The Orwellian Paradigm

Almost thirty years ago, cultural critic Neil Postman argued in Amusing Ourselves to Death that television’s gradual replacement of the printing press has created a dumbed-down culture driven by mindless entertainment. In this context, Postman claimed that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World correctly foresaw our dystopian future, as opposed to George Orwell’s 1984.
Contrary to Postman’s critique, however, the principles of Newspeak and doublethink dominate modern political discourse. Their widespread use is a testament to Orwell’s profound insight into how language can be manipulated to restrict human thought.

WAR IS PEACE
Formulating the Language of Perpetual War – From AUMF to “Associates of Associates.” 

The semantic deception began shortly after September 11, 2001. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda,” Bush said in his State of the Union address, “but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated (emphasis added).”

The defining feature of this rhetoric is that it declares war on a particular method of violence used by disaffected states or groups. In fact, the phrase “war on terror” functions as what semiotics calls a floating signifier, a term devoid of any real meaning and thus open to any interpretation.

Terrorism has no shape, mass, or boundary; it is an abstraction, a tactic of asymmetrical warfare used to achieve political goals. Imagine if Franklin D. Roosevelt had declared “war on surprise attacks” in the wake Pearl Harbor, or if Lyndon Johnson had vowed to defeat guerilla warfare in Vietnam. This linguistic construct, therefore, ensures an open-ended conflict with no conceivable end.

Unperturbed by this paradox, British Prime Minister Tony Blair dutifully reiterated that, “the fact is we are at war with terrorism.” But the bombing sorties over Afghanistan had barely begun when the label morphed into “The Long War,” and then the “decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.” And now, the targeted killings program has been “extended to militant groups” with no connection to September 11, 2001 – that is, “associates of associates.” Removing the requirement for any linkage to al-Qaeda gives the government unfettered discretion to assassinate anyone without due process of law.

This phraseology makes it impossible to distinguish the dialectical concepts of war and peace. It makes peace synonymous with a state of warfare. Peace is defined in terms of a generational commitment to war and, in turn, war is framed as a necessity to keep the peace. In other words, War is Peace. 

This is the lexicon of perpetual war, the vocabulary of a conflict that is never meant to end. “You can’t end the war,” as one official admits to the Washington Post, “if you keep adding people to the enemy who are not actually part of the original enemy.”

Aggression is Self-Defense –Waging Full Scale War to Prevent War.
Operation Iraqi Freedom represented phase two in a linguistic framework meant to fuse two diametrically opposite concepts in the public mind: preemption and prevention.
The purpose of preemptive war is to thwart or neutralize an imminent attack – one that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation” – without absorbing the first blow. Conversely, preventive war is pure aggression – it is not tied to any notion of imminence and is primarily directed at securing some strategic advantage. Thus, the dimension of time is the primary difference between the former and the latter.

The Bush Doctrine blurred the lines between preventive and preemptive wars. It represented a seismic shift in national security strategy from one dominated by the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment, to one that now enshrined preventive war as a permanent feature of US policy. During his 2002 commencement speech at West Point, Bush stated:
“If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long…Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge…” (emphasis added).”

Furthermore, the 2006 US National Security Strategy Paper states that “If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack” (emphasis added). In true Newspeak fashion, such a conception of “preemptive action” inverts the traditional model of self-defense under customary international law by rendering imminence completely irrelevant. In doing so, it strips self-defense of any practical meaning.

 It conflates preventive war with preemptive war; it packages aggression as self-defense.
But as Cheney’s one-percent doctrine later revealed, the threat need not even be likely, let alone imminent, for self-defense (read aggression) to apply. According to this logic, even a one percent chance of an event occurring is sufficient to treat it as a certainty. “It’s not about our analysis,” Cheney reportedly said, “…It’s about our response (emphasis added).” Put simply, the likelihood of an event occurring is not a necessary prerequisite to wage war. This embeds the supreme international crime of aggressive war in the fabric of national security policy. Aggression is self-defense, Winston.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
The Obama Administration gave the War on Terror a facelift by rebranding it “Overseas Contingency Operations.” But the sanitizing nomenclature has done little to halt the institutionalization of the apparatus of tyranny– from Kill Lists to Disposition Matrices to Drone Playbooks to indefinite detentions to persecuting whistleblowers to pervasive domestic surveillance. These developments are strikingly at odds with the post-9/11 metanarrative that frames this conflict as a clash between the forces of freedom and despotism. As Bush phrased it:

“Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this Chamber, a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms – our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”

From this point onward, spreading ‘freedom and democracy’ abroad became the rallying point for a nation enraptured by its new messianic role. But it soon became apparent that freedom at home cannot coexist with hyper-militarism abroad.

Accusation Is Guilt – Killing You for Your Own Safety.
What could be more destructive to the cherished freedoms that make America a “shining city on a hill” than giving a “high level official” the power to kill Americans on US soil without any due process, accountability or transparency?

 What could be more Orwellian than asserting such dictatorial authority, which has always been the hallmark of totalitarian states, in the name of protecting the public’s safety? The cost of war is not measured solely in terms of blood and treasure. War also corrodes human morality to a point where even the most inhumane acts become perfectly acceptable. In fact, summary executions without due process and the right to a fair trial served as one of the justifications for removing Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Not only does the recent Department of Justice White Paper resoundingly affirm this power grab, it also destroys the foundation of Anglo-American jurisprudence by nullifying the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ It eviscerates the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It obliterates the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment, including the “right to a speedy and public trial,” by asserting that government allegations alone, based on secret evidence, are sufficient to establish guilt.

Accusation is guilt, Winston. As Glenn Greenwald cogently observes:
“But of course, when this memo refers to “a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida”, what it actually means is this: someone whom the President – in total secrecy and with no due process – has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when “an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US.

This is the crucial point: the memo isn’t justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that (emphasis in original).”

Rarely do apologists for the normalization of extra-judicial murder realize that this represents a permanent erosion of core liberties, an ever-lasting debasement of the Bill of Rights. “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it,” Orwell said. “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” Secret assassinations are here to stay.

The Great Shift Inward — From Enemy Combatants to Homegrown Terrorists.
Under international law, captured enemy soldiers are considered Prisoners of War (POWs), and thus shielded by the Geneva Conventions and the jus cogens prohibition against torture. Furthermore, terrorism was traditionally treated as a federal criminal offense before 9/11. Accordingly, those accused of terrorism could still invoke the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the right to counsel, right to a jury trial, right to confront one’s accusers, right against self-incrimination and conviction based on guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the 2002 Padilla Case demonstrated, however, the enemy combatant doctrine creates a category of detainees that are neither POWs nor terrorists. As such, they are beyond the reach of both the Bill of Rights and Geneva Conventions. This undefined label essentially circumvents the safeguards of the legal system and allows the state to treat the accused like a medieval King would a serf. It sets the groundwork for a parallel gulag system in the United States operating on the model of indefinite detention without charge or trial, no access to a lawyer, and confessions obtained through torture.

