Archive

Category Archives for "Police State"

Government disrespecting us.

CDC Expands Police State With Indefinite Detainment

On 8/15/16, Obama’s CDC claimed the authority to expand the police state with a new regulation that grants it the right to indefinitely detain any individual or group (even a city) based on subjective, aritrary, and ambiguous reasons and with no plausible way of preventing the usual bias and corruption. Of course, such an atrocity would be unethical and unconstitutional even if it were objective, well defined, and impartial.

As of this writing, the regulation is not in force yet and is in the form of a proposed regulation. One can read the whole proposed regulation at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/08/15/2016-18103/control-of-communicable-diseases#h-21

image

The following excerpt is the section on “Apprehension”, which  speaks for itself:

Aprehension

Under section 361(d)(1) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264(d)(1)), HHS/CDC may promulgate regulations that provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in a qualifying stage. In addition, HHS/CDC must reasonably believe that the individual is moving or about to move between states or constitutes a probable source of infection to others who may be moving between states. Thus, HHS/CDC believes that it is important to define for the public what is meant by the term “apprehension.” Apprehension means the temporary taking into custody of an individual or group for purposes of determining whether quarantine, isolation, or conditional release is warranted.

Although each instance is unique, an apprehension will typically occur at the request of a state or local health department or in other time-sensitive situations, such as at a U.S. port of entry, where it is necessary for HHS/CDC to take immediate action to protect public health. The factors that may give rise to an apprehension are discussed in detail in the preamble section discussing the definition of “reasonably believed to be infected, as applied to an individual.” When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer. In some cases, an apprehension may last from twenty minutes to one to two hours if, for instance, based on a public health assessment, HHS/CDC is able to quickly rule out the presence of a quarantinable communicable disease. In certain circumstances, the individual may remain apprehended pending confirmation that he or she is not infected or not reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease. If it is necessary to issue the individual a Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release, the individual will remain apprehended pending the service of the written order. The factors that may give rise to an order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release are discussed in detail in the preamble section discussing the definition of “reasonably believed to be infected, as applied to an individual.” Based on past experience, HHS/CDC believes that a written Federal order may be served to an individual within 24-48 hours of an apprehension. These timeframes are merely offered as guidance and HHS/CDC believes that the facts and circumstances of each case will dictate the expected length of an apprehension. Generally, however, HHS/CDC does not expect that the typical public health apprehension will last longer than 72 hours. It is not HHS/CDC’s intent through this definition to allow for extended apprehensions absent the issuance of a Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release. HHS/CDC requests public comment concerning the expected apprehension period (no longer than 72 hours), and whether there are any public concerns with the absence of a specific maximum apprehension period in the regulation.

This atrocity by the CDC can be used to educate the people on why the Second Amendment exists.

Government Develops New Murder Technique

This video shows how the police/FBI are using a new technique that allows them to murder a victim with arms raised. First, they shoot at the victim while he is driving, and then two shots are fired as the victim emerges from his car, which we know from this video. Then the victim, with arms raised, briefly and instinctively reaches for the wound. Then the other agents act quickly enough that they can shoot him to death because they can claim they thought he was going for a gun, which they can do because they are above the law. Can you imagine if the victim shot an agent who touched his side because the victim claimed he thought the agent was going for a gun?!

Given how cops are above the law … and work for the bad guys, they should not be allowed to shoot until their victim has actually drawn a gun and pointed it at them and started shooting.

If Police are Above the Law …

If the cops are above the law, then they are outside the law; and if they are outside the law, then they are outlaws.

This was inspired by the latest police abuse, which happens to also demonstrate the incompetence of government schools as well. This cop clearly feels untouchable even though every kid in every classroom has a camera. Given the growing backlash against how police are above the law, maybe this one will get an appropriate punishment.

Although this cop was not FBI, consider that the FBI are also cops; but they are not just cops – they are cops who work for Obama!

Maybe You Should Stand Down

The Police State is growing, but …

The Rapture is coming?
Maybe you should just stand down then …

Unavoidable collapse will send us back to the Dark Ages?
Maybe you should just stand down then …

The-powers-that-be cannot be defeated or even exposed?

The cops are ready if you try anything?
The cops are your enemy? Not the people above them?

Global Warming is alarming and man-made?
Only global government can fix it?

Peak Oil is alarming?
Only global government can fix it?

Terrorism is alarming?
Only the police state can make you safe?
If you oppose the police state, you are a domestic terrorist?

Conspiracies don’t exist?
If you believe conspiracies, you are a domestic terrorist?

