How Do You Prepare a Child for Life in the American Police State?


6-19-2015 7-13-02 AM

By John W. Whitehead
October 12, 2015

“Fear isn’t so difficult to understand. After all, weren’t we all frightened as children? Nothing has changed since Little Red Riding Hood faced the big bad wolf. What frightens us today is exactly the same sort of thing that frightened us yesterday. It’s just a different wolf.” ― Alfred Hitchcock

In an age dominated with news of school shootings, school lockdowns, police shootings of unarmed citizens (including children), SWAT team raids gone awry (leaving children devastated and damaged), reports of school resource officers tasering and shackling unruly students, and public schools undergoing lockdowns and active drills, I find myself wrestling with the question: how do you prepare a child for life in the American police state?

Every parent lives with a fear of the dangers that prey on young children: the predators who lurk at bus stops and playgrounds, the traffickers who make a living by selling young bodies, the peddlers who push drugs that ensnare and addict, the gangs that deal in violence and bullets, the drunk drivers, the school bullies, the madmen with guns, the diseases that can end a life before it’s truly begun, the cynicism of a modern age that can tarnish innocence, and the greed of a corporate age that makes its living by trading on young consumers.

It’s difficult enough raising a child in a world ravaged by war, disease, poverty and hate, but when you add the police state into the mix—with its battlefield mindset, weaponry, rigidity, surveillance, fascism, indoctrination, violence, etc.—it becomes near impossible to guard against the toxic stress of police shootings, SWAT team raids, students being tasered and shackled, lockdown drills, and a growing unease that some of the monsters of our age come dressed in government uniforms.

5-9-2015 3-43-16 PM

Children are taught from an early age that there are consequences for their actions. Hurt somebody, lie, steal, cheat, etc., and you will get punished. But how do you explain to a child that a police officer can shoot someone who was doing nothing wrong and get away with it? That a cop can lie, steal, cheat, or kill and still not be punished?

Kids understand accidents: sometimes drinks get spilled, dishes get broken, people slip and fall and hurt themselves, or you bump into someone without meaning to, and they get hurt. As long as it wasn’t intentional and done with malice, you forgive them and you move on. Police shootings of unarmed people—of children and old people and disabled people—can’t just be shrugged off as accidents, however.

Tamir Rice was no accident. Cleveland police shot and killed the 12-year-old, who was seen playing on a playground with a pellet gun. Surveillance footage shows police shooting the boy two seconds after getting out of a moving patrol car. Incredibly, the shooting was deemed “reasonable” and “justified” by two law enforcement experts who concluded that the police use of force “did not violate Tamir’s constitutional rights.”

Aiyana Jones was also no accident. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into her family’s apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops weren’t even in the right apartment. Ironically, on the same day that President Obama refused to stop equipping police with the very same kinds of military weapons and gear used to raid Aiyana’s home, it was reported that the police officer who shot and killed the little girl would not face involuntary manslaughter charges.

Obama insists that $263 million to purchase body cameras for police will prevent any further erosions of trust, but a body camera would not have prevented Aiyana from being shot in the head. Indeed, the entire sorry affair was captured on camera: a TV crew was filming the raid for an episode of The First 48, a true-crime reality show in which homicide detectives have 48 hours to crack a case.

While that $263 million will make Taser International, the manufacturer of the body cameras, a whole lot richer, it’s doubtful it would have prevented a SWAT team from shooting 14-month-old Sincere in the shoulder and hand and killing his mother.

No body camera could have stopped a Georgia SWAT team from launching a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old’s crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.

No body camera could have prevented 10-year-old Dakota Corbitt from being shot by a Georgia police officer who tried to shoot an inquisitive dog, missed, and hit the young boy, instead.

When police shot 4-year-old Ava Ellis in the leg, shattering the bone, it actually was an accident, but it was an accident that could have been prevented. Police reported to Ava’s house after being told that Ava’s mother, who had cut her arm, was in need of a paramedic. Cops claimed that the family pet charged the officer who was approaching the house, causing him to fire his gun and hit the little girl.