And then came Attorney General Holder’s recent premonition about a new threat: the “homegrown terrorist.” Speaking to ABC news, Holder’s statement signals a decisive shift in the script governing the ongoing campaign:

“It’s a very serious threat. I think what it says is that the scope, our scope, has to be broadened. We can’t think that it’s just a bunch of people in caves in some part of the world. We have to be concerned about the homeland to the same extent that we are worried about the threat coming from overseas” (emphasis added).

The implications of this statement are staggering, for it turns the United States into the new “battlefield.” Systems of tyranny perfected abroad are always turned inward. It only took a decade for the same tactics of warfare that were previously restricted to foreign countries to now being applied domestically.

Responding to Senator Rand Paul’s question whether the President can authorize drone strikes on US citizens on domestic soil, Holder revealingly states that “It is possible…to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” Even though the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, notice how Holder sees no problem with the military, not police, using lethal force against Americans on US soil.

Furthermore, when combined with the DOJ White Paper’s assertion that drone assassinations do “not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future,” it becomes frighteningly clear that an anonymous “high level official” can deploy these “faceless ambassadors of death” to strike you dead anytime, even absent any imminent or likely threat. This gives government the power of God. It repudiates every principle of liberty this constitutional republic was founded upon.

This is no exaggeration, as Holder’s follow-up response to Senator Paul clarifies: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no (emphasis added).” As any lawyer can attest, Holder’s heavily qualified statement creates more ambiguity.

Note the following points: (1) Holder is not saying that the President cannot kill an American on US soil. The phrasing of his question is much narrower, which can arguably be interpreted as allowing the President to kill without using “weaponized drones;” (2) most important of all, his statement implies that the President does have the authority to kill Americans “engaged in combat.”

Hence, the issue of how “combat” is defined carries great importance. In this regard, William Grigg brilliantly points out that al-Awlaki’s assassination sets a precedent that stretches the interpretation of “combat” to a point where there are few, if any, restraints on the Presidents power to kill:

“Combat” can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact.”

More than half a century ago Orwell had warned us that the scourge of war eventually turns inward. “The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word “war”, therefore, has become misleading” (emphasis added). Stated differently, war becomes a buzzword for concealing a rather insidious internal dynamic, one that treats those who oppose the status quo – the intrepid whistleblower, the outspoken journalist, the vocal activist – as a legitimate target for persecution.

Dissent Is Treason.
It is precisely the ability to express unpopular opinions and the autonomy to diverge from convention without fear of persecution that makes any society free. As Edward R. Murrow reminded us during the McCarthy era, dissent should never be confused with disloyalty because “we are not descended from fearful men […] who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.” That same principle holds true today, regardless of the nature of the claimed emergency.

Bradley Manning was caged like an animal under insanity inducing conditions for more than two and a half yearswithout trial. Manning’s treatment is an epiphenomenon of the current administration’s unprecedented war against whistleblowers, which makes an example of any lowly prole who dare expose corruption at the highest levels of the Inner Party. John Kiriakou rots in prison for the “crime” of informing the people about the CIA’s illegal waterboarding, whereas John Brennan ascends to the heights of power for endorsing torture and assassinations.

The operative effect of such incidents is to create a culture of intimidation and silence by making it a “thoughtcrime” to deviate from the official version of events.
Investigative journalist Chris Hedges points out that the NDAA (the Homeland Battlefield Bill) “permits the military to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, who ‘substantially support’—an undefined legal term—al-Qaida, the Taliban or ‘associated forces,’ again a term that is legally undefined.”

This represents a clear step toward the criminalization of activities that were formerly protected under the First Amendment. It equates any meaningful dissent with treason.
As if this weren’t bad enough, some government employees are told to view “protests” as a form of “low-level terrorism,” and consider “Fury at the West for reasons ranging from personal problems to global policies of the U.S.” as a potential indicator of terrorist activity.

Recall that the PATRIOT Act was also billed a necessary counterterrorism tool. Even though it vastly expanded the state’s investigative power without any attendant checks and balances, Congress was given no time to read it due to the claimed exigency of the circumstances. Almost a decade later, however, its application has been expanded to ordinary, non-terrorism cases like drug dealing and child pornography.

Understanding how this process works is vital, for tyranny always treads a familiar path: first it clamors for unfettered authority to resolve some overriding problem; then it consolidates that power; next it gradually expands its vocabulary and application; finally, it turns around and uses that power to persecute everyone. Indeed, those who wield unrestrained power will inevitably abuse it.

Big Brother Is Watching You – Argus, TrapWire, Stingray, EARS and Total Information Awareness. 

Reporting on DARPA’s most recent project called Effective Affordable Reusable Speech-to-text (EARS), Wired magazine reports that “Darpa wants to make systems so accurate, you’ll be able to easily record, transcribe and recall all the conversations you ever have.” It’s a “little freaky,” the author admits, since it gives those who wield this technology total omniscience – the power to know everything about everyone at any time.

The parallels to 1984 are obvious: “Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed — no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull(emphasis added).” The only vestige of privacy is in one’s own mind – for now at least.

But even though the average citizen’s privacy has been eviscerated, the government continues to operate at unprecedented levels of secrecy. As the Associated Press reports:
…the government cited national security to withhold information at least 5,223 times — a jump over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in Obama’s first year in office.The secretive CIA last year became even more secretive: Nearly 60 percent of 3,586 requests for files were withheld or censored for that reason last year, compared with 49 percent a year earlier.

In that context, privacy is not dead per se; it is flourishing insofar as the government’s inner workings are concerned.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
“They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality…and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything…”

Like Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, the opinion molders – the handful of corporations that control the flow of information – sanitize reality to cover for even the worst cases of executive wrongdoing. Their paternalism regards people as mere casual observers to be controlled, not stakeholders to be informed about the democratic process. Their function is to control the narrative of events, for “Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Oceania Has Always Never Been At War With East Asia.
Orwell explained doublethink as “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed…”

A recently declassified memorandum written by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2001, almost a year and a half before Operation Iraqi Freedom, adds to the plethora of evidence that Rumsfeld, along with the rest of the neoconservative war hawks, concocted false pretexts to market the invasion of Iraq. The same Donald Rumsfeld, who invoked Saddam Hussein’s non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) as a casus belli to invade Iraq in 2003, previously armed the same Iraqi dictator with chemical and biological weapons as Ronald Reagans Middle East envoy during the 1980s. Oceania was never at war with East Asia.

But this was an inconvenient fact in the prelude to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and therefore had to be forgotten. It never happened. “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.” Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.
Conclusion – The Grand Contradiction. 

In a historical irony, Orwell’s proposed preface to Animal Farm about censorship in the English press was suppressed and remained undiscovered for years after his death. In it, Orwell mounts a principled defense of intellectual freedom during a time when the western press brooked no criticism of Joseph Stalin or his murderous regime.

