–Brother Bart-
Thank you for your kind support.
.
References
Sibrel’s Detailed Article on the Moon Landing Fraud
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?
The post Did They Go to the Moon? Interviews by Bart Sibrel appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.
Can you name the first woman who wouldn"t give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama? The answer is not Rosa Parks.
Clubbing the elderly for voting . . .
Saudi Arabia? . . . North Korea? . . . China? . . .
No. “Civilized” Western Europe, Member of the European Union, fourth largest economy there . . . Spain.
Claiming to be a democracy as much as “Hannibal Lecter” claims to be sane, Spain’s state police forbids voting in a “democracy”. Freedom is illegal there.
While the United States cheers for their rival’s Russia’s domestic independence movements to embarrass their perceived foe, when the same comes to themselves or their Western allies, it is strictly forbidden.
The Vegas shooting being perfectly timed to the day with the independence vote in Catalonia Spain, 0% of American news coverage was devoted to this historical international event, deliberately done so for fear the reporting of it might inspire similar independence movements to come to their own shores.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I guess we forgot these immortal words which formed our own nation with this supreme logic of what government should and should not be.
I will discuss this, and much more, in this week’s episode of “Conspiracy Corner News“. Just click HERE or on the screen below to watch.
–Brother Bart-
Thank you for your kind support.
Shop on Amazon by clicking on the Button below
References
US Declaration of Independence
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
By all means, let’s talk about patriotism and President Trump’s call for “respect for our Country, Flag and National Anthem.”
At a time when the American flag adorns everything from men’s boxers and women’s bikinis to beer koozies, bandannas and advertising billboards (with little outcry from the American public), and the National Anthem is sung by Pepper the Parrot during the Puppy Bowl, this conveniently timed outrage over disrespect for the country’s patriotic symbols rings somewhat hollow, detracts from more serious conversations that should be taking place about critical policy matters of state, and further divides the nation and ensures that “we the people” will not present a unified front to oppose the police state.
First off, let’s tackle this issue of respect or lack thereof for patriotic symbols.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear, Americans have a right to abstain from patriotic demonstrations and/or actively protest that demonstration, for example, by raising one’s fist during the Pledge of Allegiance. Likewise, Americans have a First Amendment right to display, alter or destroy the U.S. flag as acts of symbolic protest speech.
In fact, in Street v. New York (1969), the Supreme Court held that the government may not punish a person for uttering words critical of the flag. The case arose after Sidney Street, hearing about the attempted murder of civil rights leader James Meredith in Mississippi, burned a 48-star American flag on a New York City street corner to protest what he saw as the government’s failure to protect Meredith. Upon being questioned about the flag, Street responded, “Yes; that is my flag; I burned it. If they let that happen to Meredith, we don’t need an American flag.”
In Spence v. Washington (1974), the Court ruled that the right to display the American flag with any mark or design upon it is a protected act of expression. The case involved a college student who had placed a peace symbol on a three by five foot American flag using removable black tape and displayed it upside down from his apartment window.
Finally, in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court held that flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment. The case arose from a demonstration near the site of the Republican National Convention in Dallas during which protesters marched through the streets, chanted political slogans, staged “die-ins” in front of several corporate offices to dramatize the consequences of nuclear war, and burned the flag as a means of political protest.
In other words, if freedom means anything, it means that those exercising their right to protest are showing the greatest respect for the principles on which this nation was founded: the right to free speech and the right to dissent. Clearly, the First Amendment to the Constitution assures Americans of the right to speak freely, assemble freely and protest (petition the government for a redress of grievances).
Whether those First Amendment activities take place in a courtroom or a classroom, on a football field or in front of the U.S. Supreme Court is not the issue: what matters is that Americans have a right—according to the spirit, if not always the letter, of the law—to voice their concerns without being penalized for it.
Second, let’s not confuse patriotism (love for or devotion to one’s country) with blind obedience to the government’s dictates. That is the first step towards creating an authoritarian regime.
One can be patriotic and love one’s country while at the same time disagreeing with the government or protesting government misconduct. Indeed, real patriots care enough to take a stand, speak out, protest and challenge the government whenever it steps out of line.
It’s not anti-American to be anti-war or anti-police misconduct or anti-racial discrimination, but it is anti-American to be anti-freedom.
America requires more than voters inclined to pay lip service to a false sense of patriotism. It requires doers—a well-informed and very active group of doers—if we are to have any chance of holding the government accountable and maintaining our freedoms.
After all, it was not idle rhetoric that prompted the Framers of the Constitution to begin with the words “We the people.”
This ultimate responsibility for maintaining our freedoms rests with the people.
Third, we need to stop acting as if showing “respect” for the country, flag and national anthem is more important than the freedoms they represent.
Listen: I served in the Army. I lived through the Civil Rights era. I came of age during the Sixties, when activists took to the streets to protest war and economic and racial injustice. As a constitutional lawyer, I defend people daily whose civil liberties are being violated, including high school students prohibited from wearing American flag t-shirts to school, allegedly out of a fear that it might be disruptive.
I understand the price that must be paid for freedom. None of the people I served with or marched with or represented put our lives or our liberties on the line for a piece of star-spangled cloth or a few bars of music: we took our stands and made our sacrifices because we believed we were fighting to maintain our freedoms and bring about justice for all Americans.
Love of country will sometimes entail carrying a picket sign or going to jail or taking a knee, if necessary, to preserve liberty and challenge injustice. And it will mean speaking up for those with whom you might disagree. Tolerance for dissent, we must remember, is a vital characteristic of the citizens of a democratic society.
The problems facing our generation are numerous and are becoming incredibly complex.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re at a very crucial crossroads in American history. We have to be well-informed, not only about current events but well-versed in the basics of our rights and duties as citizens. If not, in perceived times of crisis, we may very well find ourselves in the clutches of a governmental system that is alien to everything for which America stands.
Therein is the menace to our freedoms.
So stop falling for the distractions. Stop allowing yourself to be fooled by propaganda and partisan politics. Stop acting as if the only thing worth getting outraged about is whether a bunch of football players stand or kneel for the National Anthem.
Stop being armchair patriots and start acting like foot soldiers for the Constitution.
Written by Guest Author
Bob Wilson
“Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead: A Tale of Twisted Fate” (2017 – by Howard F. Weiner), is a fine addition to the Dylan canon in an often overlooked chapter in Dylan’s lengthly saga. It is equally a filling out of the long, strange trip undertaken by the merry pranksters in the Grateful Dead. Dylan had reached icon status that he was trying to escape before 1970 chimed in. Weiner reports that Dylan mentioned to Levon Helm as far back as 1972, that he had ideas of touring with the Dead. Even tie-die-hard Dylanolgists must be shocked to digest such a flavorful morsel, as related by Bob Dylan and Jerry Garcia aficionado, Howard F. Weiner.
