This first video says it all, and it is worth watching.
Based upon a legitimate concern a citizen attempts to get the attention of one of our "rulers" - see what happens.
Is this the land of the free?
Clearly not. Note the absolute distain and contempt that one of our rulers has for a concerned citizen. This brief video tells you all you need to know about the state of affairs in this "free" country.This is the face of tyranny:
By now, vaccine skeptics are generally familiar with the faces of Congressmen who are attempting to take away their natural rights to determine whether or not they and their children are vaccinated. Congressional parasites like Dianne Feinstein, as well as Presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton and Ben Carson, are now regular appearances in the “remove parents’ rights” theatre.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you NC State Senator Jeff Tarte.
As if his last name did not accurately describe his disposition, Senator Tarte was one of the main sponsors of the NC bill SB 346, a bill that would have eliminated the “religious exemption” clause in the recommended vaccine schedule for children entering NC public schools. He was also a main contender for the title of worst public relations interaction with a constituent in the state of North Carolina in the last several years.
This interaction took place after activists Nicole Revels and Pattie Curran arrived in Raleigh to hand petitions containing nearly 3000 signatures of NC residents who did not want their rights removed to NC congressmen and congresswomen who were attempting to do just that.
After handing in a copy of the petition to Senator Tamara Barringer and receiving a very pleasant, albeit patronizing and completely phony response that she was “listening” to them, all parties shook hands and the activists moved on to Tarte’s office.
Upon arriving at Tarte’s office, the Senator became irate at the sight of the two activists and Revels in particular. Already engaged in a discussion of the bill, Tarte immediately began whining about the presence of cameras and, in particular, the presence of Nicole Revels, stating that he was going to “get the Sgt. In Arms” to remove them.
Visibly irritated at being confronted by anyone other than a fawning worshiper or someone taking his order, Tarte could scarcely cover up the look of disgust at being asked a legitimate question about a bill he was sponsoring. When asked if he was going to remove the religious exemption from accessibility to NC parents, Tarte simply responded “Yes.”
Shortly thereafter, Tarte indeed found the Sgt. In Arms and had Revels and Curran removed.
The confrontation can be seen in the video below. Tarte’s appearance is around the 6:53 mark:
In a recent panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University, President Barack Obama gave another demonstration of his mastery of rhetoric -- and disregard of reality.
One of the ways of fighting poverty, he proposed, was to "ask from society's lottery winners" that they make a "modest investment" in government programs to help the poor.
Since free speech is guaranteed to everyone by the First Amendment to the Constitution, there is nothing to prevent anybody from asking anything from anybody else. But the federal government does not just "ask" for money. It takes the money it wants in taxes, usually before the people who have earned it see their paychecks.
Despite pious rhetoric on the left about "asking" the more fortunate for more money, the government does not "ask" anything. It seizes what it wants by force. If you don't pay up, it can take not only your paycheck, it can seize your bank account, put a lien on your home and/or put you in federal prison.
So please don't insult our intelligence by talking piously about "asking."
Modern liberalism has long mocked even the possibility of citizen self-defense:
It’s an all-too-clear reflection of the Left’s indictment of America as the “rape culture” and a “white racist society.” Will only those oppressive “white males” have guns? Why won’t women use firearms to protect themselves? Why won’t blacks use them for self-defense? And if Brown doesn’t mean that the shooters will be always be whites (all of whom will have all of the wealth) and their victims will always be “young urban black men” (who’ll be the only ones forced by poverty to rob them), is she then suggesting that only “young urban black men” will be driven by legal gun ownership to start shooting each other—and which is crazier?
A government that seeks to tyrannize its citizens cannot allow them the means to resist that tyranny. Gun prohibition is inherently a facet of state despotism. As for conservative golden calf Robert Bork, who (in addition to gutting the Second Amendment) pooh-poohed the ability of armed citizens to fight such despotism, Samuel Francis retorted: “[T]ell that to the Afghan resistance, the Nicaraguan contras, and indeed the Vietcong, the Sandinistas, and a dozen other guerrilla groups that have laid their local leviathans low with weapons no more advanced than what we can keep in the carport.”