Alberto Sepulveda, 11, died from one “accidental” shotgun round to the back, after a SWAT team raided his parents’ home. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a California police officer who mistook the boy’s toy gun for an assault rifle. Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the Wii remote control in Roupe’s hand for a gun, shot him in the chest.

These children are more than grim statistics on a police blotter. They are the heartbreaking casualties of the government’s endless, deadly wars on terror, on drugs, and on the American people themselves.

Not even the children who survive their encounters with police escape unscathed. Increasingly, their lives are daily lessons in compliance and terror, meted out with every SWAT team raid, roadside strip search, and school drill.

Who is calculating the damage being done to the young people forced to watch as their homes are trashed and their dogs are shot during SWAT team raids? A Minnesota SWAT team actually burst into one family’s house, shot the family’s dog, handcuffed the children and forced them to “sit next to the carcass of their dead and bloody pet for more than an hour.” They later claimed it was the wrong house.

More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merelysuspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.

What are we to tell our nation’s children about the role of police in their lives? Do you parrot the government line that police officers are community helpers who are to be trusted and obeyed at all times? Do you caution them to steer clear of a police officer, warning them that any interactions could have disastrous consequences? Or is there some happy medium between the two that, while being neither fairy tale nor horror story, can serve as a cautionary tale for young people who will encounter police at virtually every turn?

No matter what you say, there can be no avoiding the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills and school-wide lockdowns to incidents in which children engaging in typically childlike behavior are suspended (for shooting an imaginary “arrow” at a fellow classmate), handcuffed (for being disruptive at school), arrested (for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank), and even tasered (for not obeying instructions).

For example, a middle school in Washington State went on lockdown after a student brought a toy gun to class. A Boston high school went into lockdown for four hours after a bullet was discovered in a classroom. A North Carolina elementary school locked down and called in police after a fifth grader reported seeing an unfamiliar man in the school (it turned out to be a parent).

Better safe than sorry is the rationale offered to those who worry that these drills are terrorizing and traumatizing young children. As journalist Dahlia Lithwick points out: “I don’t recall any serious national public dialogue about lockdown protocols or how they became the norm. It seems simply to have begun, modeling itself on the lockdowns that occur during prison riots, and then spread until school lockdowns and lockdown drills are as common for our children as fire drills, and as routine as duck-and-cover drills were in the 1950s.”

These drills have, indeed, become routine.

As the New York Times reports: “Most states have passed laws requiring schools to devise safety plans, and several states, including Michigan, Kentucky and North Dakota, specifically require lockdown drills. Some drills are as simple as a principal making an announcement and students sitting quietly in a darkened classroom. At other schools, police officers and school officials playact a shooting, stalking through the halls like gunmen and testing whether doors have been locked.”

Police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.

What is particularly chilling is how effective these lessons in compliance are in indoctrinating young people to accept their role in the police state, either as criminals or prison guards. If these exercises are intended to instill fear and compliance into young people, they’re working.

Sociologist Alice Goffman understands how far-reaching the impact of such “exercises” can be on young people. For six years, Goffman lived in a low-income urban neighborhood, documenting the impact such an environment—a microcosm of the police state—on its residents. Her account of neighborhood children playing cops and robbers speaks volumes about how constant exposure to pat downs, strip searches, surveillance and arrests can result in a populace that meekly allows itself to be prodded, poked and stripped.

As journalist Malcolm Gladwell writing for the New Yorkerreports:

Goffman sometimes saw young children playing the age-old game of cops and robbers in the street, only the child acting the part of the robber wouldn’t even bother to run away: I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, “I’m going to lock you up! I’m going to lock you up, and you ain’t never coming home!” I once saw a six-year-old pull another child’s pants down to do a “cavity search.”

Clearly, our children are getting the message, but it’s not the message that was intended by those who fomented a revolution and wrote our founding documents. Their philosophy was that the police work for us, and “we the people” are the masters, and they are to be our servants. Now that has been turned on its head, fueled by our fears (some legitimate, some hyped along by the government and its media mouthpieces) about the terrors and terrorists that lurk among us.

It’s getting harder by the day to tell young people that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law without feeling like a teller of tall tales. Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, unless something changes and soon for the young people growing up, there will be nothing left of freedom as we have known it but a fairy tale without a happy ending.