It is hard to fathom looking back to 1987, that Dylan had already been written off several times by vitriolic critics. They seemed to follow him like “the men that followed Jesus, when they put a price upon his head.” They went apoplectic when the man went electric. Criticism was sundry when Dylan went to Nashville singing all country. It is hard to fathom that people would pay good money to come in and then “boo” Dylan. Before the Dead, Dylan went preaching about the man from Nazareth who is arisen, bringing Gospel live to the befuddled Grammys, as well as Saturday Night Live. If he threw the bums a dime for every time he irritated his following, we would likely be able to eliminate welfare. None of us would have been better off though, for missing out on the jousting surrounding the fanfare.
Author Howard F. Weiner also offers up in this book the head scratching nugget that Dylan offered to permanently be playin’ in the band. Weiner whittles down the naysayer who shot the idea down from under the red sky in a vote that required only one Grateful Dead dissenting member and offers up a bounty of insight, recounting anecdotes of Dylan & Deadheads which you will love tearing through in these pages.
Jerry Garcia and his band members had a profound effect on the Bob Dylan they met, caught between the gears of his own career. Weiner hashes out how the band’s touring machinery would plant the seed for Dylan’s “Never Ending Tour”. The reluctant Nobel Prize winner would go on to do more shows in the remainder of his career than the Dead did in toto. Not bad for a hermit, folk-rock, protest song writing, born again, wandering minstrel! Did I get that right?
In the video below, Howard F. Weiner joins Bart Sibrel and myself for some lively discussion about Dylan, the Dead, and Weiner’s books on the two. Turn, turn, turn around, tune in, and squeeze the last drop out of one more cup of coffee. We look back on the saga that brought these musical icons together.
~Don’t you dare miss it.
~Bob Wilson
Just click HERE or below to enjoy.
Thank you for your kind support.
–Brother Bart-
Al Sharpton, who’s built his career on stoking racial tensions for personal and financial gain, accused President Donald Trump of inciting a “poisonous atmosphere” in the US.
“We’re in a poisonous atmosphere that is being increased by the president of the United States. It’s like turning on the gas in a room.”
“Any match could lead to an explosion, and we’re getting that kind of atmosphere from this president.”
As anyone familiar with Sharpton’s history is probably aware, the hypocrisy inherent in his statement is staggering. Even within the black community, Sharpton has become associated with transforming tragedies into media circuses for personal and financial gain. In 1987, the Reverend famously accused a prosecutor in upstate New York of taking part in the rape of a black teenager. Her story was soon found to be fabricated. One family member of Akai Gurley, a young black man who was shot and killed by police in Brooklyn in 2014, complained that Sharpton swooped in and “put his name on” the situation before discussing it with the family.
Sharpton, who made the remarks during an appearance on Politico’s “Off the Record” podcast, used the opportunity to raise awareness for his annual march from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on Aug. 28. Sharpton and Trump have a history of feuding dating back to 1989, when Trump published advertisements in local newspapers demanding the death penalty for the Central Park Five, who were later exonerated.
Their most recent dustup occurred in 2012, when Trump was embroiled in the “birther” controversy, Politico reported.
“In 2012, Sharpton accused Trump of peddling racism throughout his birther phase. They met in Trump Tower that November—“to apologize for calling me a racist—very nice, apology accepted!” was the @realDonaldTrump tweet, though the reverend himself said then and says now both that he didn’t call Trump himself a racist, and that he didn’t apologize.”
Sharpton clarified that he isn’t calling Trump a racist this time, either.
“Sharpton still deliberately isn’t calling Trump a racist, or an anti-Semite. “I don’t want to reduce this to that. His policies are there. That speaks for itself. If we make it personal, he wins,” Sharpton said. “I used to call people names. Don’t give people the easy way out.” But, Sharpton added: “I think he has empowered anti-Semites and racists. I think he has brought them from the shadows into the mainstream and I think he’s emboldened them, and I think that’s a dangerous course for the country.”
Like Trump, Sharpton has also been accused of antisemitism, Politico noted.
“Sharpton has his own checkered history full of accusations of anti-Semitism. He bristles when those are brought up, saying that it’s usually willful misinterpretation by others seeking division, though some is reflective of his own learning curve.”
Of course, Sharpton was quick to brush these allegations aside.
“To him, the imperative now is for people who are offended to stand united against Trump, but to refuse to play into the violence or debates like the one over the Confederate monuments because he says that’s what Trump wants.”
Despite their acrimonious history, Trump and Sharpton – two outsize New York City characters - have more in common than perhaps either would like to admit.
Listen to the full podcast here:
A protest march planned for Saturday at Google in Mountain View has been postponed, according to a blog post by its organizers, who said they had received "credible" terrorist threats.
As the Mercury News reports, the “Peaceful March on Google” has been postponed “due to credible Alt Left terrorist threats for the safety of our citizen participants,” the group wrote in a blog post. The group is protesting against the recent termination of engineer James Damore over a memo claiming which slammed the search giant for its "anti-conservative" bias and claimed a biological basis for the gender gap in tech.
From the blog:
Despite our clear and straightforward statements denouncing bigotry and hatred, CNN and other mainstream media made malicious and false statements that our peaceful march was being organized by Nazi sympathizers. Following the articles, credible threats from known Alt Left terrorist groups have been reported to and relevant authorities have been notified.
In one instance, an Alt Left threat was made to use an automobile to drive into our peaceful march.
The blog also notes that in addition to the Mountain View campus, there were protests planned at Google offices in eight other cities, including New York City, Washington D.C., Boston, Austin, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and Seattle. The group hopes to hold its protest in a few weeks.
Complicating scheduling, the original protest was announced before violence erupted over the weekend in Virginia episode. That violence has now led to a counterprotest scheduled for the same time this Saturday, about three miles away from Google’s headquarters. On Tuesday, Mountain View police released a public statement saying the a planned protest was scheduled “for two hours Saturday afternoon at Charleston Park known as the March on Google”, the Mercury News reported.
“The organizers of this protest are not connected to the participants or to the events that led to the tragedy in Virginia last weekend,” police said in a release. “The Police Department has a responsibility to uphold everyone’s Constitutional right to free speech, and we want you to know that we are working with both Google and with the event planners to ensure the protest is a peaceful one.”