The great irony: The threat of gun prohibition is the argument against gun prohibition. In other words, it is precisely because a firearm in the hands of a conscientious citizen is so effective in protecting the inalienable rights of personal security and personal freedom that it is feared by sociopaths and socialists alike. That is the life-or-death issue that the gun debate will always be about.
Unfortunately, the majority of the zombie-like Americans will likely just shrug it off when the move is made to abolish cash, just like our citizens shrugged off the Patriot Act and ignored the imposition of the NSA into our lives.
Against incredible odds, Pastor Kent Hovind has won in Federal Court. In my mind, this was the biggest upset since David stoned Goliath. My sources tell me that citizen victory in Federal Court is exceedingly rare. One court observer even stated that it was the first time in 9 years that someone beat the government in the court of Pensacola. I don't know about you, but I think something is terribly wrong with that. The government always winning is not justice.
I have been intimately and actively involved with the effort to free Kent from prison, and I rejoiced when I got word that the government had dropped all charges against him. Playing a part in helping to set an innocent man free was one of the most important and fulfilling things I have ever done in my life. But being up close and watching the dynamics of this saga unfold, I learned 5 highly valuable lessons that I would like to share:
Fact: The last time Republicans held even one chamber of the Maryland General Assembly—the House—was 1917. That is unbroken Democrat control of the Maryland legislature since 1918, or nearly a century of Democrat control.
The protesters point to poverty—and they’re right. Poverty has devastated minority communities. But it is left-wing policies Democrats implemented that have created destructive incentives and denied opportunity to generations of young people.
As Archbishop of Baltimore William Lori points out, the Catholic schools cost $6,000 a year and have a 99 percent graduation rate. Yet Democrats are committed to locking poor children out of those schools if it takes a dime away from funds for failing, unionized public schools.
With school-choice policies, we could save children’s lives while saving money. Instead, left-wing unions and bureaucracies ruthlessly exploit children, ruining their lives while the Democratic leadership in the Maryland House blocks school-choice bills that would give children a chance to attend better schools and force schools to compete for students by actually being good schools.
For the past three years, the biggest argument supporters of Obamacare would trot out every single time when faced with opposition to the mandatory tax, would be that despite widespread predictions of soaring prices, US medical care service costs had remained low and even, on occasion, declined (we leave aside the lack of discussion about soaring deductibles which are recurring "one-time" charges incurred whenever anyone does need medical care, and whose weighted impact on overall medical outlays is dramatic).
A big reason for this delayed increase in prices is that many insurers were unable to gauge the full base-effect impact of Obamacare on their P&L: after all, effective implementation of Obamacare had been materially delayed thus preventing an apples to apples comparison of incurred fees versus revenues.
All that changed moments ago when core US inflation finally spiked the most since 2013 driven by a 0.7% monthly surge in medical care service costs: the highest since 2007!
What's far worse for the troubled US consumer, this is just the beginning. Because after finally digesting the true cost of Obamacare, any recent insurance prime hikes will seem like a walk in the park compared to what is coming.
Remember when the American people were told that insurance would be free for the poor and affordable for the middle class? You know, back when we had to wait for the Affordable Care Act to be passed before we found out what was in it?
The Greatest Nightmare About To Unfold Proof They Are Pacifying The Public To Martial Law And Civil Unrest - The Daily Coin
MATT DRUDGE Goes Off on Twitter Rampage: ‘It’s the Night of the Republican Suicide’ | The Gateway Pundit
Conservative internet mogul Matt Drudge unleashed on the Republican Party Friday after the GOP Congress gave Barack Obama sweeping new powers.
The Republican Senate passed Obamatrade Friday .
Shortly before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower, an Egyptian-born jihadi, Mohammed Atta, addressed the passengers over the intercom:
"Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport... Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any move, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet... Nobody move, please... Don't try to make any stupid moves."
Twenty minutes later they died a horrible death, accompanied by hundreds of people inside the North Tower. Had the passengers known the real plan, they might have attempted to take matters into their own hands and possibly avert a bigger disaster. But they likely believed Mohammed Atta, especially since no hijacker had deliberately crashed a plane before. Many were probably thinking, Let the government sort it out, that's whom the terrorists always blackmail. We just need to stay quiet and make no stupid moves. Of course we'll be okay.
