Duh. However, in a major case last year, the anti-freedom droolers of the Supreme Court ruled that such silence could be used against you later in court. But, the high court ruled, in order for the silence to not be used against you, you must explicitly cite the Fifth Amendment in order to claim such a right to remain silent. (i.e. you can’t just say you are remaining silent, and that’s it.)
According to the Boston Globe, “Massachusetts school districts have started fingerprinting teachers, administrators, bus drivers, and other employees, and forwarding the information to the FBI for national background checks. … Massachusetts is the last state to fingerprint school employees to more fully search for past criminal activity, state officials said.”
Do you really have to have fingerprints of someone to do a background check?
This article at the National School Boards Association website states that this applies to private schools as well as government schools.
And all this is already going on in all the other states? Note how the Globe reporter doesn’t bother interviewing a civil liberties advocate because maybe there’s a problem with this kind of policy? (Did they cover History and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in his school?) Perhaps he could have spoken to someone from the Massachusetts ACLU, or Harvey Silverglate?
Am I the only one who sees a problem with being made to submit fingerprint data without being an actual suspect? Isn’t that kind of a search of one’s person? Am I all wet on this? (And all this despite the false positives that sometimes come up in fingerprinting — and DNA testing is not foolproof either, believe it or not.)
Paul Joseph Watson on JPMorgan Chase now requiring IDs to deposit cash, as well as banning depositing cash into someone else’s account. (Part of the fascist Amerikan police state, thanks to idiots like George W. Bush, Oliver North, Joe Lieberman, Limpy Graham et al.)
In an earlier post, I mentioned the ongoing Boston Heraldinvestigation of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) guidelines allowing foster children to be placed in the homes of those convicted of “violent offenses, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, armed burglary and involuntary manslaughter;” and “inducing sex from a minor.”
Only in the People’s Republic of Loonychusetts.
Obviously, there should be no government “Department of Children and Families,” or any government bureaucrat with control over the lives of children in need of a home. That goes without saying.
The ongoing Herald investigations are associated with the 5-year-old Fitchburg boy who has been missing since September and presumed dead. Prior to that, there had been several ignored reports of abuse in the child’s home.
The Herald has documented several troubling cases throughout the state.
Besides that case, there is the case of a teenage girl placed in a foster home in which the foster father was allegedly secretly filming the girl in the bathroom. He has also been charged with posing as a teenage boy online to lure girls into making porn films with him.
And the case in which an 11-year-old autistic boy alleges that another youth in that foster home sexually assaulted him. The Department of Children and Families dismissed it as “consensual sex.”
Hmmm. An 11-year-old.
Given everything I have read about these agencies, I am convinced that those DCF flunkies really believe that.
It gets even more bizarre. Here’s another case, as reported by the Herald:
The Worcester child welfare office spent years advocating that four at-risk foster children be allowed to visit their mother and father, even after documents obtained by the Herald show the agency’s own investigators found the parents had sexually and physically abused the kids in what an adoptive mother of one called a “house of horrors.”
“I think it’s just an absolute disgrace. We’ve let these children down. DCF has really dropped the ball,” said the former foster mother, who last year adopted the youngest child — an autistic toddler she has cared for since birth.
The three oldest children — now ages 12, 11 and 8 — told investigators with the Department of Children and Families, therapists and social workers about allegations against the parents of rape, molestation and being “taught” sexual acts they performed on each other and the parents, physical beatings, and a lack of food in the home, according to reports by DCF and a DCF contractor that were obtained by the Herald.
Are you sure this isn’t the TSA running things here?
Regarding the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families allowing someone with a past conviction of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and/or molesting children, Gov. Deval Patrick — like many on the Left, sadly — defends that policy, explaining that as long as someone has an “exemplary” record in the years following such convictions, he or she should not be disqualified from being a foster parent:
Hmmm. Would you want to see a little child being placed into a home with someone having been convicted of child molesting or assault and battery?
I Don’t. Think. So.
But people now known as “liberals” do think so.
So the dysfunctional Massachusetts Department of Children and Families is being run by people who ignore the “constant begging” by case workers to investigate their reports of abused kids in foster homes. And, According to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, there also is a new policy called “viewing bodies” in which the case workers must strip search the foster children on each visit, without probable cause, even though a chief legal counsel has decided “not to declare the ‘viewing bodies’ policy as legal.”
Well, duh, of course it’s “not legal” to strip search a child, yet these case workers are being made to do it anyway.
So they ignore actual cases of sexual abuse, yet strip search children for no reason.
Is this a Twilight Zone episode?
No, it’s Massachusetts.
Boston Herald columnist Holly Robichaud states that from 2009 to 2011 over 100 children under DCF’s watch had died. Robichaud also noted that under the Department of Early Education and Care, “During a one-year time span, there were 119 instances of addresses of EEC-licensed child care facilities matching those of level 2 and 3 sex offenders.”
