But Who Will Protect Average Citizens?
Activist Post
Eric Blair
Pastor Terry Jones was recently sent a security bill of $180,000 by the local authorities for his "burn the Koran" uproar. Pastor Jones is clearly another religious hack pushing hatred and division instead of love and peace, but he is still an American citizen with the right to protest and burn whatever book he wishes. His stunt was divisive and an obvious attempt to stir the pot, but for the police to charge a tax-paying citizen for securing an event that never happened is just, well, mind-boggling.
Sure some people who may be disturbed by Jones' prejudice and hate will say, "Right on, the public shouldn't have to pay for protecting that idiot." Much like they did when the Balloon Boy's father was charged restitution for the turmoil he caused. Ultimately, both turned out to be fabricated non-events driven by ridiculous levels of media hype. If the public seeks compensation, it seems more appropriate to target the mainstream media's advertising sales during their 24-hour media glorification of these non-events.
Charging private citizens seems to be a growing trend by public police forces, apparently to cover their budget shortfalls. Anchorage police have begun sending bills to people if officers have to make more than eight trips per year to their homes. In the UK, police sent a man a bill when their car was damaged pursuing the victim's stolen vehicle. These are extreme cases but the precedents threaten to turn the police into a "private" security force.
Consequently, as police and sheriff departments face more cutbacks, they are also increasingly telling citizens (and criminals) what types of crimes they'll respond to. In a recent article titled Third World America, Macleans reported:
In February, the board of commissioners of Ohio’s Ashtabula County faced a scene familiar to local governments across America: a budget shortfall. They began to cut spending and reduced the sheriff’s budget by 20 per cent. A law enforcement agency staff that only a few years ago numbered 112, and had subsequently been pared down to 70, was cut again to 49 people and just one squad car for a county of 1,900 sq. km along the shore of Lake Erie. The sheriff’s department adapted. “We have no patrol units. There is no one on the streets. We respond to only crimes in progress. We don’t respond to property crimes,” deputy sheriff Ron Fenton told Maclean’s. The county once had a “very proactive” detective division in narcotics. Now, there is no detective division. “We are down to one evidence officer and he just runs the evidence room in case someone wants to claim property,” said Fenton. “People are getting property stolen, their houses broken into, and there is no one investigating. We are basically just writing up a report for the insurance company.”
Coincidentally, governments are being forced into more cutbacks just as police units are introducing the idea of charging victims for their security services. In other words, as local and state economies worsen by design, we can expect to see more cutbacks and more "billing" for public security. Some experts have predicted "IMF riots" to take place in America if the economic collapse continues.
We know that big corporations like Monsanto and Disney can afford private mercenaries such as Blackwater -- fully equipped for high-level espionage, with a full-blown private air force, and even tactical weapons. But who will protect average American citizens against such corporate-government thuggery, let alone desperate petty thieves, if not the local public servants?
As America continues to implode, it appears that security will go to the highest bidder, leaving average citizens to fend for themselves. Perhaps we should have seen it coming with the start of the privatization boom of security and intelligence gathering since the War on Terror was declared, which resulted in a massive "Top Secret" Surveillance-Industrial Complex. The ramifications of this privatization are only now becoming clear, as it was reported that an Israeli-owned organization was in charge of tracking, tracing, and databasing peaceful American activists on behalf of the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania. It's already obvious that property taxes are no longer sufficient to pay the security bills.
Paul Craig Roberts warned in his article "The Year America Dissolved" that local security will likely be controlled by warlord clans after the collapse. First, it seems be taking the form of local mafia gangs collecting "protection" money from businesses, churches, and citizens. Perhaps it is time we listen to Ohio Judge Alfred Mackey who, after deep cuts to the local sheriff's department, advised citizens to carry guns for protection.
Read Original Article With Links
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Subject Unto Higher Powers
The Christian is commanded by God to obey the state, for the state as an institution is ordained and established by God. God has instituted government because in this fallen world we need certain restraints and authority to protect us from the chaos and lawlessness that is a natural result of sin. The civil government, as does all of life, stands under the law of God. God has ordained the state to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. Paul decribes government as it should be. (Romans 13) When it abandons it's proper function, it is no longer of God nor according to His purpose. For example, when the state requires something contrary to the Word of God, the Christian must obey God rather than man. It is the duty of all believers to pray for those in authority. (1 Timothy 2:1-2)
Will Obama Force America To “Absorb A Terror Attack” To Save His Presidency?