The free-market doesn’t work?
Your ideas don’t work?

What would creators of the Police State like you to believe …

Obama’s DHS Violates Rights House to House

Government soldiers forced their way into house after house in Boston because there was a chance that a 19 year old US citizen might be hiding in one of them. (He wasn’t.)

The people were not allowed to leave their homes – except for those who were forced to leave their homes at gun point and were then patted down. I have seen no evidence yet of a warrant, but of course, a Constitutional warrant must state a specific place to be searched, so there could be no Constitutional warrant in the instance of a house to house search.

As far as I know, this has never been done in America before.

House to house raids in unprecedented violation of US constitution.

I wonder if the soldiers in the video have thought about how when they are out violating our homes, there is no one guarding their own homes? Are they sociopaths who don’t even care about their own families?

Given the limited audio, some may claim that it is not what it appears, so let’s listen to some testimony from the citizens themselves.

Testimony from the citizens themselves.

These witnesses were ordinary people who thus have faith in government and who did not know that their rights were being violated. Now let’s hear from a witness who understood what was happening.

Someone who understood he was under martial law.

Everything you saw in these videos was unconstitutional, but this is not what anyone saw in the mainstream media. Instead, the mainstream media showed us the nice soldier bringing milk to the children, or the man who said he felt safe because the government was searching his home.

This unprecedented violation of the Constitution by Obama’s DHS not only failed to find the 19 year old US citizen, but it actually prevented his discovery. It was only after the government allowed people to leave their homes again that a citizen found him hiding in his boat.

This unprecedented violation of the Constitution did not find the 19 year old US citizen, but it achieved its more important goal, which was to set the precedent that government soldiers can come into your home without a warrant whenever they want and the mainstream media will cover for them.

This unprecedented violation of the Constitution did not find the 19 year old US citizen, and it also failed to achieve its most important goal, which was to provoke armed conflict with the American people. The US Government was hoping that one (and preferably more than one) citizen in this all white neighborhood would defend the Bill of Rights with AR-15s and high capacity magazines. The government’s goal to provoke armed conflict with the American people finally became 100% clear a few weeks earlier when Obama’s DHS began practicing shooting white children.

We know the DHS wanted to create this whole scenario because they called this man and his brother at home and told them they were coming. The brothers predictably fled in an unprepared manner, thus creating the opportunity for the government to react – like we saw in the videos.

If the Obama administration is capable of what we now know, then it is capable of anything.

26

Obama’s DHS Targets White Children

Obama’s DHS ordered new targets featuring only women, children, and senior citizens – all white – all in their own home or yard. The official theme is “No More Hesitation.” See more targets here.

image

If Obama had a son, he wouldn’t look like these kids. [1]

Note how these targets are standing in their own home or yard. Now why would Obama’s DHS need to practice shooting white people’s kids in their own home or yard? If the people in Obama’s DHS find themselves in these situations, then the most likely reason is that they themselves are the bad guys, and thus they should hesitate.

Obama, The Democratic Party, and the Mainstream Media have taken Their Hate to a new level.

Clearly, the DHS has decided that too few DHS personnel are the kind of sociopaths who would blindly obey orders to kill ordinary innocent Americans, disarm them door-to-door, or perpetrate some other atrocity, so DHS needs to manufacture more such sociopaths – hence the targets. There were no targets of minorities or men of fighting age because police already have no hesitation shooting those innocents.

How could Obama’s DHS even have enough bullets to kill as many as 100 million innocent people? I guess we now know why Obama’s DHS recently made an unprecedented purchase of 1.6 billion bullets. (Now it’s  2 billion.) This is nearly 20 times larger than a normal year for DHS. Why does this include 450 million rounds of hollow point .40 caliber when .40 caliber is not used by the military, when hollow points are not used for practice, when hollow points will not penetrate Kevlar, and when hollow points have always been banned from warfare because they are too barbaric. Their only purpose is therefore to murder civilians wearing bathrobes and t-shirts – just like in the targets.

We now know why Obama has always wanted our guns.

How does DHS know who to target? I guess we now know why DHS records to every call and stores every email in America.

How does DHS know its commanders will cooperate? I guess we now know why the Obama administration has instituted a litmus test to weed out any commanders who express reluctance to fire on Americans. Given that we know Obama worries about whether he can depend on the US military to fire on Americans without hesitation, we now know why Obama wants to create his own civilian security force just as strong as the US military.