 “These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you,” Orwell warned. “Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists.” Make a habit of endorsing drone strikes in far off lands, and perhaps the next drone will show up in your neighborhood.

In conclusion, the grand contradiction lurking behind all the rhetorical smoke screens is simply this: in trying to rid the world of evil using the tactics of evil, we unleash even greater horrors; we become what we seek to destroy.

Faisal Moghul is an attorney. He can be reached at fez.moghul1@gmail.com

Be Very Careful About Believing Or Blindly Following Anonymous's Call To Arms, DO NOT RESPOND

Activist Post In the latest video from Anonymous, they have called for the most aggressive action yet. They're asking the American people to join them in a "call to arms" for the destruction and overthrow of the US Government. In the statement, Anonymous says the government is calling them "terrorists" because they truly fear a people's uprising. "The United States Government insists on labeling us as terrorists. The question is, "who do we terrorize?" Is it probable that the United States government is truly afraid of we, the people?" They are not calling for denial of service attacks on government websites or protests as is their normal modus operandi, but for freedom activists to join them in full-blown war to overthrow the US Government and return it to the control of the people. "We are not calling upon the collective to deface or use a distributed denial of service attack on a United States government agency website, or affiliate. We are not calling upon the people to once again occupy a city or protest in front of a local building, This has not brought on us any legislative change or alternate law. It has only brought us bloodshed and false criticism. For the last 12 years, voting has been useless. Corporations and lobbyists are the true leaders of this country and are the ones with the power to control our lives, To rebuild our government, we must first destroy it. Our time for democracy is here, Our time for resolution is here, This is America's time for revolution, To restore our constitutional rights, to once again, be free therefore, Anonymous along with the American people have decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms." The hacktivist collective lists a long train of abuses that can no longer be allowed: We refuse to be a police state. We refuse to be brutalized and dehumanized by the very people our tax dollars fund to protect our cities and streets. We will not allow the government to control our destiny, our right to build a life for ourselves. We demand freedom from government control, taxation, repossession and death. You will not come to our doors and take our guns, our property, you will not force the citizens of this great country to participate in the unlawful act of government mandated healthcare. We the people refuse to put in your control our health, our bodies, our minds, our lives. We will not grant permission for the government to deploy drones over our homes and communities. We must end the federal reserve. A private central bank should not issue our currency, set interest rates and run our economy. Rather, we need to return control over the currency to the American people where it belongs. They claim that all peaceful attempts to affect change within the system have failed and the time for action is now. "Our peaceful actions, patience and restraint have been demonstrated as we watched and waited for our Congress and Representatives to speak for the American citizens and protect us from the tyrant that sits in the oval office and happily strips the American people of our rights, one by one, executive order by executive order. We have waited long enough." NOTE: Who is Anonymous? Could it be a part of a Rogue Government group designed to provoke you into armed revolution? Isn't that exactly what would cause what many are trying to prevent? This is not the Art Of War, this is trying to attract a few more lone nuts....

West Point Trains Military To Take On Americans

Soldiers and police in America take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. But knowing who is a domestic enemy of the Constitution can be confusing to a young grunt. So a West Point think tank decided to broadly define what a domestic enemy may look like to ensure soldiers follow orders when the time comes.

In a study recently published by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger, the author of the study, attempts to present a picture of an America infested with dangerous “Right Wing” domestic terrorists lurking in the shadows and waiting to launch an attack on government establishments, agents, and minorities.

In the study, what Perliger defines as the “Far-Right” is actually a mixture of race hate groups with ordinary militias, anti-abortion activists, Libertarians/Anarchists, and “conspiracy theorists.” Perliger suggets that this “Far-Right” contingent is glued together by an identification with an “anti-federalist” ideology as well as a belief in a “New World Order.” 

According to Perliger, these groups are concerned with the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

Perliger, who is the director of terrorism studies at the West Point Combating Terrorism Center writes in the Introduction to the study that its purpose is to provide “a conceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks and their associated trends.”

For all the repetition of the terms “terrorism” and "violent" however, it is important to mention just how broad a definition has been assigned to this term in recent years. As Madison Ruppert of End the Lie writes in his article, “West Point study identifies ‘violent far-right’ with recognizing tyrannical, corrupt nature of government,” “It is worth noting that the federal government is quite tyrannical and corrupt with a federal judge ruled the government can claim the legal right to assassinate Americans without any charge or trial while never explaining the legal basis, engage in widespread illegal surveillance (which is dramatically increasing) and indefinitely detain Americans.”

Ruppert continues by stating, “If those aren’t violations of individuals’ civil liberties and constitutional rights, I don’t know what is.”

Yet, while Perliger defines three different branches of the “far-right” – racist/white supremacy movement, anti-federalist movement, and fundamentalist movement – the author lumps the three different branches into one, all while conveniently ignoring pertinent facts that might not back up his claims.

Perliger’s paper notably lacks mention of the fact that a great many “racist/white supremacy” organizations are themselves either partially or even entirely staffed by law enforcement agents of government intelligence. Likewise, Perliger entirely conflates race-based movements (also likely infiltrated and controlled by government agencies) with what he labels the “Christian Fundamentalist” movement. This, as Madison Ruppert points out, is described with a complete lack of understanding (intentional or otherwise) as to what “fundamentalism” actually is.

Yet, the “anti-federalist” movement (itself a variety of movements mixed together to provide an easier category for Perliger and his readers), is the most interesting when evaluating the West Point paper. According to Perliger, this “movement” is centered around a belief in a “New World Order,” and the recognition of the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

In this regard, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.

In further summarizing the “anti-federalist” viewpoint, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist movement’s ideology is based on the idea that there is an urgent need to undermine the influence, legitimacy and practical sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The groups comprising the movement suggest several rationales that seek to legitimize anti-federal sentiments. Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order,” (NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another version of global government. The NWO will be advanced, they believe, via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement agencies into a federally controlled “National Police” agency that will in turn merge with a “Multi-National Peace Keeping Force.” The latter deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American society’s deficiencies and US government incompetency. This will convince the American people that restoring stability and order inevitably demands the use of international forces. The last stage, according to most NWO narratives, involves the transformation of the United States government into an international/world government and the execution and oppression of those opposing this process.

Indeed, anyone even faintly aware of historical and current events would be hard-pressed to argue with the so-called “anti-federalists” in their analysis.

Regardless, in light of the recent push for citizen disarmament, the paper tellingly states,

Linda Thompson, the head of the Unorganized Militia of the United States details the consequence of this global coup: ”This is the coming of the New World Order. A one-world government, where, in order to put the new government in place, we must all be disarmed first. To do that, the government is deliberately creating schisms in our society, funding both the anti-abortion/pro-choice sides, the antigun/pro-gun issues…trying to provoke a riot that will allow martial law to be implemented and all weapons seized, while ‘dissidents’ are put safely away”. The fear of the materialization of the NWO makes most militias not merely hostile towards the federal government but also hostile towards international organizations, whether non-profitable NGOs, international corporations, or political institutions of the international community, such as the UN.