What is it with so many “liberals” (like Gov. Deval Patrick and his derelict administration) who either encourage or defend the needs of sickos and pervs to intrude upon and corrupt a child’s innocence?
And the Left says that conservatives and traditionalists have “sexual hang-ups”!
Infowars has posted this article on the Obama Regime’s army building a “fake city” of 300 acres in Virginia to help the military practice occupying American cities and towns when the dictator Obomber imposes post-“crisis” martial law.
This reminded me of an article I had up almost two years ago on various aspects of how America has descended into a totalitarian banana republic. Some readers don’t like these kinds of articles because reality of this sort makes them “uncomfortable.” Well, as long as we continue the charade and the sham of federal central planning, what it’s naturally leading to will make you even more uncomfortable.
My articles for LRC have been increasingly difficult and frustrating to write. More recently I have been trying to get people to understand America’s current police state. Yes, I have received some favorable emails when my articles have appeared, but there are also ones from those in denial, who refer to me as “nuts,” “conspiracy theorist,” and so on.
Now, to say that America is becoming like Nazi Germany is not an exaggeration. But too many people glance over such assertions in disbelief, perceiving such things as absurdities. They are in denial, and just do not want to believe what’s going on.
In my article on martial law, I emphasized that public officials are obligated to disobey unlawful orders, even those issued by the President of the United States. If the President orders suspension of civil liberties and basic rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, then governors, mayors, state troopers, police officers and military personnel must disobey those unlawful orders. Those officials have sworn to an oath to obey the Constitution, not to obey the President of the United States.
America is dangerous now, but the reason isn’t because of Islamic terrorists – it’s because of government bureaucrats, central planners run amok.
The problem is that bureaucrats who MUST have war and expanded powers, including suppression of civil liberties, will change the laws to suit their narcissistic needs for more power.
And America is dangerous because too many amongst the general population are no longer raised with a sense of moral values and personal responsibility. Americans seem to get easily swept up into a national fervor for war, for killing and death. Just look at these past ten years of destruction that our government has caused overseas, and the American people’s passive acceptance of it based on the government’s emotion-driven propaganda.
One item of evidence of America’s decline in decency and values is how America’s youngsters are so bloodthirstily drawn to the latest pop culture phenomenon called The Hunger Games, #1 on Amazon.com this week. Because of modern Americans’ craving for war and sadism, and because of their widespread support for the Bush-Obama wars of the past decade, Americans have become even more desensitized to violence.
But this series of books supposedly has an anti-war tone or message. However, I wonder how many people who have read the books (or have seen the movie) are more “anti-war” than they were previously.
In continuing their apparent militantly exceptionalist attitude, and with much ignorance as well (especially of Muslims), many Americans now seem to have an insatiable craving for violence, sadism, cruelty, torture, murder, blood and death.
Fifty or sixty years ago, when America was perhaps a little more decent and moral in general thanitisnow, in no way would so many parents have let their kids see this movie or read the books.
Like The Hunger Games, America has a corrupt, degenerate central government that has grown into a monstrous Leviathan, consisting of professional bureaucrats and politicians who seem to delight in pitting one group of Americans against another, with class warfare and governmental-provocation of racial conflicts, and struggles between police and civilians. It is as though Washington’s political class wants to see conflicts between armed government agents and everyday civilians, via the drug war, the “war on terror,” and thousands and thousands of needless regulations and laws that could cause the most innocent amongst us to be on the receiving end of a criminal S.W.A.T. team raid.
And now, Barack Obama is taking full advantage of the post-9/11 police state apparatus that the Bush-Cheney Administration set up. This is being used, in the name of “keeping us safe” and along with the massively intrusive ObamaCare in the name of “keeping us healthy and insured,” to gain even more control over the people’s lives, their fortunes, their businesses, associations and contracts.
Recent Unconstitutional Acts by Barack Obama and Congress:
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) gives the President the power to have the military arrest and detain indefinitely anyone the president says is a “terrorist,” or a “terrorist supporter,” without providing any evidence against the accused.
But every human being who is accused of something has an inherent right to require that the accuser show evidence to prove such alleged guilt. No circumstances are too important – not wars, terrorism, and not economic collapse – that the government or Presidents be relieved of their burden to show evidence against the accused.
Infowars.com recently compared these Washington policies to similar police state policies of Chile’s dictator General Augusto Pinochet during the 1970s. The NDAA law could now be considered as Washington’s reactionary and desperate response to political dissent and economic collapse.
Obama’s most recent extreme overreach was his signing the Executive Order, the National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) order, which gives the President complete control over all resources within the U.S. territory including water and agriculture, energy, transportation and food, during war or emergency. But this revised version gives the President such supreme powers in peacetime.