How does DHS know how to fight an indigenous population? I guess we now know why the US government has spent a trillion dollars practicing and perfecting asymmetric warfare (warfare against an indigenous population) in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are even disarming Iraqi citizens door to door.

Consider that drones experience “No Hesitation.” I guess we now know the reason for the massive drone build up, and we know why Obama claims the right to indefinitely detain Americans, and why Obama claims the right to assassinate Americans.

Do we need the DHS? Consider that the DHS was created in response to 9/11, and that the official explanation of 9/11 cannot be true.

Unfortunately, I have found that many people feel that such overwhelming evidence simply could not be true given the image of Obama sold to us by the media. Therefore, I have busted the Myth of Obama so that we can move forward again.

We now have overwhelming evidence that the government is trying to provoke armed conflict with the American people, and we have overwhelming evidence that such plans have greatly accelerated under Obama, and of course, the only reason to provoke armed conflict is to justify a police state – beyond what we already have.

As if the DHS were trying to prove my point, they subsequently set a new precedent by sending thousands of soldiers to violate our rights door-to-door, just hoping that someone would pick up an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine and defend the Bill of Rights.

Now we can see it is critical that the targets be white because ordinary innocent white people are the main source of resistance to a police state. White people are more numerous, more spread out, more wealthy, more educated, and more concerned about the Constitution; whereas, government has already neutralized black people by keeping them poor, distracted, and dependent on government. Blacks who resist are incarcerated, shot, or ridiculed and shunned. Law enforcement is already willing to shoot black people, so DHS needs to create more sociopaths with the same lack of respect for white people. Therefore, the targets are all white.

The next question is, “Other than front men like Clinton, Bush and Obama, who are the Elites that want to create a police state – and why?”

Obama’s Progressive Fascist Science Czar

An excellent example of the alarmist and fascist nature of American Progressive thinking comes from Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, who co-authored a text book, ECOSCIENCE, in 1977. In it, the authors describe policies they recommend for any peoples and nations whenever necessary to achieve the authors’ goals.

Some policies recommended by the authors are to create a global government that can force women to have abortions, forcibly sterilize women, and forcibly take a woman’s child.

Read their words and decide for yourself.

How can such an openly fascist academic be Obama’s science czar? How could he have been an advisor to Bill Clinton? Aren’t the media supposed to be government watchdogs? Apparently, the Progressives who dominate the media agree with Mr. Holdren.

I give full credit for the information in this article to the research at Zomblog, at which you can get more details and see that Holdren has written similar ideas elsewhere and has declined to explicitly refute these ideas today.

To get the full context, let’s look at scans of several columns of text from ECOSCIENCE.

IMG_0899

786_quote

786-7_quote

787-9_quote

837_quote

837-8_quote

838_quote

917_quote

943_quote

944_quote

3

Fascism Explained

Fascism is not what you’ve been told. Fascism is the concept:

When we’re all on the same page, then we all benefit.

That’s all there is to fascism, so you can see why fascism was not always a pejorative and was once widely respected. Most people thought it just made a lot of sense, although a few independent thinkers could foresee that it contained the seeds of hell on earth.

Consider that the term fascism is based on the ancient Roman symbol, the “fasces.” The fasces illustrates the concept of “strength through unity.” Whereas, one stick is weak; a bundle of sticks all pointing in the same direction, and tied together – is strong.

Much of the confusion around fascism is because the media and academia often ignore early stage fascism, which sounds a lot like modern progressive parties, and only look at the atrocities of late stage fascism, but those atrocities are not themselves fascism. They are just the inevitable result of fascism – just as they are the result of the admittedly more sophisticated modern progressive parties (e.g. consider Obama and his DHS). The sophistication of modern parties try really hard to hide their fascist nature, which thus further obfuscates our understanding of fascism.

Fascism does not specify any economic or political model. Also, fascism could be voluntary or imposed, so in theory, fascism could be an element of any government.

Liberal fascism is just as possible as conservative fascism, and left-wing fascism is just as possible as right-wing fascism. Even anarchy would be incorporating fascism if everyone voluntarily agreed to pursue the same collective agenda because they thought that “when we’re all on the same page, we all benefit”.

Fascism alone neither prescribes nor advocates coercion, dictators, militarism, self-righteousness, genocide, racism, powerful central governments, nor heavy government interference in business. However, it is easy to deduce why these are likely outcomes when a society places too much faith in the belief that: when we are all on the same page, we all benefit.