Perliger, of course, does not attempt to challenge any of Thompson's claims as they are presented in this short quotation nor does he attempt to debunk any of the claims made by the “anti-federalist” communities that he so concisely repeats in the statement above. While, admittedly, it is not a stated goal of the author’s study to defend his position and debunk those of his subjects, one would also be justified in concluding that Perliger does not attempt to defend his case simply because disproving the claims made by the “anti-federalist” activists as he presents them would impossible for him to do in a convincing manner.

Yet the purpose of the paper is not to provide legitimate information about these groups as much as it is to terrify the reader – West Point and other military trainees – into believing that anyone who rightly supposes that their government is overstepping its bounds, violating their rights, or moving forward in otherwise unconstitutional directions is a conspiracy-obsessed, right-wing, racist fanatic who is intent on killing military, police, and minorities.

Unfortunately for the author, however, a careful reading of his own argument causes it to fall apart at the seams.

After postulating numerous reasons for the alleged violence of “far-right” groups ranging from political, socio-economic, geographical, and operational possibilities, Perliger attempts to turn to the actual numbers.

At first, Perliger’s presentation of thousands of violent attacks per year (using 2010 statistics) is quite shocking since such attacks are not known to the general public and the mainstream media has not seized upon them at every available opportunity as one would expect. The actual level of violence in its own right, whether reported or not, would be concerning to say the very least.

These numbers would be an even more concerning situation if they demonstrated that such attacks were on the rise.

Unfortunately for the government argument, however, this is not the case as even Perliger has to admit when he says, “Hence, in periods during which many streams of terrorism have shown improvement in their operational capabilities and, as a result, an increase in their tendency to engage in mass casualty attacks, the violent American far right shows stagnation, at least in terms of its ability to enhance the harm it generates.”

For instance, while the term “right-wing violent attack” might conjure images of lynchings, executions, or mass terror attacks, the statistics, even those presented by Perliger, tend to show a different reality. Indeed, the type of “attack” referenced in Perliger’s study is entirely unclear in terms of just what would constitute a “right-wing violent attack.”

Indeed, when examining Perliger’s statistics, one can easily see that well over half of the “attacks” being described are actually proxy “attacks” (loosely defined term) against property, “foiled attacks” (which are wildly undefined, especially since the overwhelming majority of any foiled terrorist attack in the United States has been directed by the FBI), “heavy damage to property,” and “cross burnings.”

Likewise, with so many acts of property damage and racial symbols being later determined to have been directed by the “victims” themselves, one must also call these numbers into question since they are left unclear in the study.

Of those attacks designed to cause “mass casualties,” the Oklahoma City Bombing was no doubt included in the statistics, an obvious government-run false flag operation.

Yet, even among the 42% of “attacks” described as involving “specific human targets,” the incidents are not necessarily connected with any political, racial, or religious origin. As with any attempt at methods of divide and conquer, there is the very real possibility that any violent attack leveled against any individual of minority status or non-right-wing political ideology is thus considered to be a “specific human target” attack. Under such loosely defined rules of categorization, since the incidence of “specific human targets” were overwhelmingly one on one or (at most) two on one altercations, a simple shoving match between two individuals in which one could be remotely considered right wing, racist, or religious could then be delineated as a violent right-wing attack.

Since Perliger easily allows his own political bias to appear during the course of the paper and, since much of his political theory is based upon Israeli political scientist Ehud Sprinzak’s Iceberg model of the structure of political movements, it is apparent that Perliger’s own methodology is likely devised in a manner that would allow even the most distant and unrelated events seem directly related to the core of political ideology Perliger has set in his sites.

Such a concern is only compounded by the fact that one of Perliger’s main sources for his paper is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a notorious race-baiting organization that routinely accuses anyone who disagrees with the company line in regards to government policy as racist and potentially violent and dangerous. Not far behind, of course, is the citation of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization of similar race-based incredibility.

In the end, Perliger’s report is nothing more than just another cog in the wheel of a military-industrial complex on overdrive in its attempt to brainwash new military recruits into believing that a terrorist lurks behind every bush. More importantly, these new recruits are being trained that such terrorists are no longer shadowy Muslims hiding in caves in Afghanistan, but good ol’ boys, gun owners, and average American citizens that will eventually have to be dealt with.

Alex Jones Made CNN Producer Cry

Radio host Alex Jones says his CNN confrontation with host Piers Morgan last night was so volatile that one of the producers of the show burst into tears during the commercial break. According to Jones, the fact that the showdown became so out of control and off-script overwhelmed CNN staffers and sent them into a tailspin, including Piers Morgan Tonight producer Rachel Burstein, who began to shed tears.

Jones was supposed to appear in a third segment on the show to debate lawyer Alan Dershowitz, but CNN managers and Morgan himself were so outraged at his refusal to play ball that they changed the format of the whole program on a whim.

After the second segment, Morgan told Jones, “You’re done,” to which Jones responded by accusing Morgan of chickening out of the confrontation.

“We will defeat you,” Jones told Morgan, to which Morgan responded by snickering.

Jones said he also confronted Dershowitz on his support for creating warrants that would allow police and security services to torture suspects, adding that Dershowitz was not interested in debating Jones.

Before he even arrived at CNN center in New York, Jones described how he and cameraman Rob Dew were being followed around by undercover police.

Watch a video of Jones’ account of what happened after the cameras stopped rolling below, as well as the debate with Morgan itself.

You Are A Slave To Your Government

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe “Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of the virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the laziest and commonest of the vices.” – George Bernard Shaw

Americans Chained By Illusion Called Brain Washing

#Firearm Confiscation Plan Announced With Forced Buy Back

US senators, state governors and others are testing the waters to see if they can sell a national confiscation buy back program under an Obama executive order. This is a way of making all gun owners terrorist. This is the plan, the facts are indisputable. We are in deep sh!t.

TSA Plans On Tracking Every Move You Make, Everywhere

While the TSA can't explain why invasive patdowns without probable cause are legal, that isn't stopping TSA from future plans to track all your daily travels, anywhere you go, from work, to stores, or even when you go out to play.

.

When the TSA was asked to provide legal reasons that definitely spelled out why physically invasive patdowns are legal, without any probable cause, not one TSA person had an answer. There was no legal documentation for enhanced patdowns other than it serves "the essential administrative purpose."

Peep show, police state or privacy invasion, patdowns and body scans are not just in airports. EPIC said DHS is refusing to disclose details of mobile body scanner technology. In fact, in answer to EPIC's FOIA request, DHS handed over "several papers that were completely redacted."