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
President Obama’s ominous claim that America can “absorb” a terror attack will have many fearing that staging some kind of false flag event will be the only way the government can overturn the massive resistance to big government that has grown exponentially since Obama took office.
During an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”
However, the only thing that was made stronger by 9/11 was the federal government’s power to harass, shake down and spy on the American people, as was exemplified yet again recently when Pennsylvania’s Office of Homeland Security was caught conducting surveillance on peaceful protest groups with the aid of an Israeli security company who listed Second Amendment groups amongst others as terrorists.
Given how both Bush and Clinton before him exploited terror attacks on U.S. soil to boost their flagging political agendas, we should be wary of Obama and his masters making good use of their own “October surprise” to counter record low approval figures for Congress on the eve of the midterm elections.
Talk show hosts such as Michael Savage have long been warning of a “Reichstag fire-like event” would be concocted to reinvigorate support behind Obama and given that his advisors include such ruthless individuals as Rahm Emanuel, the knife wielding son of a former Israeli terrorist who was involved in bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as massacres, we would be naive to put anything past these people.
Indeed, it was only two months ago that former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro wrote in the Financial Times that the only thing that could save Obama’s tenuous grip on power was a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11.
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
Shapiro was clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.
Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists. As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”
Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals, or by rallying the country round another war in the middle east, can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.
Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.
During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”
The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”
In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.
The Obama administration has proven itself to be alarmingly adept at lying about every issue under the sun, so why should we believe any different when it comes to the terror threat to America?
Using terror or the threat of terror as a political tool has been a routine ploy in recent years, and was acknowledged by former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge when he admitted he was forced to issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections to influence the outcome.
Threatening terror has also been a tactic of some of Obama’s biggest supporters in the Democratic party, people like former Senator Gary Hart, who in 2007 wrote a thinly veiled threat to Iranian leaders pointing out that the U.S. has been involved in numerous staged provocations over the years to achieve political agendas, mentioning specifically the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.
Given the documented history of staged false flag events being used to manipulate both domestic and geopolitical affairs, added to the numerous threats of such provocations from several highly respected political operatives, it would be foolish to rule out the notion that the Obama administration could turn to such desperate measures in a last gasp effort to salvage power and demonize its growing legions of political adversaries.
Read Article With Links
Infowars.com
President Obama’s ominous claim that America can “absorb” a terror attack will have many fearing that staging some kind of false flag event will be the only way the government can overturn the massive resistance to big government that has grown exponentially since Obama took office.
During an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”
However, the only thing that was made stronger by 9/11 was the federal government’s power to harass, shake down and spy on the American people, as was exemplified yet again recently when Pennsylvania’s Office of Homeland Security was caught conducting surveillance on peaceful protest groups with the aid of an Israeli security company who listed Second Amendment groups amongst others as terrorists.
Given how both Bush and Clinton before him exploited terror attacks on U.S. soil to boost their flagging political agendas, we should be wary of Obama and his masters making good use of their own “October surprise” to counter record low approval figures for Congress on the eve of the midterm elections.
Talk show hosts such as Michael Savage have long been warning of a “Reichstag fire-like event” would be concocted to reinvigorate support behind Obama and given that his advisors include such ruthless individuals as Rahm Emanuel, the knife wielding son of a former Israeli terrorist who was involved in bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as massacres, we would be naive to put anything past these people.
Indeed, it was only two months ago that former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro wrote in the Financial Times that the only thing that could save Obama’s tenuous grip on power was a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11.
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
Shapiro was clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.
Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists. As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”
Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals, or by rallying the country round another war in the middle east, can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.
Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.
During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”
The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”
In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.
The Obama administration has proven itself to be alarmingly adept at lying about every issue under the sun, so why should we believe any different when it comes to the terror threat to America?
Using terror or the threat of terror as a political tool has been a routine ploy in recent years, and was acknowledged by former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge when he admitted he was forced to issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections to influence the outcome.
Threatening terror has also been a tactic of some of Obama’s biggest supporters in the Democratic party, people like former Senator Gary Hart, who in 2007 wrote a thinly veiled threat to Iranian leaders pointing out that the U.S. has been involved in numerous staged provocations over the years to achieve political agendas, mentioning specifically the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.
Given the documented history of staged false flag events being used to manipulate both domestic and geopolitical affairs, added to the numerous threats of such provocations from several highly respected political operatives, it would be foolish to rule out the notion that the Obama administration could turn to such desperate measures in a last gasp effort to salvage power and demonize its growing legions of political adversaries.
Read Article With Links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)