2-16-2015 8-48-48 AM

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Meet The Secretive Committees That Runs The Global Economy


10-12-2015 8-45-36 AM

By Andrew Gavin Marshall

There exists an overlapping and highly integrated network of institutions, committees and secret meetings of ad-hoc groups that collectively run the global economy. This network consists of finance ministries, central banks, international organizations and the various conferences and confabs that bring them together. This network is responsible for facilitating global financial diplomacy and managing the architecture of global financial governance. In short: it is the most powerful and informal political structure in the world.

With the United States at the center of the system, the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Bank are the two most important American institutions in global financial governance – and the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairperson are the world’s two most powerful financial diplomats. Both institutions are headquartered in Washington, D.C., just down the street from the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Group, two global financial bodies created in 1944 to manage the world economy on behalf of the rich Western nations that founded them.

Twice a year, the IMF and the World Bank host large international conferences. The Spring Membership Meeting, typically held in April, and the Annual membership meeting draw a crowd consisting of most of the finance ministers and central bank governors from the IMF’s 188 member nations, representing the Fund’s Governing Board. They descend on D.C. where the meetings are typically held (though occasionally they are hosted in other countries as well), and draw scores of journalists, academics and thousands of bankers and financiers who are eager to meet, greet, wine, dine and make deals with the political decision-makers of the global economy.

The top five shareholders of the IMF (United States, Japan, Germany, France and U.K.) reflect the membership of an ad-hoc group of finance ministers that began meeting in 1973, thereafter known as the Group of Five (G-5). At the time, U.S. Treasury Secretary George Shultz described the group as “a channel for informal and very frank communication on monetary and other issues, both of a long-term and more immediate character.” But the G-5 was hardly the first of such groups.

economies into the institutional apparatus of global financial governance. The Group of Ten was utilized as one such forum.

In 1972, the G-10 laid the groundwork for the establishment of a special Committee of 20 to be formed within the IMF, whose membership reflected the composition of the IMF Executive Board, but at the ministerial level – giving it a much higher level of political authority than the board, which is composed of mid-level officials from their respective national finance ministries. The committee would include most G-10 members alongside several developing country representatives, and was formally institutionalized in late 1974 as the “Interim Committee” of the IMF.

(Although the Group of Five was formed in 1973, it wasn’t until 1975 that it held the first meeting at the head of state level, with the addition of Italy to the group. The following year, Canada was invited to participate, and thereafter it was known as the Group of Seven (G-7), effectively functioning as the steering committee for the global economy.)

Fast forward to the mid-1990s, when the G-7 nations instructed the Group of Ten to consult with emerging market economies on ways to reform the global financial architecture in cooperation with major international organizations like the IMF, World Bank, OECD, and BIS, which were increasingly opening their membership and ownership positions to large emerging market economies.

Hoarding these items is better than having money in the bank (Ad)

The idea was thus: If developed countries give developing countries a stake in the existing system, they won’t use their new-found wealth and power to oppose that system. And all the while, the West was to remain at the center. Through crisis and collapse and “rescue” efforts led by the IMF, BIS and World Bank, developing and emerging market economies were encouraged to accept Western economic “advice” on how to manage their economies. If they wanted bailouts in the form of loans from international institutions, those countries had to follow conditions that demanded a total restructuring of their economies and societies along G-7 lines – designed to transform them into modern “market economies” capable of integrating into the larger global economy.

The groundwork was laid out over the following years, and in the course of 1999, the IMF’s Interim Committee was reformed into the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC). The G-10 organized several seminars involving major emerging market economies and, together with the G-7, formed a new group known as the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), a meeting group of central bankers, finance ministers and regulators who were handed responsibility for maintaining financial stability in the world. Finally, 1999 also saw the organizing efforts of the G-7 result in the formation of yet another forum, the Group of Twenty (G-20).

The G-20 was born in December of 1999 at a meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors from the G-7 nations, along with Russia, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Australia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, Argentina and the European Union. The event was attended by top officials from the IMF, World Bank and the European Central Bank. But despite all the international noise, the G20 was largely the initiative of two men: Canadian Finance Minister Paul Martin and U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

The G-7, or G-8 once Russia was invited in, remained the main forum for global economic leadership. But in the midst of the global financial crisis in 2008, the G-20 was the group convened by U.S. President George W. Bush, who brought together heads of state for the first meeting that took place in Washington on November 15. That meeting produced an agreement among G-20 nations to pump trillions of dollars into their economies in order to bail out their banking systems.