Elsewhere, the counterprotestors chose Mountain View’s Civic Center Plaza for the 1 p.m. event because it’s far enough away from the “March on Google” to prevent overlapping events and reduce the chance of confrontations, said organizer Lenny Siegel, the city’s vice-mayor, adding that this counterprotest is not an official city event.
Tom Keene was out with a chart today referencing Zerohedge’s point that a large percentage of the non-farm payroll growth has been a result of lower paying industries, such as food and drinking places – or as they would put it, more bartenders.
the acclaimed @zerohedge chart on bartenders: pop adjust food&drinking...the NFP growth from the 2007 peak i"ll take the delta on the rocks pic.twitter.com/yL2DAiqfjy
— tom keene (@tomkeene) August 4, 2017
While a job is a job, the composition and strength of gains is quite important, as it gives us an understanding of aggregate health.
If total growth is strong, but is the result of only a few sectors, the breadth of the overall market is weak. This typically provides us with a signal on where the overall market is heading – and this goes both ways.
This brings me to an indicator that I built out over the past year – labor market breadth – which seeks to measure the aggregate health of the labor market by looking at its sub-components. While I don’t break out how it’s calculated, I will say it is comparable to the breadth of the stock market.
Following Friday’s employment report of 209k new jobs, beating estimates of 183k, labor market breadth fell to an un-smoothed cycle low, as shown below. So while the headline number was strong, it’s aggregate sub-components continue to slow, which is not indicative of strength.
We can see this by sharp decreases in total job growth of retail trade, which many will attribute to the rise of Amazon.
And information, which is not affected by the retail giant.
As well as arts, entertainment, and recreation.
And health care, which has slowed materially over the past four months.
There is some strength however in wholesale trade.
And durable goods
But this today was offset by weakness in a previously strong industry – real estate.
And a slowing financial sector.
In total, the current breadth of the labor market is indicating that wages and salaries will move lower over the next 6 months, as shown below.
We’ll see if this manifests or not.
According to a new survey by Dalia Research, the Europeans most likely to hit the streets in protest and the Spanish...
You will find more statistics at Statista
As Statista"s Martin Armstrong details, 31 percent of Spaniards said there was a fair chance of them joining a protest or demonstration in the next twelve months - 12 percentage points above the EU average.
At the other end of the scale, those in the UK seem less than eager to get their placards out. With only 11 percent saying they were likely to protest, Prime Minister May probably doesn"t need to worry too much about a mass of angry people sweeping on Downing Street for the time being.
Since at least 2015, one Georgia lawmaker has bravely defied the law to bring medical cannabis into his state, to help children suffering from debilitating conditions such as chronic seizures. Rep. Allen Peake’s campaign of civil disobedience has evolved into an extensive distribution network, and along the way, he has attracted the support of many lawmakers – even some who were formerly opposed to medical cannabis.
Peake is a self-described conservative Christian who says moral principles guide him in this endeavor. Seeing children confined to a hospital bed, after all the ‘legal’ prescription medications have failed them, is a compelling reason to challenge unjust prohibition and bring these patients medicine that works.
“We’re going to do whatever it takes to be able to help get product to these families, these citizens who have debilitating illnesses,” Peake said in an interview with the Associated Press.
Every month a cardboard box with cannabis derivatives arrives from Colorado to his office, whereupon it is distributed to hundreds of sick people around the state. Thanks to a 2015 bill championed by Peake, Georgia now allows patients with certain conditions to possess low-THC medical cannabis. But the law is still restrictive in that people cannot cultivate, import, or purchase it.
Enter Rep. Allen Peake. He gives the medical cannabis to patients for free, which is permissible under Georgia law. He can’t legally pay for it, either, so Peake makes a $100,000 donation to a Colorado medical cannabis research foundation every time he receives a delivery. He has a medical cannabis card which allows him to possess the product.
READ MORE: As Feds Claim Pot Has "No Medicinal Use" FDA Approving Horse Tranquilizer for Depression
“Quite frankly, I don’t know how the product gets here,” Peake said in the interview. This deliberate ignorance is necessary because transporting cannabis across state lines is a federal felony. He will never recover the donation money, but helping people is more than enough payment for him.
Shannon Cloud, whose daughter has Dravet syndrome and has benefited from medical cannabis, now helps distribute the product from Peake’s office to Atlanta. She sums up the absurdity of the situation.
“It shouldn’t be this way,” said Cloud. “You shouldn’t be meeting at a gas station or a Target parking lot to get medicine to somebody. You should be going to the place where it is produced and tested to get it dispensed to you in a regulated manner, but this is what we’re forced to do.”
We first reported on the noble actions of Rep. Allen Peake in January 2016. Before Georgia began allowing very limited medical cannabis use, Peake was helping families move to Colorado so they could legally treat their suffering children. He visits them on a regular basis, witnessing in person how this miracle plant can transform lives for the better.
“Listen, I made a commitment to these families when I got involved, that I was willing to do whatever it took to make sure they had access to a product from a reputable manufacturer. I’ve made good on that promise. If it involved civil disobedience, it’s been absolutely worth it,” said Peake.
The joy of knowing that sick children are being healed compels this lawmaker to build upon his efforts.
READ MORE: EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Docs Expose Real Story of Man Accused of Killing a Cop in Botched Raid
“I got a text this morning from the mother of a young child who I delivered product to,” said Peake. “And the heartfelt thanks from this mother, the difference in this child – the increase in cognitive ability, the reduction in seizures, has been worth every bit of risk that I’ve taken.”
While he shepherds medical cannabis to needy patients in Georgia, Rep. Peake is attempting to further dismantle unjust prohibition. A new bill to expand the list of qualifying conditions for medical cannabis is awaiting the governor’s signature, and one day Peake hopes to see the cultivation, production, and sale of cannabis oil legalized in his state.
The war on drugs is a war on people, as the prohibition of life-saving medical cannabis clearly shows. With persistence and civil disobedience, change can come even to the most staunch prohibitionist states such as Georgia.
I can tell you from firsthand eyewitness experience, that there has been a secret, “under the table”, civil war in America for a very long time, perhaps since the end of the historical first “American Civil War” circa 1865, as the modern political “Red and Blue” map clearly denotes the almost identical dividing lines in the “United” States, from that time until now. It is as if the quest of the defeated in 1865 has somehow morphed, over the succeeding century, into an unspoken, yet very real, struggle for the very same controlling power of the nation, from that long ago day when an official surrender was given, up until this very present hour, when it has steadfastly been quietly and incrementally revoked. The question is, just who are these two sides of this new hidden battle for our nation and what are their objectives?