In this new example of totalitarianism the President also seizes control over the nation’s labor forces, and it is not merely a demand to conscript Americans into the military, but to conscript Americans to serve in other non-military labor capacities, and during peacetime as well. (Hmmm. Sounds a little like communism, if you ask me.)
And with the FEMA camps, there is plenty of evidence that the U.S. government either foresees or is planning for some sort of catastrophic event, economic collapse, or civil unrest. In an intensive investigation by former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones, the investigators found one “residential center” (video here, starts at about 25 minutes) with locked doors, barbed wire fencing facing the inside of the property, and a children’s playground. Officials at the center refused to give information about what the place was for. Investigators also found stacks of hundreds of thousands of coffins and plans for mass graves. Investigators found plenty of evidence that camps and rendition sites are to be used to deal with possible massive political dissent in America. (more here, here, here, here, here, and here)
No doubt many readers dismiss all this as “conspiracy theory,” and FEMA probably has its explanations such as preparations for possible biological warfare, mass epidemics, and so forth. (And we all know, after Katrina, just how competent FEMA is in managing disasters.) That all these acts by federal U.S. government bureaucrats – NDAA, NDRP, the power to detain or assassinate Americans without showing evidence against the accused, the FEMA camps and prison-like facilities – could actually be meant for devious purposes by political power-grabbers is something that most people just would not want to acknowledge. The thought that the U.S. government and U.S. military could be designating the American people as the enemy is a frightening thought.
Now, some people believe that Obama is using his new military dictatorship and detainment camps on behalf of various left-wing groups, such as the Weather Underground, to “transform America” into communist rule. But many of these police state policies and Homeland Security intrusions were begun by the Bush Administration and even by previous administrations, such as Jimmy Carter who first signed FEMA into existence, and the Reagan Administration that included Oliver North acting out of the White House basement and who eagerly called for martial law at the drop of a hat.
However, we also have seen testimony from the 1970s by an FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground, and who described how academic types such as Bill Ayers were allegedly plotting to bring down the U.S. government to make way for foreign communist regimes to occupy America, and that resisters and dissenters would be “eliminated.” Here is a brief video of the FBI agent’s descriptions:
Now, here is what I would say if I were really conspiratorial: I would suggest that the neocons’ aggressions overseas, with invasions and occupations, sanctions, and destroying Muslim countries to create blowback against America and to expand U.S. governmental powers abroad and at home, were to intentionally weaken America’s security and economy to help those leftist organizations. But I’m not saying that. (Although, those incompetent neocon central planners sure have been useful idiots for those leftists, at the very least).
These Cheney-Wolfowitz-Kristol neoconservatives are certainly not “conservative.” Their policies are fascist, with their passion for coveting the wealth and natural resources of foreigners and seizing control over so much property and resources in their own country.
But in my opinion, fascism is really communism with a mere façade of “private property.” Like the communists (and the Nazis), the neocons have been invading country after country (as has been their plan, especially in the Middle East), some covertly. Since 1990 the invasions and occupations have been more overt and for the purpose of expanding U.S. government bureaucracies and military and for U.S. government hegemony worldwide. (Hmmm. They sound like communists to me.)
Ben O’Neill’s recent article on the West’s economic structure tells us of the government-corporate complex, the breakdown of the rule of law, and how the political elites strive to maintain and strengthen their political and police powers at all costs.
The one major commonality between the neoconservatives and the Obama leftists is that both groups love central planning. But it is central planning that has been the cause for much of the destruction of modern civilization, in the Soviet Union, the current European Union and the United States. The left and the neocons have their utopian views of the ideal society, both being authoritarian, with total government control over the people.
As O’Neill points out, the central planning elites use war and conquest to foment nationalist fervor from the masses to get them to passively accept the elites’ massive intrusions, predations and crimes against them. The latest hysteria is the rush to war with Iran, based on propaganda that the government spoon-feeds the masses, despite Iran’s being completely surrounded by U.S. military bases and Israel having hundreds of nukes.
Obama has taken on the neocons’ warmongering abroad and domestic police state, combined with his seizing control over just about every aspect of daily life in America (e.g. ObamaCare). Now many Americans are leaving the country in droves, even though the government has been making it difficult for the people to leave, just as it was with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
The way out of this is to accept the fact that compulsory central planning leads to tyranny, and that we must decentralize America in order to save it. The Soviet Union learned the hard way.
But at least some states are trying to defend themselves from federal tyranny through nullification, of ObamaCare, and now of the NDAA law especially. So at least there’s some hope. (In this video, Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains the dangers of centralization and the advantages of small states.)
In our current situation of de facto martial law, now is a good time to remind governors, mayors, police, national guardsmen and military that any federal orders to arrest or detain Americans without charges or evidence, any suspension of one’s civil liberties and right to due process, are unlawful orders that military, state and local officials are obligated to disobey. If you know you have done nothing wrong, you have a right to defend yourself against unlawful arrest or detainment, and a right to resist being brought against your will to rendition camps.