Fast-forward fourteen years to Garland, TX. Jihadists drove a thousand miles to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. The cop who shot them to death likely prevented a gruesome massacre. We are now being told that this would not have happened and everything would have been okay if Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer had stayed quiet and didn't make any stupid moves, such as, organizing the exhibition of Mohammed cartoons.
This is exactly the behavior of passengers on a hijacked plane. We hope that everything will be okay as long as we remain quiet and make no stupid moves. We willingly trust the voices on TV and hope the government will sort it out. We want to believe that every act of Islamic terrorism is an isolated incident, that they only target the government, and that the 58% of Muslim-Americans in a 2012 survey who think that that critics of Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges, with 12% of them favoring the death penalty for blasphemy, are not part of a bigger phenomenon. Just stay quiet and nothing bad will happen. After all, no terrorist has ever hijacked and crashed an entire nation before.
Suddenly, the medieval choices jihadis place before their victims are all over today's news coverage, just as they were originally set out in the Koran: convert to Islam, submit to the Muslim rule and pay a non-Muslim religious tax called jizya, or die by the sword. Those who submit, as we've seen in the territories conquered by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, are doomed to a life of humiliation, subjugation, discrimination, and confiscatory taxation.
Dhimmi translates as "protected person," which is similar in meaning to protection racket: what a nice dhimmi community you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it. You are protected from violence as long as you obey the conditions and pay the protection money. But if any of the dhimmis act up or "made a stupid move," his or her action puts the entire dhimmi community in jeopardy of jihadi retaliation, where anyone is fair game for collective punishment.
Western nations with a significant share of Muslim immigrants are now learning to live in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear that one of them might upset a Muslim and thus provoke rioting or jihad slaughter. As a result, Western dhimmis are learning to police each other and make sure no one in their community makes any "stupid moves."
Pamela Geller just did that. Her exhibition of Mohammed cartoons has crossed the line of permissible dhimmi behavior, and for that she has become a target of criticism by the American media, including some conservative commentators. Among the many stated reasons why Pamela should have "just stayed quiet," the main argument remains unstated: she made a stupid move and now we're all in danger of retaliation.
The real questions the media should be asking is, if we aren't already living under the Conditions of Umar, what would we do differently if we did?
This all started back in 2008 when the global banking crisis formed the impetus for the DoD “Minerva Research Initiative“.
The Pentagon and Cornell hoped that this would determine “the critical mass (tipping point)” of social contagions by studying “digital traces” for instance “the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey.”
The study and program looks at Twitter and Facebook posts and conversations in order “to identify individuals mobilized in a social contagion and when they become mobilized.”
A related project at University of Washington, formed this year, “seeks to uncover the conditions under which political movements aimed at large-scale political and economic change originate,” along with their “characteristics and consequences.”
What do you think the Pentagon is so worried about? Could it be all of the incidences of police brutality and murder which are leading to mass protest and unrest like we saw in Ferguson and Baltimore?
Raider Focus, which I am told, is merely a subset of Jade Helm, has been the sold to the citizenry as merely war preparations in the Middle East and this has nothing to do with the imposition of martial law.
Absent any toys at all, boys will use sticks and their imaginations. However, one boy, 7-year-old Josh Welsh, ran afoul of school bureaucrats when he supposedly chewed his strawberry breakfast pastry into a "gun" and allegedly wielded it saying, "Bang, bang," to a fellow student. Such was the threat in a school -- a gun-free zone -- that the second-grader was suspended from Baltimore's Park Elementary School for two days. Obviously, school officials confused a Pop Tart with a pop gun.
The boy's father rightfully objected to this clearly Orwellian treatment of his son, “I would almost call it insanity. I mean with all the potential issues that could be dealt with at school, real threats, bullies, whatever the real issue is, it’s a pastry.” The real issue here is the systematic emasculation of boys by statists: political progressives that run the public school systems. Last time I checked, the purpose of educators is to enlighten, not to engage in radical beyond-the-scope hard-left social engineering. This situation exactly depicts the irrational intention to punish normal, masculine "tough guy" behavior in favor of that of the wussy, subservient pajama-boy.