The first American civil war was fought over “States Rights”, in that past case, for the “right” to own another man. As morally objectionable as such a notion is, what is forgotten is the greater argument and question of who holds the supremacy of governorship over the affairs of individual choice, a central “federal” government located hundreds or thousands of miles away from such specialized persons, or a local leadership, more in tune with the topography and personal needs of the relevant citizenry? Logic, it seems, would dictate that a person directly situated in a specific locale would have optimum objectivity over the ruling of their own area, rather than a bureaucrat far away without such insight, experience, or visitation. Why then is our country governed the other way around?
Greed for power and control is the only answer.
While slavery is a form of attritional genocide that should be put and end to at all cost regardless of borders, once such a fire is put out and clarity of thought is restored to the populous from this barbaric “way of life” some may have wrongfully felt was “normal”, there is no reason whatsoever why micro-neighborhood committees should not thereafter be restored as having the ultimate supremacy over the daily affairs of their local citizens. If they choose to have a “gun free” local zone, then that should be their right to institute and enforce. If they choose to allow “open carry” pistols, likewise it should be their local right, rather than a city, state, or “federal” official to dictate to them how to live their private lives from far away.
The fact is, if giving millionaires and billionaires tax cuts stimulates the economy, I suppose by them having extra money to then go out and hire more butlers, thusly “trickling down” their prosperity to the middle class, then doling out money directly to the middle class would likewise “trickle up” to the millionaires and billionaires who own all of the manufacturing companies anyway, from which the middle class would then be giving their new money to in extra spending, purchasing such commodities from the businesses the rich own, thusly benefiting them as well, just in a reversed fashion, which benefits the most first, rather than the influential few. If electricity can flow left to right down a copper wire, then it can certainly flow right to left down the very same wire! Shouldn’t the government want to benefit the largest number of persons first with its extra cash, rather than merely the affluent minority elite? The total monetary amount recently used to “bail out” corrupt failing banks amounted to the same as giving every American citizen over the age of eighteen five thousand dollars. Would this not have greatly benefited the economy with this extra spending, as well as benefited the largest number of people possible during the economic crisis? Why then, was this not done ???
The simple fact is, the “federal government” (whatever or whoever that is) is not truly interested in protecting or blessing the average citizen. If they were, then they would not have banned GMO labeling, even though a whopping 90% of Americans wanted it. (Has 90% of us ever agreed on anything ? . . . And yet still to NO AVAIL !!!)
Just as electricity can as easily flow from left to right as right to left down a copper wire, government could be run with the exact opposite methodology as “head down”, instead, “feet up”, starting with neighborhood councils having the supremacy, then city government, then county, then state, then lastly “federal”, who would merely serve to fill the role of international diplomacy and to coordinate state military reserves in times of war, should local militias consent, just as was the case at the time of the signing of the “Declaration of Independence”, the TRUE ideology of our country!
Who won the first American Civil War? The “north”? . . . No. . . . The “Federal Government” did. Who then, exactly, is the “Federal Government”?
As seen by the CIA assassination of past “Democratic” president John Kennedy, who threatened to “scatter to the wind” the CIA weeks before his murder by them, and by the organized CIA opposition to the present “Republican” president Donald Trump, it is NOT the Congress, Senate, President, or ANY elected official who runs the “federal” government. It is the CIA.
Who started and approved the Vietnam War with an admitted staged attack on Americans by the North Vietnamese? The President? The Congress? The Senate? No. The CIA. Who organized, approved, and meticulously staged the “moon landings”? The President? The Congress? The Senate? No. The CIA. Who de-selected recent National Security Advisor Michael Flynn? The President? The Congress? The Senate? No. The CIA, as Michael Flynn also intended to “scatter to the wind” this dangerous, un-American, rogue agency, so the CIA struck first and arranged to have him fired so that he could not do it.
It is amazing to me that CIA/NSA employee of three decades, William Binney, admitted that the CIA/NSA spies on the telephone conversations and emails of all Presidents, their top staff, members of Congress and the Senate, and all judges of the Supreme Court, in order to lead the government themselves by steering these individuals with blackmail and coercion . . . yet NO ONE DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT !!!!!!!
The “federal government” ADMITS that it “lost” TEN TRILLION DOLLARS . . . yet NO ONE DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT !!!!!!!
Guess who, years ago, bought, with this “missing” money, AT&T, Verizon, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, and the like, so that they could control what you think and “legally” spy on all of their customers because they own the hardware, as well as we all checked “yes” to agreeing to having our data “scanned” (READ) so that we could have their “free” services? . . . None other than the CIA.
The reason for this is simple . . . Control and Blackmail.
All presidents, and all people, whether the average citizen or members of Congress, judiciary, police, military, and the like, all have “skeletons in the closet”, past acts of indiscretion which were painstakingly recorded by the CIA/NSA for this very purpose of coercion and blackmail. When the CIA wants a President, Judge, member of Congress/Senate, Police or Military, to do their bidding, they simply blackmail them, though bribery is preferred, as this binds the subject willingly to the criminal enterprise, adding yet another person to its defense. This goes on at all levels of government down to regional metro council members, as well as in industry. All that the CIA has to do, is remind the current president of the way they dealt with Kennedy, and compliance quickly follows.
Are there any in government who love Truth more than life ???
If so, you better rally your kinsmen quickly before it is too late.
Do those who give in to this perpetual blackmail not know that they will eventually die anyway and face Eternal judgment?
They might as well die on the side of Right.
President Truman, the creator of the CIA, wanted to organize and centralize all of the “intelligence” he was receiving from various government agencies, hence his founding of the “Central Intelligence Agency”. Since then, it has splintered back into sixteen separate agencies! On his deathbed, Truman fiercely regretted his creation of the CIA saying, “It was a mistake. The CIA is equal to the Pentagon, one of which is one too many. There’s nobody keeping track of what they’re up to. The CIA has become a government all of its own, and all SECRET. They don’t have to account to ANYBODY. Something our Founding Fathers did NOT have in mind. That’s a VERY dangerous thing in a democratic society, and it’s GOT TO BE PUT A STOP TO.”