Although fascism does not require coercion to get everyone on the same page, in practice, most individuals in a free country would pursue different agendas, and even those who happened to pursue a common agenda would do so in different ways. Only a small percentage would ever pursue any given agenda in the same way. Therefore, it is logical f0r fascists to conclude that it is in everyone’s best interests when we are forced to be on the same page because fascism assumes that the net result of everyone pursuing the same agenda in the same way would always be greater than every individual deciding what agenda he will pursue.

Although fascism does not require a powerful central government, fascists know that a single individual, company, political faction, city, newspaper, etc. could have significant wealth or power. It is thus logical for fascists to advocate a powerful central government to defeat any challenge to their agenda because fascists know that individual wealth or power might be used to challenge their agenda.

Although fascism does not require a dictator, consider that in government, when political factions can’t come to an agreement, then government can’t get much done. It is thus logical for fascists to advocate a dictator because it is logical for fascists to assume that it is a good thing when government can implement more of their agenda. Note that a democracy could be just as fascist as any dictatorship if a 51% majority could dictate anything.

Although fascism does not require militarism, consider that militarism tends to produce conformity, and conformity tends get everyone on the same page. Is it thus logical for fascists to adopt militarism as a model to jumpstart their plans because it is logical for fascists to assume that conformity is a good thing. In fact, conformism and fascism are pretty much the same thing. Fascism is little more than the open acknowledgement that conformism is a good thing.

Although fascism neither requires nor advocates genocide, when fascism inevitably fails, a government having absolute power will have both the incentive and the power to find a scapegoat who was not as much on the same page as everyone else – and punish them. Of course, the most believable and acceptable scapegoat will be some minority who actually wasn’t as much on the same page as everyone else. Then a powerful government controlled media would have the means and the motive to wage a propaganda campaign to further exaggerate their differences.

Although fascism neither requires nor advocates racism, when a fascist government is looking for a scapegoat, a racial minority will usually make a more acceptable scapegoat. A racial minority is also usually a more believable scapegoat because it probably will have some degree of subculture that makes its members seem less willing to conform. A racial minority is also usually a more believable scapegoat because it probably will have a known complaint against the majority, and thus a known incentive to resist the national agenda.

Although fascism does not require a mixed model economy that heavily taxes, subsidizes, and regulates the free market, fascists tend to conclude that they can more easily implement their agenda if they heavily control the free market. Although fascism is highly compatible with such highly centrally controlled economic models as socialism and communism, fascists usually know that that true socialism and communism don’t work, so they tend to be more pragmatic and go for a mixed model economy. In addition to their fear of challenges to their agenda from the free market, fascists think they know better than the free market, and of course, they can’t resist plundering the free market – for the common good. Therefore, fascists tend to claim they support the free market, when for all practical purposes, they fear and hate the free market.

Although fascism does not require a self-righteous attitude about imposing one’s agenda, if one believes that imposing one’s agenda is the best possible way to benefit everyone, then, just like for religious zealots, it will be very easy for fascists to feel self-righteous about imposing their agenda.

Many of the likely outcomes of fascism are just as likely when almost any other single philosophy or religion has too much power. For example, all of these outcomes occurred in the USSR as well, where the main philosophy was: “From each according to his ability – to each according to his need.”

To be more accurate, it is not that most philosophies and religions lead to the same outcomes as fascism when a single one of them has too much power – it is that they lead to fascism itself. This is rather obvious in retrospect. Once any single faction, such as the Bolsheviks, had seized power, they naturally concluded that if everyone agreed with them, then everyone would benefit.

The more general lesson then is that when any one faction gets too much power, they naturally tend to subordinate their original core tenets to the one idea that when we are all on the same page (as them), we all benefit. For example, this has happened to the dominant philosophy in American media, education, and government, but many decades of their dominance have left us all so ignorant and misinformed that they do not realize they are now – more than anything else – fascists.

For example, the dominant faction in American media, academia, and government for the last hundred years advocates an even bigger and more powerful central government. They bully others into conforming. They punish those who challenge their agenda. They despise gridlock in government. They love government regulation, and hate the free market. They assume it is everyone’s best interests when we are all on the same page as them. Using their dominance of the media, their propaganda targets and scapegoats various minorities incessantly (i.e. poor white people, rich white people, religious white people, rural white people, Southern white people, “angry white males”, tea partiers (they picture white ones), gun owners (they picture white ones), etc.) They are nauseatingly self-righteous about imposing their agenda, and although their agenda is primarily about extending existing government policies (how uninspired), they call themselves “progressive”, but they, and the similar but much less powerful “neocons”, are mostly just fascists. Consider this Progressive Party Platform.