According to the Washington Times (I’m surprised Obama hasn’t closed them down already!), an ignoramus politician from Alabama wants to mandate prayer in government schools. Apparently he hasn’t read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. His argument is that because members of CONgress and state legislatures begin their sessions with religious-based prayers, then why can’t school children? Apparently CONgress has also not read the First Amendment.
Quoted in the Washington Times is the executive director of the Alabama ACLU, who described the difference between adult politicians and the children in the schools is that the children “are a captive audience.” That’s the difference.
(Well, members of CONgress are also a “captive audience” — of the military contractors, the banksters, environmentalist wackos, and yes, their favorite Saturday morning cartoons, of course.)
Now, I’m not an atheist, as I believe in God, or in a “creator.” My response to those who say that our existence — including our bodies and the complex systems within them such as our brain and arteries, and also our consciousness and emotions — is a result of matter and particles putting themselves together randomly and spontaneously, is that you would have to believe that as a matter of faith. So obviously we were created (by a sadist).
But the aforementioned is another issue that reminds me of an interview I have posted in the past and will post again here.
The following is from my April 12, 2012 post:
This interview by Jerry Williams of well-known American atheist Madeline Murray (before the “O’Hare”) took place in 1965. It was just two years after the Supreme Court ruled that forcing kids in “public” (i.e. government-run) schools to read from the Bible was a violation of the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” Now, I am not an atheist, but I sympathize with people who stand up for their right to hold their minority views.
During the interview, Madeline Murray describes (in Part 1) how she was beaten several times, along with her children and her 74-year-old mother, in their home by the police, and made to go to the hospital.
So, given how violently some people react to any questioning of their religious views, their belief in God, or how violently some people react to any resistance to their trying to force their religious views down other people’s throats, I’m glad that religious fascist Rick Sanitorium has dropped out of the presidential race.
I am afraid that the growing trend toward intolerance of minority views, whether they be Jews, Muslims, atheists, and intolerance of questioning various political views such as ObamaCare or minimum wage and affirmative action, may mirror this kind of violent intolerance of earlier times, especially under the rude, authoritarian regime of Barack Obama.
(Unfortunately, on the Jerry Williams website, some of the links are out of place, so I rearranged their order more accurately, I think.)
In his article, Solomon suggests that with Amazon’s new deal with the CIA therefore Amazon is complicit in aiding the CIA’s drone-inflicted war crimes against innocent civilians in Pakistan, and may also be complicit in the case that the Obama Administration might go ahead with extra-judicially and unconstitutionally assassinating an American in Pakistan.
And given that Amazon founder, chairman and CEO Jeff Bezos has also purchased the Washington Post, Solomon suggests that therefore the Post ought to provide its readers with a disclosure of such a relationship with the CIA in association with the Post‘s coverage of the CIA and its drone murder program.
In his book, War Made Easy, Solomon shows just how enabling the mainstream media have been over the past 50 years in the U.S. government’s illicit wars overseas. That goes for the war in Vietnam and the two Iraq wars, and, by the way, the drone murders program, and the ObamaKill List, all very successfully propagandized by the mainstream media. So given the Washington Post‘s occasionally being known as a defender of the Regime (like the New York Times), I think it is not realistic to expect its editors to provide journalistic accountability regarding its CIA coverage.
The Washington Post, the New York Times, as well as electronic media outlets, have shown that they are more a part of the State than they are a genuinely Free Press. That is part of the reason why U.S. government officials get away with their crimes against foreigners, and against the American people as well.
As an aside, I think that Bezos’s investment in buying the Post was a mistake, given that the print media are going the way of dinosaurs. Newspapers have been struggling, with layoffs and so on, partly because of competition from the Internet and a little due to the fact that Americans really don’t read as much as they used to.
But, if you want to find out what’s really going on, these mainstream newspapers really aren’t reliable. For honest journalism, at least as far as these wars, the surveillance state and this government-provoked terrorism stuff are concerned, you’d have to go to the Internet, such as with Sibel Edmonds, Jonathan Turley and Arthur Silber, among others.
And I suppose Glenn Greenwald as well. But he seems to have gotten himself entangled a little too much in the whistleblower leaking matters, as well as his new venture with Pierre Omidyar. As I’ve noted before, if Greenwald has been given information on U.S. government criminality and corruption by Edward Snowden, then Greenwald ought to just release all the information, immediately. As Bradley Manning pointed out, the information should be in the publicdomain. Regardless of what “security” bureaucrats have stated, the information is the property of the American people, not of government bureaucrats. Greenwald’s sitting on all the remaining information until whenever he feels like it shows somewhat of an arrogance and control-freakishness, in my view. And Sibel Edmonds and ArthurSilber probably agree with me, at least they have written essays to that effect.