If the President, current or future, REALLY wants to “Drain the Swamp”, then they must love the Truth more than Life or Reputation. They could easily shame BOTH the CIA, and their owned propaganda media, in ONE SIMPLE MOVE, by disclosing to the public that it was THEY who staged the “moon landings”, making fools of the American public, at their expense, forever putting these disreputable entities in their proper place, the trash can, for good. In ONE executive order, disbanding ALL current “intelligence agencies” and putting them under the, slightly more levelheaded control, of the slightly less politicized military, forming a new branch thereof called “Military Intelligence”, reclaiming the rightful focus of such an agency being foreign spying, rather than domestic spying.
I have, at this hour, contacts in the military intelligence community, who inform me regularly, that there is a hidden, “under the table”, decades long, ongoing civil war between two or more factions of “Right and wrong” within the “federal” government. These factions spy on each other, have their own independent satellites and weaponry, and keep such struggles private for the perceived benefit of “continuity of government” . . . If you only knew.
I suppose all that the concerned citizen can do at this point is pray for Right to prevail and persuade, with reasons of mortality and the judgment to come, any government employees involved in this struggle to choose the side of Right and be willing to Die for it, just as our Founding Fathers were. Future generations will be forever grateful.
I will discuss this, and much more, in my highly delayed and milestone 50th episode of “Conspiracy Corner News”, linked below and HERE. Be sure to also read the numerous articles referenced for this piece, beneath the video, at the very end of this writing.
Throughout history, humans across the world have engaged in innumerable courageous acts of rebellion, resistance and dissent against authority, many of which have led to revolutions and meaningful progress in society. There is now a financial incentive for such movements involving disobedience with the creation of an unusual contest from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
On March 6, MIT’s Media Lab began accepting applications for individuals and groups presenting an act of “responsible disobedience,” with a $250,000 prize awarded to the winner. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, is funding the award. Hoffman serves on the advisory board of the Media Lab.
The concept was created “after a realization that there’s a widespread frustration from people trying to figure out how can we effectively harness responsible, ethical disobedience aimed at challenging our norms, rules, or laws to benefit society,” according to a MIT Media Lab post. “My hope is that the prize helps us understand that the way we make progress as a society and as humanity is by recognizing the right heroes who take personal risk, and sometimes that risk is a form of disobedience to help us evolve as humanity,” said Hoffman.
While the application time window opened up just recently, the university has had this in the works for some time, as the contest was announced last July. Submissions are currently being accepted and the deadline is May 1st, 2017.
The criteria for submission is complex, and it’s clear that the university is seeking exceptional endeavors that would substantially impact society: “The award will go to a living person or group engaged in what we believe is extraordinary disobedience for the benefit of society. Specifically, we’d like to call out action that seeks to change society in positive ways and is consistent with a set of key principles. These principles include non-violence, creativity, courage, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. We’re seeking both expected and unexpected nominees. This could include–but isn’t limited to–those engaged in scientific research, civil rights, freedom of speech, human rights, and the freedom to innovate.
Also among the criteria is the requirement that the “recipient must have taken a personal risk in order to affect positive change for greater society.” Applicants may be individuals or formed as a group, and there is an option to nominate others.
The college listed several influential figures from various points in history to reference as “inspiration” such as Galileo Galilei, the Founding Fathers, Sitting Bull, Martin Luther King Jr., Mark Felt, and the unidentified “Tank Man” who blocked a military tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Last year, the Media Lab hosted a presentation from one of modern history’s most notable dissenters, Edward Snowden, and engineer Andrew “Bunnie” Huang. The presentation, titled “Against the law: countering lawful abuses of digital surveillance,” centered around the moral dangers of digital surveillance, particularly of journalists, and discussed measures of protection from “lawful” government monitoring.
The winner will be chosen by a committee within the Media Lab network on July 21st, 2017.
Submitted by James Holbrooks via TheAntiMedia.org,
If Republicans in Arizona’s senate have their way, police in that state could soon have the power to seize assets and property from protesters, the Arizona Capitol Times reports.
From a February 22 article:
“Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.
“SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.
“But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated.”
Essentially, under this bill cops could arrest anyone at a demonstration that suddenly turns violent, however peaceful it might’ve started. They would even be able to target people who had nothing to do the property damage.
Stephen Lemons, writing for the Phoenix New Times, covered a hearing on S.B. 1142 by Arizona’s Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
Highlighting that certain senate Democrats “noted the obvious: that public protests often involve different groups with varying tactics,” he pointed out that, hypothetically, peaceful protesters could be held responsible “for the violent actions of a different faction or of individuals who act out while others remain calm.”
But it gets even worse than that, as the Arizona Capitol Times pointed out Wednesday: “By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events.”
Planning events. Meaning cops will have the authority to investigate activists before the demonstrations even take place.
This is what Republican state senator Sonny Borrelli, the author of S.B. 1142, called targeting “the money source” in his defense of the bill before the committee meeting last week.
Citing the conservative notion that a legion of privately funded progressive protesters is clogging up governmental works all over the country, Borrelli said the law would go after those “paid to go out and create this damage.”
And if it takes cops infiltrating political groups on the taxpayers’ dime — on the razor-thin pretext of maybe preventing a potentially violent demonstration down the road — so be it, at least according to Republican attitudes in Arizona.
“I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there,” state senator John Kavanagh said, referring to police authority under S.B. 1142 to investigate political demonstrations while in the planning stages.
“Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?” he also said.
Again, potential riot.
The bigger issue at play, as noted by the Arizona Capitol Times, is the chilling effect such legislation would have on free speech. After all, if a person could get arrested for simply participating in a political demonstration — regardless of their own peaceful motives and actions — that person might decline to get involved.
S.B. 1142 would actively enforce the notion of guilt by association. If would punish the innocent who are wishing only to exercise their right of free expression, all because of the actions of criminals.
Such legislation would further complicate an environment of political unrest, made of both positive and negative forces, as State Senator Martin Quezada, Democrat out of Phoenix, highlighted Wednesday:
“When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community. Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they go too far.”
Submitted by Sarah Cronin via TheAntiMedia.org,
Indiana passed a bill on Wednesday that authorizes police officers to shut down highway protesting “by any means necessary.” S.B. 285, as it is known, obliges a public official to dispatch all available officers within 15 minutes of discovering any assembly of 10 or more people who are obstructing vehicle traffic.
The bill then authorizes the responding officers to clear roads “by any means necessary.”
Critics are calling it the “Block Traffic and You Die” bill, an apt name for a bill that has co-opted the phrase “any means necessary,” used famously in speech delivered by Malcolm X during the Civil Rights movement, turning it into a threat against government dissent (with no apparent awareness of the irony).