In 2010, then-President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, explained at a meeting of the Institute of International Finance (IIF) that the G-20 had emerged “as the prime group for global economic governance.”

Speaking to a crowd of hundreds of the world’s most powerful bankers and financiers, Trichet explained, “Global economic governance embraces supranational institutions – such as the IMF – as well as informal groupings – such as the G-7 and the G-20. Both are necessary, and both are complementary.” Trichet praised the evolving system as “moving decisively towards a much more inclusive system of global governance, encompassing key emerging economies as well as the industrialized countries.”

To this day, the hierarchy of global economic governance follows a familiar pattern. Take the IMF’s meetings, where 188 of the world’s finance ministers and central bankers meet. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) holds a meeting, functioning as the steering committee to the Fund. And prior to IMFC meetings, the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors hold a series of meetings, including a joint meeting with the IMFC, as they already have a significant crossover of membership.

But before the G-20 meets, the ministers and governors of the G-7 nations typically meet privately for an hour or so, attempting to form a common position or strategy in dealing with the wider groupings of the G-20 and IMFC, in which all G-7 nations are represented at the ministerial level. The chiefs of the world’s major international organizations (IMF, World Bank, OECD, WTO, BIS) participate in almost all of these meetings, acting as advisers to and receiving high-level political direction from these groups.

The hierarchy of global economic governance emanates out of the United States, in close cooperation with Germany, Japan and the other members of the Group of Seven. From there, it networks through the Group of Twenty and the IMFC, which in turn collectively function as the steering committee for the world’s major international organizations, and act as the board of directors of the global economy.

Image Credit

You can read more from Andrew Gavin Marshall at

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Towards a Militarized Police State in America? Explosive New Revelations over “Jade Helm 15 Exercise” and Potential False Flags


10-10-2015 12-58-56 PM

By Joachim Hagopian

Global Research,

A growing segment of the American population is waking up to the implications of the Jade Helm 15 military operation to be conducted by Special Forces in conjunction with local law enforcement, the FBI, DHS, the DEA and Border Patrol across the entire Southwest. This massive unprecedented exercise will also commence in June sooner than first announced and last for 10 weeks through the summer till September 15.

The risk of it triggering civil unrest or that it may coincide with a potential false flag scenario followed by another possibly timed crisis situation is both feasible and real, despite mainstream media’s ridicule dismissing any such possibilities as pure paranoid conspiracy theory. What we do know for sure is this nation has turned into a militarized police state and that both the military and the government lie all the time.

We also are aware of the globalists’ long planned agenda of a national crisis that would induce Obama to quash civil unrest by declaring martial law. A recent poll of Americans found that near half (45%) see Jade Helm as imposing more control over the states. If martial law doesn’t actually come to pass this time around, it certainly sets the stage for next time in this incrementally increasing militarization of America.

We also know that a specific Department of Defense manual FM 3-39.40 has existed since 2010 delineating how the federal government in cooperation with the UN will respond to civil disturbance that includes FEMA camp roundups to fill waiting empty Haliburton-refurbished prison camps after a $385 million no bid contract during the former CEO Cheney’s vice presidency. We also know that each prison camp includes a tribunal section and a mortuary section along with psychological officers responsible for reprogramming US detainees. Despite this layout presented so matter-of-fact and by-the-book, Americans will be killed. During the upheaval of a national crisis, a lethal outcome is also most probable. Meanwhile, countdown to global war appears to be ticking away as troops from virtually every nation are busily training in preparation for a likely West versus East endgame scenario of World War III.