But just recently, Greenwald has this piece up at his new venture’s Internet venue, the Intercept, on the fear-mongering of Obama’s top national “intelligence” bureaucrat, James Clapper, and the related fear-mongering of the Obama Administration’s predecessors. Clapper apparently has been referring to journalists as “accomplices,” in some of their disclosures as “helping terrorists.” But as Greenwald points out, Clapper has not provided actual evidence to support his assertions.
Worse than these bureaucrats merely making assertions without evidence have been the lazy-minded, unchallenging mainstream news media stenographers. Over these years since 9/11 the news “journalists” have been just taking the word of government officials and their spokespeople without any request of these officials to provide evidence to back up their assertions.
In fact, during the time of 9/11, did we ever hear anyone in the mainstream media make any references to what was going on before 9/11 that led up to those attacks? No, of course not. The bureaucrats in charge relentlessly repeated “We were attacked,” “We were attacked,” and “bin Laden,” “Muslims,” “Islamic Holy War,” and the media repeated their propaganda over and over for months to help the government bamboozle the American public to accept new wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both wars of aggression based on lies and not evidence. No reporters demanded that the Bush-Cheney regime show any evidence to prove their case, and no one seemed to ask (or remind the public) what the U.S. government was doing in the years and decades prior to 9/11.
For example, Bush’s war in Afghanistan was not based on any evidence that Afghanistan was involved in 9/11 (which it wasn’t, nor was the Taliban), or that Afghanistan or the Taliban were of any threat to the U.S. (they weren’t). After 9/11, it was assumed (based on evidence regarding the African embassies bombings) that Osama bin Laden had been the “mastermind” or had some kind of involvement in 9/11. Bin Laden was being harbored by the Taliban. And George W. Bush then demanded that the Taliban extradite bin Laden to the U.S. (for trial? execution?), but Taliban leaders required that Bush provide evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Given that Bush had no evidence against bin Laden (and to this day, no actual evidence has ever existed implicating bin Laden in 9/11), Bush merely demanded that the Taliban release bin Laden or else Bush would start a war in Afghanistan. But that’s not the narrative the mainstream media provided to the American people. (By the way, to show his knowledge of due process and the U.S. Constitution, Bush was quoted to have stated at the time,”There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”)
For those in doubt regarding the evidence against bin Laden in 9/11, evidence which has never existed, the FBI had bin Laden on its “10 most wanted” list, but it was only for the African embassy bombings, and not for 9/11. (Note the Washington Post‘s spin in its acting as FBI spokespeople on that issue.) But we can’t expect the mainstream media to have been requiring that Bush or Obama show evidence to prove their assertions, given how lazy-minded and sycophantic these media people have been.
And what about the so-called bin Laden raid and killing? First of all, as with Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama had no evidence against Osama bin Laden and therefore such a killing was just extra-judicial, due process-free murder. But secondly and perhaps more important, some people believe that bin Laden had already died within the first year or two of the aggressions started in late 2001 by George W. Bush. How come reporters never seemed to ask questions about all this? Why do they just believe what government bureaucrats tell them and then repeat it word for word?
And after the so-called Osama bin Laden raid and killing, which did not seem to be accurately reported on, why only a few months later did that helicopter carrying many of the same members of that SEAL Team 6 go down? Why didn’t we hear too many mainstream reporters ask questions about it? (It took family members of some of those who were killed to finally get CONgress to look into it.)
And regarding what led up to 9/11, the terrorists who committed those atrocities were motivated by U.S. government invasions, wars, occupations, sanctions and murders of innocents throughout the 1990s. But did we hear any reminders of our own government bureaucrats’ culpability in those events? Of course not. That would have been “unpatriotic.” To many sheeple, even in the so-called Press, unthinking obedience to and trust in the government is “patriotism.”
Even during the 1990s, Ron Paul warned that because of the U.S. government’s aggressions in those foreign lands there would likely be a terrorist attack within our shores. In the years prior to 9/11, at the Future of Freedom Foundation writers such as Sheldon Richman, Jacob Hornberger, and Richard Ebeling had also made it clear that foreigners are likely to retaliate against us because of what our incompetent, belligerent bureaucrats were doing overseas. That is what the CIA and author Chalmers Johnson referred to as “blowback.”
But were we ever reminded of the U.S. government’s own actions before 9/11 by the mainstream media? Nope. They just took every word that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Cheney told us as the word of God, without question.
The purpose of government bureaucrat fear-mongering, like the kind referenced by Greenwald in the article mentioned above, is to scare the people into accepting more and more draconian policies and ever-increasingly powerful Leviathan, and that’s it. It’s not to “protect the American people.” That’s bull.
I’m sure that some people reading this post are finding all the information here totally bizarre and foreign to what they already “know” about 9/11 and the post-9/11 “war on terror,” which has really been a war on America and a war on freedom and peace. Well, you can click on all the links and read and connect the dots yourself.