S.B. 285 is among a collection of increasingly hostile ‘anti-obstruction’ laws that have been quietly submitted in states around the nation over the past few months. A report by The Intercept published Wednesday tracked five such anti-protest laws introduced by Republican lawmakers in different states, four of which are currently pending.
One of the most disturbing among them is House Bill N. 1203, a bill introduced earlier this month by North Dakota lawmaker Keith Kempenich in response to the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests. The bill would exempt motorists who hit demonstrators with their cars from any liability in cases where the victims were “obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway.” This twisted take on protest criminalization comes short of condoning manslaughter as a viable means of crowd control.
Also this month, Minnesota State Representative Kathy Lohmer led the effort on submitting H.F. 322, a bill that would re-classify obstructing highway traffic from a misdemeanor to a “gross misdemeanor” and would authorize government units to sue protesters for “public safety response costs related to unlawful assemblies.”
The proposed legislation is strikingly reminiscent of Washington State Senator Eric Ericksen’s proposal to punish protesters as ‘economic terrorists,’ which Anti-Media first reported on in November.
All of the proposed laws share a common trait in that they were all adopted in response to a major protest event in that state. H.F. 322 was submitted shortly after a judge dismissed the riot charges against protesters who took to the St. Paul Interstate last July in a demonstration against the police shooting of Philando Castille. Ericksen’s “economic terrorism” bill announcement came just days after anti-fracking protesters blocked railroad tracks in Olympia, Washington. DAPL protests inspired both the Indiana and North Dakota bills.
These retroactive responses on behalf of Republican state lawmakers are also seen as preemptive strikes against the threat of increased protests during the Trump presidency.
As ACLU staff attorney Lee Rowland expressed in an interview with The Intercept, these so-called ‘obstruction bills’ are but thinly disguised efforts to squash any government dissent.
“A law that would allow the state to charge a protester $10,000 for stepping in the wrong place, or encourage a driver to get away with manslaughter because the victim was protesting, is about one thing: chilling protest,” Rowland said.
Growing tension between government officials and protesters is expected to come to a culmination on Inauguration Day in D.C., where there will already be many barriers in place to limit demonstrations.
First and foremost is the Federal Grounds and Buildings Improvement Act of 2011, known as H.R 347.
H.R.-347 is a revision of a 1971 federal trespassing law that made it a crime to “willfully and knowingly” remain in an area under Secret Security protection. H.R. 347 removes the word “willingly,” a legal technicality that effectively lowers the bar on the mental state required to be found guilty under the law.
As explained by the American Civil Liberties Union:
“Under the original language of the law, you had to act ‘willfully and knowingly’ when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act ‘knowingly,’ which here would mean that you know you’re in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you’re committing a crime.”
Under current federal law, protesting in proximity to an elected official under the protection of the Secret Service, which includes President Trump, is a crime punishable by fine and up to ten years in jail.
Protesting during Trump’s inauguration comes with additional complications as the National Park Service reserves a large portion of the inaugural parade route along Pennsylvania Ave and in Freedom Plaza for ticket sales under the exclusive discretion of Trump’s Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC). This means the PIC can refuse to allow protesters along the route.
An activist group called Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (Answer) has been engaged in a legal battle with the National Park Service since 2005, arguing the privatization of the Inauguration is an attempt to “sanitize” the streets of dissent.
While the National Park Service has been controversially setting aside tickets for the PIC since 1980, the issue garnered more attention this year when it was discovered that the sidewalk in front of the Trump International Hotel, a significant site for protesters, would be a part of PIC’s ticket-only area.
Adding another level of bureaucracy, the Washington Post reported the hotel and plaza in front are actually under the control of Trump’s real estate agency, meaning protesters would have to literally ‘ask permission’ to remain in the space.
As the week comes to an end, it becomes apparent that dissent is being criminalized not only nationwide but on multiple fronts. Increased regulations are appearing that limit the public spaces that can be lawfully occupied in protest. Meanwhile, legislation is also being introduced to increase the negative consequences for newly unlawful protests. Should more states follow suit with Indiana, demonstrators will soon find themselves paradoxically protesting for their right to protest at all.
Submitted by David Battistella
A Violent Inauguration? A Call For Peace On Inauguration Day
Now that all attempts to delegitimize President Elect Trump to this point including failed recounts, the constant drum beating about popular vote victory, intimidation, bullying and desperate pleas to the Electoral college and the attempt at cold War 2.0 have failed, will inauguration day be the last stand? Now even millionaire Catholic socialist filmmaker Michael Moore is leveraging a Trump presidency to catapult himself back into relevance while his home state is already feeling the benefits of the Trump effect.
Moore has already shown up to Trump tower with his trademark (and tired) Roger and Me shtick and he is a leading voice in calling for civil disobedience protests, a whole hundred days of them, starting on inauguration day. While this is probably a key way to gather material for his next film about how awful America is, he left out a key word in his call to action - peaceful.
While Michael Moore is calling for civil disobedience, many signs are pointing to the possibility of violent protests. All this while President Elect Trump is already putting jobs back into Moore’s home state of Michigan and the country is already seeing some signs of being hit with the Trump’s economic defribulator. What a sad pair Moore and Rosie O’Donnell make, leading the charge!
I’m sure Mr. Moore would be on his soap box had Obama done anything this useful for Michigan in the last eight years, but alas, we seem to have become so attached to identity politics that we can no longer celebrate the good even when it directly impacts issues like jobs, the one issue Michael Moore staked his entire career on back before his net worth took him into the one percent.
Meanwhile at DNC headquarters, Donna Brazile has it backwards, it’s Democrats who have a great chance to move back toward their roots and embrace Americana again by getting behind proposed initiatives that might help the American worker and stimulate a browbeaten economy.
In any case, it seems definite that there will be a wave of protests on January 20th as Americans who oppose this presidency rightly should exercise their right to free speech. The larger question though is whether those protests will turn violent and turn inauguration day into an international spectacle. This might not have a desired effect on the rest of the world.
Violence is a line, which when crossed, catapults the violent aggressor into another category beyond how civilized democracies should operate. When it comes to debate and protest I can listen to and follow any discourse, weigh the arguments and always respect a peaceful protest process. The moment that process turns to violence, looting, destruction of property, injury to peace officers and civil unrest; (to me at least) the messenger is no longer playing by the rules of a peaceful democracy. They have, in effect, suspended some of the rights afforded them and their expression of free speech.