This politically-correct societal cancer is spreading. Just yesterday, the Boy Scouts of America have a new rule which bans water gun fights. Per their National Shooting Manual, “For water balloons, use small, biodegradable balloons, and fill them no larger than a ping pong ball. […] Water guns and rubber band guns must only be used to shoot at targets, and eye protection must be worn.” Biodegradable water balloons no larger than ping pong balls? Seriously? Whatever pea-brained committee that came up with these rules is taking the nanny-state paradigm into the outer reaches of the twilight zone. It would be funny if it was not so tragic.
Another tragedy is the fact that other adolescents of scouting age are being trained as militants halfway around the world to target Americans with real guns, bullets, bombs and suicide vests. The world is a tough place. Because this is the unfortunate reality -- boys need to develop the kind toughness of their stand tall Western heroes -- something the hand-wringing, repressive Left knows nothing about.
Jade Helm 15, a large-scale military operation conducted by U.S. Army Special Operations Command and service members from the military’s four branches, scheduled to take place in several states between July 15 and September 15, 2015, has elicited a firestorm of criticism. Many have gone so far as to claim the exercises are a prelude to the imposition of martial law, especially in Texas, one of the states designated as “hostile” territory. However, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) puts the issue in the proper perspective, noting why it’s reasonable that Americans would be concerned about the operation.
Gohmert first reveals his office “has been inundated with calls” regarding the mission, and acknowledges that this “military practice has some concerned that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law.” “Certainly, I can understand these concerns,” he writes. “When leaders within the current administration believe that major threats to the country include those who support the Constitution, are military veterans, or even ‘cling to guns or religion,’ patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned.”
Gohmert is spot on. In February, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intelligence assessment focused on the threat posed by right-wing, sovereign citizen extremist groups. As reported by the Washington Times, some law enforcement officials believe the threat posed by these groups “is equal to, and occasionally greater than, the threat from Islamic extremist groups.”
It’s not the first time DHS has made such a delusional assessment. In 2009 the agency was worried about the possible recruitment of military veterans into such groups, eliciting blowback from rightly offended veterans. Adding to the absurdity (and hypocrisy as well) the February report was released while Obama was conducting his Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, during which the president took great pains to separate such extremism from all things Islamic.
That would be the same president who demonstrated no similar reticence whatsoever with regard to Christianity. At the National Prayer Breakfast that same month, Obama was more than willing to remind Americans “that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.” In over six years in office there hasn’t been a single occasion when Obama referred to any of the innumerable depredations committed by Muslim extremists as being perpetrated “in the name of Mohammed.”
Thus, when Gohmert addresses “the contempt and antipathy for the true patriots or even Christian saints persecuted for their Christian beliefs,” demonstrated by this administration, he correctly asserts “it is no surprise that those who have experienced or noticed such persecution are legitimately suspicious.”
The Congressman acknowledges the need for training and that part of it requires Special Forces to move unobserved among civilian populations absent their discovery, as well as the need to handle various threat scenarios. However, like many of his constituents, he is appalled by the idea that portions of the country have been deemed “hostile,” adding that designation has never been employed before. Citing his own experience in military science classes and active duty, Gohmert explained the military would “use fictitious names before we would do such a thing.” Moreover, he can’t help noticing “the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution,” he states sarcastically.
He also believes such labeling raises suspicions among people regarding “whether their big brother government anticipates certain states may start another civil war or be overtaken by foreign radical Islamist elements which have been reported to be just across our border,” and that it “is an affront to the residents of that particular state considered as hostile, as if the government is trying to provoke a fight with them.”
Gohmert has another idea that might assuage a number of concerns. “The map of the exercise needs to change, the names on the map need to change, and the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states,” he declared.
While some of the concern over Jade Helm might be misguided, none of it has occurred in a vacuum. It arises from more than six years of an administration that has demonstrated an overt willingness to squander the trust of millions of Americans in pursuit of its agenda—by any means necessary. Americans would much prefer to see the military training to defend the homeland against ISIS rather than engage in insulting exercises against the “hostile” heartland of liberty.