In this article, Philip Giraldi discusses the rise in Christian religious zealotry in the U.S. military. I’m really shocked to read just how pervasive the moral relativism of the zealots is now. These are the kinds of people like those at the South Carolina debate in which the neanderthals in the audience booed Ron Paul who promoted the Golden Rule in U.S. foreign policy.
God forbid our own government should be encouraged to follow the same rule of law we require other governments to follow. God forbid our military should actually consist of people who obeyed the U.S. constitution they had sworn to obey. And regarding the Golden Rule, soldiers, if you really believe that it is wrong for foreign soldiers to invade U.S. territory, break into your homes, rape your wives and daughters and seize your firearms, then you should be consistent and not you yourselves commit those crimes against foreigners overseas (or your own fellow Americans!).
Are there really still that many Evangelical Christians in the military (and the general U.S. population, for that matter) who are “Armageddonists” and who can’t wait for the “End Times” and the so-called “Second Coming” of Jesus Christ? I know there are a lot of wackos in America who think those things, but not that many. Or are there?
And by that I mean, it’s one thing to believe that the “End Times” will occur. But it’s another thing to actually want it to happen. (Especially when, as opposed to 100 or 200 years ago, now “End Times” would include nuclear weapons, supposedly.)
I know that many Christian Zionists have a frothingly blind support for Israel mainly because they want to see “the Jews” be converted to the Christian religion. (Dubya has been trying to do that already.) That’s the only way “the Jews” will be “saved,” you know. Giraldi quoted a general in the general’s personal war against Islam, the general stating that “My God is bigger than yours,” and that the Islamic God is merely an “idol.” (I wonder what this general thinks about Jews.)
Giraldi mentions some of the military chaplains, and some of the generals who have been proselytizing their fellows in the military, as well as handing out Bibles in Afghanistan and so forth. To me, it is as though these Christian religious zealots mimic the Muslim fanatics in their attempts to convert people. That’s what it reminds me of.
But, getting back to these military people’s Christian-based moral relativism, what have they done about the crimes of sexual assault against some officers’ and soldiers’ own fellow comrades? Call me crazy, but I think there’s something wrong with you if you would assault a fellow American, and a comrade-in-arms as well. But the superiors have tended to blame the victim, telling them that he deserved it or had asked for it, and those higher-up cover-uppers are what I have called “criminal coddlers.” If someone assaults another human being, including ramming a bottle into his rectum, that’s kind of criminal, you know.
As I have mentioned before, it’s bad enough, and criminal enough, when U.S. military soldiers assault, shoot, bomb, or kill foreigners on their territory (that these U.S. soldiers invaded), But when you assault and torture your own fellow soldiers, that’s obviously just as criminal, but it’s as though you are attacking your own brothers, for crying out loud. Perhaps some soldiers can’t handle their own guilty consciences.
Can you imagine if the SHTF and America collapses, the military being put in charge (or the local police for that matter) and martial law put in place, given how they treat each other, just how they will treat you the civilian?
The world is becoming increasingly horrifying as Rulers promote the descent of their countries, cracking down on political dissent and religious expressions which don’t jibe with the Rulers’ repressive or otherwise authoritarian intolerance.
According to law professor Jonathan Turley, a new law in Saudi Arabia labels anyone a “terrorist” who “undermines” the ruling regime, such as through publicly criticizing the Rulers or calling for regime change, or “offending the nation’s reputation.”
Prof. Turley notes that there is little difference between the Saudi royal family and the government.
So really, it’s a personal thing with those Saudi Rulers.
But it isn’t all about undermining the regime. There is also these Rulers’ religious intolerance, in which a “terrorist” may also be anyone who criticizes Islam in some way, or who criticizes very repressive laws which are based on Islamic law, such as those forbidding women’s independence.
Turley wrote just a few months ago regarding calls by Muslim countries to institute international blasphemy laws, for which the Obama Administration has shown support.
Essentially, if international blasphemy laws go into effect, then someone outside of the country of those who feel “offended” can be arrested and detained, tried and jailed. Apparently, Obama is just fine with that idea.
In other words, if I say something about the Koran or Muhammad that might be misconstrued as “insulting to Islam,” would Obama have me arrested and renditioned off to one of those repressive regimes?
And given the fine line between the Saudi Rulers themselves and their religious-based intolerance of dissent and criticism, does that mean that someone in the U.S. who criticizes repressive Saudi policies can then be arrested and charged with violating Saudi anti-terrorism laws as well as the international “blasphemy” laws being proposed?
And what about people who criticize Israel?
Would I be arrested and renditioned off to Israel for torture under “anti-blasphemy” laws if I point out the widespread anti-Arab racism among Israelis? The anti-black racism in Israel? Or laws and policies which promote discrimination against Arabs, such as separate buses and separateschools? Or the Israeli economic centralplanners causing the same kind of chaos as their counterparts here in the U.S.?