Meanwhile at airports, the TSA is rolling out "less-invasive gingerbread man" body scanners to a tune of $2.7 million for 240 machines. At this point, I don't think skinnier versions of the Pillsbury Doughboy via kinder and gentler naked body scans are going to placate people who are secretly murmuring that America is truly becoming a police state. Spending countless billions of dollars on all this 'security theater' makes it look like the TSA is "doing their best to ensure that if there's a terrorist attack the public doesn't blame the TSA for missing it."

According to TSA Blogger Bob, in the 10 years after 9/11, there have been vast improvements and new technology as well as a "professionalized workforce" of Transportation Security Officers. Professional as in claiming no more enhanced groping of children under 12, only to break that promise and seemingly molest this little boy dressed as Spiderman?

The Los Angeles Times reported on TSA launching a behavior-detection program at Boston's Logan International Airport. These TSA officers received a whopping two weeks of training and are supposed to ask each passenger a "few" questions "in an effort to detect suspicious behavior." Doesn't this seem like yet another strike at your privacy?

 Some people are stressed or even nervous when they are traveling. What if you don't feel like talking or being questioned? Is this too going to become yet another TSA-mandated "you will answer if you want the privilege of flying?"

A MSNBC travel article warned that when it comes to airport security, "you ain't seen nothing yet." Some security analysts suggest Big Brother will employ an even Bigger Brother in the form of "chip-embedded passports that someday tell the federal transportation watchdogs all about your daily commutes to work, the mall — even to parties."

Other security analysts suggest it will all be about "gathering intelligence technologically" or that increased biometrics is the security answer. The Known Traveler Program will launch this fall so previously known and trusted travelers will "have bar codes stamped on their boarding passes, authorizing TSA screeners to allow those passengers to skip shoe and laptop removals." TSA Administrator John Pistole said, "Enhancing identity-based screening is another common sense step in the right direction as we continue to strengthen overall security and improve the passenger experience whenever possible."

So even though the TSA is building up its ranks with bomb-sniffing dogs, there will be dramatic changes in store for travelers within the next 30 years. There will be biometric fingerprinting as well as other biometric and personal info stored in government databases.

Senior policy analyst at the Center for Health and Homeland Security Vernon R. Herron told MSNBC that your official travel document "will not only have information as to who you are and where you have traveled, but it will also ... allow government officials to track your travel not only in the air, but your daily travels to work, grocery stores and social events."

 In the future the "government will detain passengers who have traveled to places that are suspicious in nature" once they enter an airport, Herron added. "All these measures seem extreme. However, after we declared a war on terror, we must be more proactive than reactive when it comes to airport security."

Ah, again with the "suspicious" lists even if it's places to which you traveled this time. Regarding the dreaded list after list of supposed suspicious activity, are they meant to keep the public in a state of paranoia and fear so they just roll over and watch it happen? Digg commenter leodin said, "Strange... The actual threat of terrorism hasn't increased, and the odds of actually dying in a terrorist attack make the lottery look like a sound investment, and yet the government seems insistent upon taking more and more measures to protect us from these imaginary threats."

It seems as if the massive DHS database of secret watchlists will continue to grow with U.S. citizens' names even if the threat of terrorism does not.

Nashville Mother Defies TSA Inappropriately Touching Her Or 15 Year Old Daughter

US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle As Judge Permanently Blocks NDAA's Military Detention Provision

Back in January, Pulitzer winning journalist Chris Hedges sued President Obama and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, specifically challenging the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or, the provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces." Hedges called the president's action allowing indefinite detention, which was signed into law with little opposition from either party "unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous." He attacked point blank the civil rights farce that is the neverending "war on terror" conducted by both parties, targetting whom exactly is unclear, but certainly attaining ever more intense retaliation from foreigners such as the furious attacks against the US consulates in Egypt and Libya. He asked  "why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens." A few months later, in May, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of the authorization for military detention. Today, the war againt the true totalitarian terror won a decisive battle, when in a 112-opinion, Judge Forrest turned the temporary injunction, following an appeal by the totalitarian government from August 6, into a permanent one.
From Reuters:

The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.

The opinion stems from a January lawsuit filed by former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and others. The plaintiffs said they had no assurance that their writing and advocacy activities would not fall under the scope of the provision.

Government attorneys argued that the executive branch is entitled to latitude when it comes to cases of national security and that the law is neither too broad nor overly vague.

"This court does not disagree with the principle that the president has primacy in foreign affairs," the judge said, but that she was not convinced by government arguments.

"The government has not stated that such conduct - which, by analogy, covers any writing, journalistic and associational activities that involve al Qaeda, the Taliban or whomever is deemed "associated forces" - does not fall within § 1021(b)(2)."

What is ironic, is that in the ongoing absolute farce that is the theatrical presidential debate, there hasn't been one word uttered discussing precisely the kind of creeping totalitarian control, and Orwellian loss of constitutional rights, that the biparty-supported NDAA would have demanded out of the US republic. Why? Chris Hedges said it best:

The oddest part of this legislation is that the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the Pentagon and the attorney general didn’t support it. FBI Director Robert Mueller said he feared the bill would actually impede the bureau’s ability to investigate terrorism because it would be harder to win cooperation from suspects held by the military. “The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we’ve been fairly successful in gaining,” he told Congress.

But it passed anyway. And I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.

He is 100% correct, and today, if it weren't for his lawsuit, the saying that someone, somewhere in the world might possibly "hate America for its liberties" would have been the biggest lie conceivable.
Also, the total fascist takeover of America would now have been a fact.
Some other insights from Hedges, who explained back in January, just why he is suing Barack Obama:

This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.

The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous. The threat and reach of al-Qaida—which I spent a year covering for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East—are marginal, despite the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist group poses no existential threat to the nation. It has been so disrupted and broken that it can barely function. Osama bin Laden was gunned down by commandos and his body dumped into the sea. Even the Pentagon says the organization is crippled. So why, a decade after the start of the so-called war on terror, do these draconian measures need to be implemented? Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did in the killing of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen? Why is this bill necessary when the government routinely ignores our Fifth Amendment rights—“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”—as well as our First Amendment right of free speech? How much more power do they need to fight “terrorism”?

Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

Police State? Or Land Of The Free?

Secret TSA Body Scanners 50 X More Lethal

A growing number of Americans are already outraged over the government's use of high-powered, ultra-revealing and potentially dangerous backscatter x-ray machines at a growing number of the nation's airports, and as bad as that problem is, it's about to get a whole lot worse unless Congress intervenes to stop the madness.

In the late 1990s, travel experts doubted the government would ever employ such machines in a security checkpoint role at airports or other locations. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 dramatically reversed that mentality to the point that now, no doubt afraid of being accused of doing "too little" to enhance security, lawmakers and select government agencies have done a complete reversal, permitting the use of high-powered x-ray machines to "scan" airline travelers (and perhaps, we near bus, train and other modes of travel in the future).

The all-knowing Transportation Security Administration insists the machines it is currently using - some 250 of them - are safe, but the agency relies primarily on its own in-house and government experts to support their claims.