When mired in violence respect for any cause is lost or eroded. Engaging in violence, violent behaviour and destruction of property is the moment where we move out of the realm of what civilized, peaceful democratic process is about. Think Gandhi when trying to understand how much power lies in peaceful, well reasoned, organized protest movements. Think bullying and terrorism when this important step is bypassed and a violent mob rule takes over. Smashing property is not going to garner respect. It might make a good news hit for CNN, who most probably will be looking for the violence at every turn and rebroadcasting it as the main story.
One thing is almost certain, that if there are violent outbursts during the Trump inauguration, there is a high degree of probability that the violence will be blamed squarely on Donald Trump. The logic for this might be that somehow Donald Trump, by just being Donald Trump, is enough of a reason to become violent and in some twisted form of reason, that violence would become acceptable under the circumstances. Perhaps they are mad at Russia too.
The real threat of violence is not purely blowing smoke. Check out Carl Rove talking about inauguration day security threats in 2008 and how staff security clearances played an important role with a serious threat. Zoom up to the 6 minute mark.
But I’d like to offer another suggestion though, and I know I am speaking in hypotheticals here, but any violence around inauguration day speaks squarely to the current lack of top leadership. President Obama’s passive-aggressive, fence-sitting, double-speak stance, through both his words and his omission, lends quiet support and encouragement and has contributed to creating a climate where violent protest is acceptable behavior. How well off would we all be if The outgoing President would renounce violence nearly as fast as Democrats demand renouncements and retractions on any number of issues.
Obama said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests. So, I would not advise people who feel strongly or who are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign, I wouldn’t advise them to be silent.”
The President of the United States would not advise them to be silent? Really? So what is the take-away here when this prevailing attitude come straight from the top of the alt-left.
It’s precisely this kind of murky messaging that well funded and radical organizations use as a battle cry and even permission to turn civil disobedience and peaceful protest into intimidating, violent outburst ultimately designed not to be heard but really designed to silence others. Do these protesters not have to be extremely careful in not becoming exactly what they oppose? Folks who engage in violence need to take a very hard look not only at what they are fighting for, but exactly how they are fighting for it.
I’ve never heard the current President clearly (I mean in non wishy washy terms) renounce the use of violence, rioting, looting and destruction of property after recent cop killing and protests in major US cities. This includes the murder of Police officers (remember when we used to call them "peace" officers). His is more a conciliatory tone, an understanding of the frustrations of what arrises, but saying nothing firmly to denounce violence and encourage a deeper thinking and peaceful way forward. This kind complacency might lead to things like dead police officers in Dallas and riots in other US cities.
Obama said, “In a movement like Black Lives Matter, there is always going to be some folks who say things that are stupid or imprudent, or over-generalize, or are harsh (edit) and I don’t think that you can hold well-meaning activists who are doing the right thing and peacefully protesting responsible for everything that is uttered at a protest.”
This opinion is dangerous, more dangerous than saying nothing at all. Essentially it is saying, go ahead and organize and if something happens so be it, the leadership is not responsible for anything done, said or perhaps for violence that "breaks out”.
Should violence occur on inauguration day, a story which will emerge and quickly spread internationally will be one of a divided America, an inauguration with a violent and extreme reaction to a “divider president”, Donald Trump. But it is not Donald Trump who has been sitting in the seat of power over the past eight years using veiled encouraging statements like this to his SJW audience; that one falls squarely into the lap of the sitting president.
But in the end would violence and disruption amount to Trump’s violent entrance? Or would this be Obama’s violent exit, a stain on his scandal-free war-time Presidency?
It’s an important narrative to watch and one the MSM will ultimately need to take a great deal of responsibility for. If the MSM want to restore their place in the public trust, perhaps they should be the first to renounce any violence around the Inauguration, rather that rebroadcast it ad nauseum.
To me, any story which emerges which is not a peaceful transition and inauguration of newly democratically elected Donald Trump, (if things turn violent and we pray it does not) falls at the feet of the outgoing President and his slurping lapdog, aka the MSM.
President Bush had eggs hurled at his limo on inauguration day, which of course made it into a Michael Moore film. However, as the Obama’s have expressed, the Bush family were nothing but gracious and welcoming when their time in the White House had come to a close. Can we really say the same now while every possible barrier has been put up by a sore loser campaign a party and a President who struggles with narrative and his legacy by planting the protest seeds in the form of executive orders and last minute actions and disruptions designed as trip wires to the front door of the White House?
Cue the next narrative, “we tried real hard and we forced laws through” by abusing Presidential executive orders with "a pen", but now Trump and the Republicans (who happened organize themselves well enough to to win power across the important houses of government at every level) just want to change all the good we tried to impose through executive action.
While Obama has professed a peaceful transition his actions speak much louder. Pushing American troops the the Russian border, looking the other way on Isreal, giving himself and his VP presidential medals, last minute actions on monuments and National Parks, that pen sure has been busy Mr. Constitution. It does not seem that the Obama’s are exiting with the same kind of grace of presidents past and if Washington, NYC or any other major city do turn violent on inauguration day you could chalk it up to inaction and statements that do nothing to encourage a peaceful process. Michelle Obama"s loss of hope is a great example. Maybe she is being honest, but gracious, classy, supporting peaceful process, um, no.
Add to this the whole Russian spy narrative as a reason Hillary Clinton failed (not that she was outworked or anything). Now that this narrative is being embarrassingly debunked and turned into another colossal failure the next narrative/target is the FBI through a DOJ probe. It"s not into Hillary Clinton’s fast-and-loose home server, open for the world’s lamest hackers to access top state secretes by not going through official channels, but rather, the FBI departments who wanted to investigate her while she was Secretary of State selling off bits of America to the highest donor to CGI and the Clinton foundation.
What message does this all of this ultimately send?
With January 20th days away this is just a heads up to what the world hopes for out of days like this in American politics. The world looks to America to promote and preserve peace and stability.
America must represent a proactive attitude of peace, hope and prosperity. America needs to project this to to the world and be the leaders of a new global movement. No person knows how this Presidential term will turn out, but it can start on a correct path with a peaceful transition and the peaceful inauguration of a new Presidency.
Americans owe a peaceful transition to themselves, to the world and to its tattered Democratic party. However bruised, the Democrats are Americans, who with their fellow Americans, need to roll up their sleeves and get back to a work within balanced and fair democracy based on principles and ideas established in America and based on its constitution which is admired the world over.
This week and the entire lead up to the transition needs to be about peace and prosperity.
Peace is in your hands America, and that non-violent peace starts with the American people participating in a peaceful process.