Would such criticisms be perceived as “anti-Semitic”? Some people already do think that any criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic” or anti-Jewish, and that if a Jew criticizes Israel (such as myself), ignoramuses use the term, “self-hating Jew.” Go figure.
In other words, the ideas of “free speech” and “tolerance” seem to be lost on Rulers and their minions, and many statists and collectivists now.
You see, from my own personal experiences, in my earlier years I was one of only two Jews in my class in school. I was subjected to various remarks by ignorant children of their ignorant parents, such as “The Jews killed Christ,” and so on. And I also heard the word “hebe” directed at me (but not the “k-word,” I guess the younger kids hadn’t learned that from their ignorant parents just yet).
Now, those things didn’t really bother me that much, because I knew they were wrong and a bunch of jerks. But what was I going to do if I felt “offended,” have them arrested and jailed? Would the international blasphemy law apply to me, a Jew? Or would that only apply to Muslims?
And, regarding all this intolerance by obviously thin-skinned Rulers, whatever happened to “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me”? (Although now I’m not too sure.)
But one question I have is this: Are the Saudi Rulers so emotionally unstable that they just can’t bear to hear any criticism of them, their policies, or their religious views? That they feel compelled to have the “offender” physically abducted and thrown into a cage? (Or killed?)
And on the Saudi law considering someone to be a “terrorist” whose criticism “undermines” the regime, are they really saying to the world that they are literally terrified by someone who criticizes them or who notes how repressive their regime or their interpretations of Islam are? Really? They are “terrorized” by a critic?
The truth is, these authoritarian regimes are the ones who terrorize the people over whom they rule. When common folks are threatened with abduction, jail or worse by their Rulers and the Rulers’ armed enforcers, simply for saying the wrong thing, THAT is what is terrifying.
But just what kinds of people do they have over there being the Rulers anyway?
Actually, they’re the same kind of Rulers we have here in the U.S.
Of the two most recent U.S. Rulers, George W. Bush gave us the unconstitutional and draconian Patriot Act and other totalitarian post-9/11 laws and policies, while Barack Obama has been ruthlessly enforcing, expanding and adding to them.
But with Obama, it is worse, as he has been cracking down not on “terrorists” but on government whistleblowers, on political dissenters, mainly opponents of the regime, as well as the journalists reporting on these things. In other words, it is as though Obama is enforcing the very Saudi laws which consider those whose criticism of the government “undermines” the regime, or “offends the nation’s reputation” as “terrorists.”
Just look at what’s happened to BradleyManning, Edward Snowden, James Rosen, and Michael Hastings, to name just a few victims of the State’s criminality.
One wonders if it will soon be a crime to point out that Obama continued to promise that if you like your doctor and your health plan you can keep them while he knew throughout the whole time that that was not true. Will commentators soon be thrown in jail for reporting on that?
And what about other agents of the U.S. regime in Washington?
What kind of leaders in “intelligence” and “national security” do we really have now? What kind of “intelligence” chief blatantly commits perjury before congressional committee, but gets away with it?
And a security “cowboy” who says “collect it all” (all Americans’ private information, albeit criminally), and who likes to have a war room modeled after the Enterprise bridge on Star Trek?
If I say they’re nuts, will I be charged with “terrorism” merely for expressing my opinion of these people?
So, in my view, all this spying and snooping isn’t about ”national security” or terrorism. If our government were serious about wanting to prevent terrorism, the bureaucrats would stop provoking foreigners overseas, which they have been doing for decades and decades.
No, it’s really about blackmail, intimidation, a better ability to get rid of the regime’s critics, dissidents, and potential political opponents. This is really what the “If You See Something, Say Something” stasi campaign is all about. What the spies and snoopers are doing really isn’t that much different from what these ladies from Monty Python are doing. In my opinion, government bureaucrats just get off on prying into the private lives of the commoners. Like it’s a predacious power trip.
Related to all this is the social activists’ federal Common Core program for government schools. Common Core is turning out to be very NSA-like, and very totalitarian indeed, with government tracking of every aspect of kids’ private lives, from cradle to career.
According to educational expert Mary Black of FreedomProject Education, some intrusions the feds want to inflict include placing bracelets on the kids and the use of “facial expression cameras,” to electronically track the kids’ emotional reactions to things. And the feds are also getting the school bureaucrats to ask the kids about their parents’ voting habits, whether they are divorced, and other very intrusive things. Black described the feds’ desire to have this data as “insatiable.” Much like the national security cowboy who says “collect it all.”
So Common Core’s purpose is not to track kids’ educational and academic lives, but to track their private lives, their attitudes, emotions and views.
And according to pediatrician Karen Effrem of Education Liberty Watch, the real agenda of Common Core is not just “cradle to career,” but “lifelong,” a “womb-to-tomb dossier on kids and families.”