The non-governmental experts speak

But other private-sector experts, including a bevy of health and radiation scientists cited by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, disagree. They include Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., a board certified neurosurgeon, who wrote:

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration's new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April (2010).

The letter he referred to was signed by doctors John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D., all of whom are faculty at the University of California, San Francisco. They wrote:

We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers. Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed.

These experts went on to say that even though the overall dose of radiation "would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high."

Despite what the experts say, the government continues to employ more powerful x-ray machines

No matter. Again, the TSA knows better. And apparently, judging by the lack of concern shown by a majority of members of Congress, most of them agree with this rogue agency.

So, law enforcement agencies, including the TSA and others, are continuing to expand their use of x-ray scanners, "including machines that expose people to as much as 50 times more radiation than an airport scanner, and are sometimes using them on people without their knowledge or consent," AllGov.com reported.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is currently installing some 35 drive-thru x-ray gates that will scan vehicles at the border with passengers still inside.

New York City, meanwhile, has utilized specially equipped vans to scan vehicles for drugs and weapons, again while people are inside them.

Also, prisons have begun to use x-rays that can see through the body in search of contraband that may be hidden inside the bodies of prisoners - and jail employees as well.

Where are the government regulatory agencies?

The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for the safety of medical machines like x-ray equipment, apparently has no jurisdiction over their non-medical use, according to reports. So, they've done nothing about the use of x-ray scanners by police.

Is DHS Ramping Up To Subdue & Kill Americans?

Would they kill their own?  Would these Americans shoot fellow American men, women and children if ordered to do so?  You bet they would.  And let's not forget the 450 MILLION rounds ammo that was purchased last year by DHS, this 'President' has created a super force accountable to no one but himself. What could they need equipment like this for here in the US?  They are hitting the road with it.  Caravans of National Guard equipment but with new never before seen equipment in the convoys. Take a close look at what is painted on the side of the Black Humvees. The Humvees are fully armored the same standard used by our military. The use of the word 'Rescue' is an obvious psy op...makes it sound nice and benign, kind of like a life-saving paramedic ambulance and not a domination and death machine.  The Posse Comitatus Act is gone. They are gearing up for serious business and are training the National Guard, FEMA and Police with them.  The latest batch of 2,500 GLS vehicles don’t come more heavily-armored.  The GLS is the larger vehicle on the trailer below. It is a deadly serious piece of equipment and they have never been used inside the US until now.  All information in this email has been released publicly.

Zombified Workers With Their Trite Compliance Phrases

Tyranny is upon us. But tyranny isn't put in place by some all-powerful evil force that suddenly assaults our freedoms; it's ratcheted up one day at a time by the People themselves -- the government workers who are willing to do anything as long as they're told "it's the rules."

You'll encounter these brain-dead government workers everywhere: At the airport security line, your local city council meetings, and even at the local DMV. These are the people who blindly follow rules and regulations that often make no sense whatsoever, such as the TSA now shoving testing sticks into your drinks at the airport, presumable to test your beverage for explosives. (http://www.infowars.com/video-shows-tsas-bizarre-new-security-policy/)

Fortunately, there are some code phrases these people use which indicates their status as a brain-dead government worker -- a zombie drone -- who will do anything for a paycheck and the promise of power. I call these "obedience phrases."

For your amusement and safety, I hereby present these obedience phrases so you can instantly spot these wussified, zombified government enforcers in a future encounter:

"I'm just doing my job"
This phrase is usually uttered by some pot-bellied government tyrant who knows he or she is doing something highly immoral and possibly illegal.

Example: "I'm just doing my job" says the TSA security goon as he's reaching down the pants of your six-year-old under the ridiculous presumption that terrorists might be hiding in there.

If instructed by DHS to molest senior citizens at security checkpoints, TSA employees will gleefully obey, saying "I'm just doing my job" as they strip search your grandma and destroy her colostomy bag.

"It's required by regulations"
This obedient, brain-dead phrase is often uttered by private-sector workers who are quoting government regulations. More often than not, they're quoting the Patriot Act.

Example: You're at a bank trying to open a new account, and you say to the bankster, "So why do you need the physical address where I live, plus my social security number, plus all my financial records and numerous ID cards?"

The bankster replies, "It's required by regulations."

Oh, gee, then I guess that makes being info-jacked perfectly fine then!

The phrase, "It's required by regulations" is NOT a reason... it's a linguistic evasion of a reason!

"I have to, or I'll lose my job"
This is a favorite phrase of police officers who beat the crap out of some innocent woman and then fudge together a false report in order to place the blame on the victim. This just happened recently, by the way. Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHh2DMGWTRs

And this second video shows police body-slamming an elderly woman in the Wal-Mart parking lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpT1BQMQ4tU

By the way, when East German soldiers shot people trying to escape East Germany by scaling the Berlin Wall, they said exactly the same thing: "I have to, or I'll lose my job!"

Because their job, you see, is far more important than your life.

"It's the law"
This phrase is usually uttered by some brain-dead collectivist rule-follower who can't think for themselves so they have to quote "the law" without thinking about what the law was really written for.

For example, when officials in Oregon recently arrested and jailed a man for collecting rainwater on his own land (http://tv.naturalnews.com/videoedit.asp?v=E9D083FE1A928B3B0145570778F...), they no doubt said during his arrest, "It's the law!"

So apparently, if some state writes a law that says, for example, all black people are sub-humans, then that makes it true, eh? I use this example because it's a part of U.S. history. The infamous "Dred Scott" decision, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, declared that blacks brought to America as slaves were "sub-humans" and not accorded any protections under the U.S. Constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)

So does that make it right, then? Because it was the law? People who follow "the law" without thinking are not merely morons; they're dangerous to society as a whole. "The law" should never replace cognitive function.

Just because the Supreme Court declares something to be "the law" doesn't really make it so. Supreme Court decisions, remember, are nothing more than mental constructs which are agreed upon by certain members of society. If the Supreme Court declares all wage earners to be the property of the King, would you line up and obediently follow "the law?"

"If that were true, I would have already heard about it"
This is a favorite quote of a mind-numbed egomaniac who somehow thinks they already know everything. When you tell them something they have difficulty believing -- such as the fact that fluoride is a chemical pesticide that harms the brain -- they resort to this pathetic, wussified word collection: "If that were true, I would have already heard about it!"

This is a favorite phrase of doctors, by the way. Doctors are taught in medical school that they know everything and that nothing true exists outside whatever they are taught (brainwashed) in medical school. So when you tell a doctor something really simple like, "Oh, by the way, sodium nitrite causes cancer and it's found in hot dogs and bacon," the doctor will usually scowl and say, "If that were true, I would have already heard about it!"

Or maybe you're just an arrogant fool, doc. It takes a truly delusional person to think they know so much that they can't learn something new from time to time.