The long and sometime turbulent drama of political dissent in America is a continued theme in history of the country. Born out of a revolution and based on social principles of self-determination, the nation rustles with the internal conflict between individual liberty and the power of tyrannical elites. This struggle is the natural condition in any nation. How a society treats dissenters is a primary test for any government. Most states fail this assessment miserably. America’s tolerance for peaceful dissent is in jeopardy, not solely from the current despotic regime in power, but from the flock of hungry government parasites that graze upon the public benefit programs that herd citizens into a crowd controlled environment.
The liberal left adopts a mindset that is deficient in understanding of this most important reality. When people become dependent on government, the effective ability for meaningful dissent diminishes. Progressives are innately believers in the “Good Society”. Their assessment that government improves the plight of citizens is a false conclusion. The greatest degree of suffering and despotism comes directly from the chambers of the State. Yet, the Democratic sentiments that echoes the welfare role of central government, causes the apathy and acquiescence that allows for even more consolidation among the oligarchs.
However, there is a more comprehensive description of this circumstance; an “Ineptocracy“.
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
By this definition, the advocates for more inclusive government practice the very elements that make the situation worse. Watch the video VOICES OF DISSENT: ACTIVISM & AMERICAN DEMOCRACY and observe this disconnect that leftist dissenters often express.
Movements like Occupy Wall Street become co-opted over time in a like manner as the Tea Party organizations that adopt mainstream Republican sentiments. Encouraging are instances when ordinary people pressure the corrupt political class. Notwithstanding, heightened activism, there must be a rational basis for a practical alternative. Sadly, in most instances, no matter how many demands petitioners make to restore immutable civil liberties, the establishment refuses to relinquish their tyrannical dictates.
This fact keeps the vast majority in self-induced incarceration. Nearly half of potential voters never cast a ballot. It is reasonable to conclude the tired old cliché that it does not matter to vote because there is no a difference between the parties, is accurate. Nonetheless, dissent is far more profound than being a duped victim to a rigged voting system. Dissent requires total emersion into the entire political process.
Lobbying officials and confrontation with bureaucracies are necessary elements that every citizen has a duty to engage. Yet, the lesson of history is that only the few ever risk being burned by challenging the status quo. Well, that kind of resignation will never defeat a coercive political dynasty bent on expanding an ever-greater diabolical regime.
Add in the legions of public employees with their union entitlement extortion demands and you have a formula for a terminable society.
Our natural tendency is to trust authority provides a feeble excuse into the dysfunctional Sheeple DNA. Only the conclusion “Our tendency to trust authority is allowing mentally incompetent people to remain as leaders in government, universities, business, and news reporting” provides the accurate insight.
One reason we resist improving our world is that we resist facing the possibility that our leaders are corrupt or incompetent. Our natural tendency is to trust people in positions of authority; to assume they are protecting us and providing guidance to us.
Children offer the most extreme example of this. The natural tendency of a child is to assume his parents are wonderful people. A child will trust his life with his parents, and he will resist accusations that his parents are bad people.
This tendency to trust authority persists even in adults. In fact, some people have noticed that simply by pretending that they are important they can get people to regard them as an authority. People who are promoted to management positions are sometimes advised by other managers to put on an aura of being a leader. The reason is simply because we don’t judge a leader by his ability to lead. Rather, like an animal, and like a child, we judge a leader by his visual appearance, posture, tone of voice, and — most important — according to whether other people consider him to be a leader.
Another viewpoint expands upon the true motives of the “Leaders” that reaches the fundamental lesson.
So you ask why Operation condition the sheeple the title to this article, because many are being manipulated by those that would control the masses for their own greedy purposes. The elite of this country and the World are simple unwilling to share their knowledge and are afraid of the ever awakening populace and rightfully so!
So by keeping the populace of the one remaining Super Power left in the World in the dark, distracted with electronic entertainment and tracked by the very same devices, The Powers That Be have put themselves in a position to Condition the Sheeple in anyway they see fit.
You know in your heart the system conditions the public to become mindless obedient serfs. Every act of obeying institutional corruption and rationalizing, that you are a good citizen for conforming to the subliminal conditioning, is the response of a mentally disturbed person.
Leave it to Alex Jones to crystallize the plight of a submissive country in the video It’s Time for The Sheeple to Wake The Hell Up!!. Does this analysis conflict with the Ineptocracy definition? While this concept describes the compliant public, do not dismiss the malicious nature of the manipulators that actually control the phony political process and create the environment that fosters a brain dead society.
Denial is not a defense for abdicating your civic responsibility. If you are one of the avid cheerleaders of State adoration and practice the ritual sentiment – “America Love It or Leave It“, you are a prime Sheeple follower.
Because there are so many docile disciples ready to forgo their natural rights in order to gain a perceived favor from the jackboot thugs who chime the slogan “rally around the flag boys”, the country deteriorates.
Dissent is necessary for any chance of survival. You know this to be true. But where will the opposition appear or around what issues will they gain critical mass? Under the Amerika Empire, foreign involvement and unremitting war is always a prime target for a mass movement resistance. Just where is the anti-war opposition? There is no monopoly of the left that objects to permanent warfare.
Traditional PaleoConservatives detest NeoCon and NeoLib internationalists. Patriots from all ideologies are alive and eager to stop the madness. So what is the excuse for indifference or lack of coordination? As World War III approaches, what will it take for a national response against the lunacy that guarantees massive human suffering?
The despotism that advances daily will not cease by passing additional repressive laws. National security begins in the minds and souls of the people and ends in the coercive dictates of a police state. Protest and resistance is the true patriotism.
If you are content to be a mere animal subservient to a cruel master, the Sheeple mentality resonates within your defective psyche. PsyOps are at the core of suppression and government education. The normal behavior for the average supporter of the tyrannical system requires condemnation for any dissent that seeks to restore a genuine Republic. If you oppose corruption and advocate accountability, the government flunkies and proponents will label you a domestic terrorist.
It comes as no surprise that the welfare state is now viewed as a right, while the Bill of Rights is trampled into the trash heap of a previous age. Political evolution, for the Sheeple is seen as lowing your head for the clipper that wants to shear your hair. Dissent for creatures absent of courage relegates the society to a fundamental split and confrontation.
Only fidelity to principle and bravery of spirit will transform this disturbed society into a nation worthy of allegiance. Until that day arrives, join the proud legacy of peaceful dissent and civil disobedience. Leadership is different from imposition. Gather the fortitude of risking public ridicule and fight for your country. Start with open resistance to any unlawful or immoral dictate. There is no where left to hide. Become a Patriot in the Patrick Henry tradition.
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” – John Stuart Mill