After all, we need to know when someone might have the potential of becoming a future opponent to the regime, someone whose future criticisms of government bureaucrats might be characterized as “terrorist” actions.
But will such a government dossier of everybody’s private life include one’s religious views, too?
Common Core’s inherent intimidation of non-government-approved views seems like a very communist-like, cult-like version of the kind of religion-based authoritarian stifling of individualism and critical thinking that characterizes those other totalitarian regimes overseas. A theocratically ideological form of ignorance-indoctrination pedagogy.
So given that Obama and his minions have been carrying out the extraordinary rendition policies of Bush — having “suspects” taken off to foreign countries for interrogation and torture — is that what they might very well be doing to someone who is accused of committing “blasphemy” and not just accused of being a terrorist?
Opponents of Common Core may very well be considered “blasphemers” in the same way that the global warmists’ challengers have been considered “deniers.” Some climate fanatics actually believe the “deniers” should be jailed or executed.
And add to the Common Core dossiers all the other private medical information being seized as part of ObamaCare that federal bureaucrats can access now.
And what about the internment camps that SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia recently acknowledged could very well be in the works as a further bureaucrat over-reaction to whatever the next crisis might be?
Now, now, now, all you skeptics out there. We know the U.S. military (Obama‘s military, that is) has plans for internment camps. It’s not debatable.
The truth is, there is something wrong with Rulers (and their minions and supporters) who are so thin-skinned that they can’t tolerate hearing opposition to their policies, or are so offended when their religious figures are mocked or satirized, that they must criminally abduct, jail or murder the “offender.”
Human beings have a right to criticize the Rulers, and a right to criticize various tenets of various religions, especially when such tenets or policies go against common civility and morality. When Rulers inflict repressive policies against the people, it needs to be exposed, whether regarding Saudi Arabia, Israel or the U.S. or elsewhere.
William Grigg has this post up at LewRockwell.com on police state Amerika. This police state criminality being committed by local police around the country has been going on since well before 9/11, apparently. Much of the violence, the property destruction, the acts of terrorism inflicted by local police against innocent people minding their own business is to do with drugs. Grigg points out some examples in which police literally terrorize innocent people just to find a little bit of marijuana. “Ooooh, that guy has some marijuana. Let’s shoot him,” etc. etc. etc. They are thoroughly disgusting criminals and neanderthals.
I’m sure that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would not only disapprove of these tax-funded criminals, but they would have them thrown in the hoosegow for the crimes they commit against innocent human beings.
And Grigg gives a bit of a historical perspective, comparing today’s armed local government thugs and marauders to various past federal criminals such as those who took part in murders at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians. The comparison between the local goons now and the feds from 20 years ago is the wearing of ski masks, to hide their identities.
And Grigg also brings up how local police target a particular neighborhood and engage in a total Iraq-like siege of that neighborhood, terrorizing innocent women and children and men, shooting dogs, etc. They do it regardless of not having any particular suspicion or probable cause or even if an actual crime has been committed. They do it really to provoke people. Grigg notes:
“`Contacts’ generally involve swooping onto street corners, forcing pedestrians to the ground, searching them, running warrant checks, taking photos, and entering all the new `intelligence’ into a state database from computer terminals in each patrol car,” recalled crime reporter Christian Parenti in his book Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis. Every neighborhood was considered a “war zone,” and all of the inhabitants therein were treated as “enemy combatants.”
As with the NSA, CIA, the drones, the wars of aggression, and other U.S. government acts of belligerence against foreigners, the point of local police socialism is to provoke and corrupt, to terrorize, and for the tax-funded agents of the State and local gestapo to feed their egos and their hunger for power over others. They get off on it.
Speaking of George Washington, here is a review at Washington’s Blog of various studies and reports on the effects of fluoride on the brain. The writer points to a Harvard University study which concluded that fluoride reduces children’s intelligence by 7 IQ points. (Add that to all the extra unnecessary vaccines and their dangerous additives, the prescription drugs and poisonous high fructose corn syrup, and no wonder we have the kind of banana republic Orwellian society we have now.)
Now, it’s one thing to put fluoride in the toothpaste with the intention to “prevent tooth decay” (if it does). But it’s another thing to actually put it into the drinking water, that you are actually consuming and ingesting. Have you ever thought of that? Ingesting a particular chemical that may be harmful? The article on Washington’s Blog makes reference to comparing the fluoride harm to that of lead poisoning in the water.
Speaking of our banana republic Orwellian society, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill have their very first article up at the new “Intercept” which is apparently being run by Pierre Omidyar. Greenwald and Scahill discuss just how reliable our gubmint is in determining who should be targeted overseas and who should be murdered. They write,
According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.
So, what if someone gives or lends his cell phone to someone else? Isn’t there a chance of that? Do the U.S. government tax-fed armed bureaucrats even understand the concept of “due process”? (Too much fluoride in their brains?)