Watch out for these red flag "obedience phrases" of code enforcers and brain-dead rule followers
Rules are necessary, of course, in any civilized society. Speed limits make reasonable sense in neighborhoods, as do rules such as, "You can't burn down your neighbor's house."

But rules, laws, regulations and Supreme Court decisions should never be followed blindly. The gift of being human is the gift of having a conscience, a soul, a mind and the ability to discern right from wrong. If a law sounds wrong and feels wrong, it's probably a bad law and should be abandoned. If a regulation encroaches upon your Constitutionally-protected rights, that regulation should be aggressively rejected and reformed.

Rules, laws and regulations have no magical powers. They are fictional constructs of society.
They do not exist in the real world. They only exist in the minds of those who share in the delusion of their existence. As you are a being with free will and a soul, you can choose to reject delusional thinking and operate according to the fundamental principles of honesty, ethics and civility.

If you practice this, what you'll find is that most people in society today are technically insane. They have an almost fanatical belief in fictional constructs called "laws." They believe laws have magical powers and that regulations bind their thoughts and actions. In an effort to comply with all these laws, rules and regulations, they enslave themselves in a matrix of control. They are the desperate rule followers who ultimately drive every nation to ruin.

These are the people who always do what they're told: They line up for flu shots, they vote on voting day, they have their children vaccinated and they agree to undergo chemotherapy if their doctor tells them to. They are the great mindless masses that George Carlin called "Obedient workers!"

I miss Carlin. He would have drilled into the TSA with a vengeance. In just three minutes, George Carlin delivered a stunning narrative that was years ahead of its time. It's full of profanity, but it's completely accurate about systems of control and why society's controllers don't want you to be smart enough to think for yourself. Watch it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

TSA's Bizarre New Screening Procedures

Child Porn, Coke Smuggling DHS Agents

Border Patrol agents smuggling weed and coke. Immigration agents forging documents and robbing drug dealers. TSA employees caught with child porn. Those are just a few of the crimes perpetrated by Department of Homeland Security employees in just the past year.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security nearly a decade ago, the agency’s inspector general has been tasked with uncovering corruption, waste and criminality within its own ranks. The IG has had his hands full.

According to a newly released DHS inspector general’s summary of its significant investigations, 318 DHS employees and contractors were arrested in 2011 (.pdf). That’s about one arrest per weekday of the men and women who are supposed to be keeping the country safe. The report lets us not only see how corrupt some agents tasked with protecting the homeland can be, it also gives us a scale of the problem. In short: There are a lot of dirty immigration and border officers.

That might send the wrong impression. DHS is a massive agency of more than 225,000 employees. Within DHS, sub-agency Customs and Border Protection has more than doubled in recent years to nearly 59,000 employees. Maybe it’s not so surprising an organization of that size has a few bad apples. There’s also some good news. The number of arrests is going down: there were 519 arrests in 2010, compared to the 318 last year. Still, within that number includes some serious crimes.

“Border corruption may take the form of cash bribes, sexual favors, and other gratuities in return for allowing contraband or undocumented aliens through primary inspection lanes or even protecting and escorting border crossings; leaking sensitive law enforcement information to persons under investigation and selling law enforcement intelligence to smugglers; and providing needed documents such as immigration papers,” Charles Edwards, the acting inspector general for DHS, told Congress earlier this month (.pdf).

According to the report, a Border Patrol agent from Tucson named Yamilkar Fierros was given 20 months in prison for providing “sensor location maps, trail maps, and communications technology” to cartel members in exchange for more than $5,000 in bribes. Another incident involved an 8-year veteran CBP agent who conspired with cocaine traffickers to let drugs past his border inspection post. The agent, whose name and former location are undisclosed in the report, was sentenced to 110 months in federal prison.

Other corruption cases read like a list of bad career decisions, some appalling; others involve petty greed. The appalling includes at least two employees — one from CBP and another from the TSA — who were caught in possession of child pornography. A Border Patrol agent in Arizona “punched a fellow agent and threatened him with his service-issued weapon after the fellow agent joked about the excessive amount of tactical gear the [Border Patrol] routinely wore,” according to the report.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent named Valentino Johnson was sentenced to 120 months in prison for working an off-duty job robbing drug dealers, according to the report. Johnson, who was busted after attempting to steal a load of fake cocaine, worked with a stick-up crew who saw him as a means to portray a sense of legitimacy to their robberies.

A Border Patrol agent in Arizona named Michael Atondo was convicted for attempting to distribute marijuana. The agent, according to the report, using his patrol vehicle to bypass checkpoints and smuggle more than 100 kilos of marijuana. Among ICE agents, many cases involve forging fake immigration documents for bribes. A CBP agent posted to Logan International Airport in Boston even reportedly stole astronaut Neil Armstrong’s customs declaration form and attempted to sell it on the internet.

The corruption investigations have also netted contractors. At least one contractor with the Federal Emergency Management Agency was convicted of defrauding the agency of more than one million dollars. A company employee for security contractor MVM was discovered to have falsified training documents to the Federal Protective Service, which oversees security at government buildings.

There’s also a caveat. While the numbers of arrests have fallen this year, the long-term trend of cases against CBP agents, at least, has been on a rise since 2004, according to the Arizona Daily Star. Between 2004 and 2010, the number of cases doubled. Former Border Patrol agent Lee Morgan told the Daily Star the increase was due to the agency expanding its ranks so quickly. “This is just such a tarnish on the badge of the U.S. Border Patrol,” he told the paper.

Homeland Security’s inspectors are also overloaded, and are now framing out more criminal cases to sub-agencies. The CBP, meanwhile, is boosting its own internal affairs staff, and is implementing lie-detector tests starting in January.

“While the number of corrupt individuals within our ranks who have betrayed the trust of the American public and their peers is a fraction of one percent of our workforce, we continue to focus our efforts on rooting out this unacceptable and deplorable behavior,” CBP acting commissioner David Aguilar told Congress (.pdf).

The director’s testimony came at a bad time. On Friday, in one of the most high-profile cases of agency corruption in recent years, two former Border Patrol agents were found guilty of smuggling hundreds of people in their vehicles in exchange for cash. They could face up to 50 years in prison. Perhaps they’ll meet up with some old colleagues, if they’re put behind bars.

DHS Says Lone Wolf Extremist Veterans Will Carry Out More Violent Attacks

Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

Michael Chertoff, former director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has brought the influence of the Israel Defense Forces to local police departments across America. By using Zionist training, local police are being mentally and physically shifted from being protectors of American law to purveyors of Zionist control-schemes.

While the suppressive, over-reaching Obama administration, under control of the global Elite, turns our Constitutional Republic in a Fascist Dictatorship, the police forces have been a clear reflection. Suddenly the use of military uniforms, armored vehicles, assault weapons, and illegal surveillance is evidence of a Nazi-style computer systems, evidencing a dramatic shift in American societal structure.

The Marine Corps have created a law-enforcement battalion (ELB) consisting of specialized military police officers (SMP) that will be deployed to assist in investigating crimes dealing with drug trafficking, train security and terrorism.