The opposite of fascism is the free market:

When we’re all free to pursue our own future, then we all benefit.

2

Fans in Italy? Banned in Germany?!

Since adding the ClusterMaps counter a few days ago, I was first surprised to find that my site is getting more interest from Italy than from the United Kingdom, but then I noticed that the more populous nation of Germany is missing entirely! Austria too …

image

I probably get more interest from Italy because I mention Italy and Germany in this recent article on A Progressive Platform.

Clearly, Germany has the Wisdom to protect it’s people from web sites containing political, historical, economic, and philosophical analysis containing the words: fascism, Nazi, Hitler, etc.

(update 9/27/2013) As the counters show, Germans are now able to find and visit this site, and have been visiting in greater numbers than Italians, which is exactly what I said we should expect – assuming no censorship. Therefore, after the German government’s censors had time to evaluate it, they decided it was not trying to promote Nazism, and thus Germans are now permitted to find/visit it. Don’t assume that access to this site was actually blocked. Given that blocking access to sites would be easier for us to catch, it is more likely that it was just automatically moved down in the search engines based on keywords I had recently introduced to the site about three weeks before I added the counter.

Are you surprised? Consider that Germany bans the symbols and literature of any group it deems to be unconstitutional.

But that’s not fascism – because they don’t call it that.

4

Oath Keepers

Everyone agrees the path we are on is unsustainable; and a growing number are aware that the reason is because the path we are on is increasingly diverging from the Constitution. One manifestation of this increasing awareness is the Tea Parties.

Some examples of unconstitutional government are: regulations, bailouts, gun bans, spying on Americans, Social Security, Medicaid, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, etc.

Divergence from the Constitution (other than through legitimate amendment) should not be possible. Right? For example, the President, the Congress, and the military all take oaths to uphold the Constitution. However, pretty much all of these individuals either don’t understand the Constitution, or simply don’t care.

Now considering that our government is unsustainable, the government will have to become increasingly fascist – without appearing overtly fascist – like it has been doing for at least the last 100 years. In fact the powers behind the rise in government seem to be aiming for a global version of unsustainable government. Of course, they don’t see it as unsustainable because sustainable to them simply means that they stay in power.

Unfortunately for the champions of global governance, the American people are simply not cooperating, and thus extreme measures may be necessary to achieve global governance.

The American people usually accept incremental increases in government out of ignorance and apathy, and they usually accept the occasional increase in government in reaction to a crisis, which all seemed fast enough for the global elites until now, but now they are faced with increasing public awareness (thank the Internet) and a potentially major shift back to individualism and the free market. Therefore, I fear a series of devastating crises will be used to institute major change.

Most likely, the government will (among other tactics) provoke a small population, say in Montana, who they can rely on to fight back, and then the government will escalate, and then the people will escalate (they’ll even be coming from Texas). Now this could go badly for the government because of video and the internet, but even if the government shuts down the internet, their plan could easily work because the so called “liberals” elsewhere will say “I don’t like that the government shut down the internet, but I don’t really know why, and I don’t really know what the government is doing; however, the one thing I do know with absolute certainty is that the people in Montana are a bunch of Glenn Beck watching racists who deserve whatever they get.”

Given that the American people are the last armed citizenry on Earth, and that we are not cooperating, then we must be disarmed so that progress towards global governance can move forward again without our being able to stop it. The champions of global governance cannot allow us to continue to be an example of the benefits of individualism and the free market. Their stealth strategy has stalled and is being exposed.

Unfortunately, once the last armed citizenry is disarmed, then the resulting fascist world government would not fall until it decayed from within – about 1000 years from now. If I were a religious person, I would probably believe this to be the 1000 year reign of Satan – but let’s not get sidetracked.

The government will have to rely on the US military to perform some pretty fascist actions both to provoke initial conflict as well as to ultimately disarm the people in reaction to such conflict. Of course, the American military would thus be violating the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold.

If only the US military, law enforcement, etc. would also take a more specific oath to not obey a list of well defined unconstitutional orders, then such a code among the military and law enforcement just might be the deciding factor between a future of freedom and prosperity – or 1000 years of global fascism.

I would like to see every single military and law enforcement officer take the following oath to not obey certain unconstitutional orders. They could call themselves Oath Keepers for their determination to stand by their oath to uphold the Constitution:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

OK, you can unclench your sphincter now because Oath Keepers is already a reality and may be America’s last best hope, and America may be the world’s last best hope.