The ELBs contain an estimated 500 SMPs and trained dogs. While capitalizing on their investigative and police training, they will take the role of current street cops while still remaining part of the Marine Corps.

SMPs would be deployed to assist in any event of civil disturbance, handling of detainees, and the use of biometrics to identify suspects and conduct forensic work. Their assistance is not limited to conducting DUIs and writing speeding tickets in an effort to re-brand the Marine Corps as being more involved with average work now allocated to local law enforcement.

Police departments nationwide are engaging in re-directive training for civil war, domestic insurrection, and cooperative efforts with military forces in accord with covert policies.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and DHS, “extremist domestic organizations is just as dangerous as terrorism from foreign organizations” and law enforcement must be enabled to pre-emptively stop these homegrown terrorists without the hindrances of Constitutional rights like the 1st Amendment.

By demonizing US veterans and alleged members of white supremacist groups, as in the case of the staged psy-op Sikh shooting in Wisconsin, the DHS hopes to use the pre-crime technologies at their disposal in conjunction with local police to infiltrate and stop domestic extremism.

Wade Michael Page, the alleged shooter in the Sikh murders, has been called a white supremacist by two suspect organizations. First is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is known to have ties to the FBI after having been infiltrated by federal agents.


Second is the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL) which is a non-governmental (NGO) organization founded for the benefit of Zionists in America by using the threat of anti-Semitism as a means of “defending the security of Israel and Jews worldwide.”

While the DHS solicits for 700 pounds of High Density Ammonium Nitrate and 700 pounds of A-5 Flake RDX which is the exact ingredients need to manufacture an improvised explosive device (IEDs), the Pentagon is coming before Congress to demand that Posse Comitatus be “relaxed” so that military troops can freely patrol American streets looking for the homegrown terrorists.

Using James Holmes’ “booby-trapped” apartment with IEDs as an example, Army Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero told Congress that the threat “from both homegrown terrorists and global threat networks is real and presents a significant security challenge for the United States and our international partners.”

At the University of Rhode Island, Jimmie Carol Oxley, chemist and professor, works with the DHS on projects with her students to analyze IEDs from manufacturing to various “terrorist scenarios” that these diverse explosives could be used for.

Oxley has worked with many governmental agencies, such as the FBI, NSF, and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC); as well as written over 80 papers on “energetic materials (explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics). She has worked on law enforcement issues [with the FBI simulating the World Trade Center bombing (1993), with FEL examining large fertilizer bombs, and with ATF studying the behavior of pipe bombs]; however, her main research interest is hazard analysis of energetic materials.”

On a 2,200-acre site, Oxley and her students take IEDs constructed in the lab and detonate them to “see what happens.” They use chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide to study how chemical additives can reduce or exacerbate the effects of a homemade bomb. Most of Oxley’s students go on to work for the DHS specializing in criminal and terrorist investigations.

In 2009, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis published a report entitled Rightwing Extremism, wherein domestic extremists, particularly white supremacists, were proposed to be the newest and most dangerous threat to the US since al-Qaeda.

While admitting that they had no definitive proof that “domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, [however] rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”

The DHS wanted to instill the idea that veterans were being recruited to become “right-wing extremists” upon returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Janet Napolitano intimated that military veterans could become instruments of domestic terror. When Napolitano’s comments were met with public disdain, the DHS amended their assertion that extremist groups were highly-marked; but rather it was a lone wolf type that would carry out the biggest act of domestic terrorism.

As the FBI reported in 2007 white supremacist groups are “relatively disorganized” and the “individuals acting alone” will be the most obvious threat as a more resourceful implementation of premeditated terrorist attacks.

Mainstream media has spun the propaganda perfectly by asserting that “the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

This plot, hatched over a decade ago to frame veterans as the new terrorist Bogeyman, is being played out in the theater of reality as more instances of staged attacks may be looming in the not-so-distant future. With intentions on destroying the 2nd Amendment, along with demonizing US troops, there are obvious implications. Former military are trained in tactical operations and could pose a threat to the marital law scenario that the DHS is planning on implementing just in time for the collapse of the US dollar.

Are Nazi Gestapo Checkpoints Spread Across America?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is speading its tendrils across America like a cancerous tumor invading surrounding cells.

Responding to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the federal government launched a misguided attempt to consolidate terrorist information among different intelligence and
law-enforcement agencies by creating a super-agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The gargantuan agency swallowed up the FBI, CIA, and Coast Guard while creating a new bastard child: the Transporatation Security Agency.
What began as an attempt to increase protection has become America’s modern version of the old Nazi Gestapo.

Comparing the Department of Homeland Security to the loathed Nazi security police is not too much of a stretch.

The DHS is preparing to implement plans to track all American citizens. Homeland Security is gearing up to install manned security checkpoints at bus depots and in train stations, sports stadiums, and hotels, and shopping malls.

They also intend to deploy surveillance drones across America’s cities and farmland, and surreptitiously scan motorists on the roads to determine if the drivers and passengers somehow fit terrorist profiles only the unseen “authorities” know.

Test DHS checkpoint at undisclosed mall

Test programs are activating smart cameras using artificial intelligence scripts to scan faces in crowds and determine if an individual is a “person of interest” to the nameless, faceless authorities.

Some in the FBI are now suggesting that even people’s tattoos be registered.

Worse, “mind reading helmets” are being developed to analyze and predict any person who may be suspected of illegal activities by the State. Who are the suspects? Chances are, you’ll be one of them.

Hidden scanners will be everywhere

According to gizmodo.com, “Within the next year or two, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will instantly know everything about your body, clothes, and luggage with a new laser-based molecular scanner fired from 164 feet (50 meters) away.” [Hidden Government Scanners Will Instantly Know Everything About You From 164 Feet Away]

Car and driver X-ray-portal [TSA]

State security with Superman’s X-ray powers

The Department of Homeland Security. Even the name has a fascist ring to it.

America’s Big Brother government has truly arrived and it’s worse than George Orwell ever imagined.

After the DHS assimilated FEMA, they jointly published a new manual outlining how to contain, detain, and constrain Americans during any type of national emergency that runs the gamut from a nuclear attack to the president stubbing his toe. Download this document [PDF] describing the formation and organization of America’s new “Black Forces Gestapo.”

A TSA VIPR Squad inspects vehicles

bravery under fire

A brave American patriot, Steven L Anderson, took it upon himself to challenge the unConstitutionality of the creeping and expanding powers of Homeland Security that, left unchecked, may do more than swallow up intelligence and law enforcement. It may eventually swallow up most of America and along the way individual liberty.

We’re here to protect you, now bend over

confrontation at checkpoint Able

Robotic goon with heavy accent at checkpoint:

 FOR THE REST OF THE LOOONG STORY PLEASE VISIT:
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/07/24/nazi-gestapo-checkpoints-sp...