President Kennedy spoke of subversive forces operating inside the shadow government several months prior to those same forces killing him. And those demonic forces posing as our international crime syndicate government boldly went on unconsequenced by the JFK assassination to stage the worst false flag in history on 9/11 giving birth to the neocons’ war on terror. And it’s been all downhill ever since with nonstop wars, a runaway deficit (over $18 trillion), a fragile and broken global economy, and within a few years after 9/11 a militarized totalitarian police state. Long gone is America’s once democratic republic, replaced by a fascist oligarchy controlled by a military-security-prison complex. As Obama’s personal army, Homeland Security has grown gluttonously evil bringing tyranny and oppression to the United States of America as never before.

But to those of us aware enough to study and learn from history, there are no accidents and no surprises here. Armed with the latest technology, the global elitists in control have done their homework, long in advance manipulating everything in its Orwellian place for these shuttering events and developments to unfold. From the overreaching CIA grooming their Manchurian Candidate president to his unqualified meteoric rise to puppet power, Obama was the perfect made man for the job. Obscured by a shadowy, made over past that includes a fake birth certificate, he was steeped in Communist ideology and socialist collectivism by his deep connection with ex-terrorist Bill Ayers (who also was the Common Core architect responsible largely for dumbing down public education) and fellow mentor Saul Alinsky. Obama displayed dazzle as an early orator on the big stage of big politics, wore the right skin color to prey on people’s hope for change and progress, appearing as a different kind of leader who many thought would represent the common people, a unifier and uplifter for the downtrodden. Boy were they dead wrong!

Once elected, Obama became the Manchurian Trojan Horse presidential imposter occupying the White House. This is the same man as presidential candidate who bragged and promised as a former constitutional law professor for over 10 years that he’d be the most open and transparent president in US history after the criminal Bush regime. Then once Obama became president, he only demonstrated that he is the most secretive and closed off president in history. Even worse, in the same speech he denounced Bush and Cheney for violating America’s rule of law, he proposed to develop “an appropriate legal regime for indefinite prolonged detention of American citizens” prior to ever breaking the law based purely on the government’s suspicion that they may become a future threat to national security. This statement uttered early in his first term ominously spelled out his sinister agenda to lock up and throw away the key to any citizen that he and his minions believe might become a future threat.

Based on Obama and his administration’s subsequent actions, their definition of “future threat to national security” is simply anyone who disagrees with his treasonous policies, DHS declaring them a greater threat than even ISIS, which is really quite telling. Those citizens honest and brave enough to expose the criminal truth about his evil agenda betraying our Constitution, nation and people have been singled out and targeted on dissident watch lists.

Americans believing in our Constitution who object to the feds’ criminality of constantly violating the nation’s rule of law that used to protect citizens with privacy rights over unlawfully invasive surveillance and search and seizure, the right to peaceful assembly to public protest, the right to own a gun, the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to due process, the right to habeas corpus dating back to the 1066 Magna Carta, all these previously guaranteed civil liberties under Bush-Obama were usurped and denied Americans. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act was a traitorous package deal depriving us of all these rights, as well as violating and repealing the 1878 Posse Comitatus law prohibiting US military from involvement in civil matters that fall under state National Guard and law enforcement jurisdiction.

This president and his DHS in one fell swoop have equated US patriots who are returning veterans from warfronts(regardless of war) as potential home grown terrorists. So after placing their life on the line for their nation in combat, risking and often incurring serious life threatening injuries while experiencing the trauma of witnessing their comrades die sacrificing their lives for their nation, upon return home from US Empire’s blood for oil wars, their nation turns on them in betrayal, calling them terrorist threats and developing a criminally subversive plan to remove not only their private weapons violating their Second Amendment right, but physically removing them from society by locking them away in prison or worse killing them under false suspicion they might become homegrown terrorists. This is how our diabolically treasonous and insane government led by our current commander-in-chief repays our veterans. It’s unbelievably despicable that America’s come to this.

On to another targeted population, Obama has harassed, threatened, accused and locked up more journalists and whistleblowers than any previous administration ever. Moreover, he has charged more whistleblowers with violating an antiquated 1917 espionage act for treason than all past presidencies combined, sentencing them to jail time 25 more times than all previous combined. The least transparent president in history also denied more Freedom of Information Act requests in 2014 than all previous administrations, only proving himself to be the most vindictive, revengeful, secretive despot president in history.

When Obama came to power everything was in place for the globalist war machine to continue uninterrupted, unleashing the same imperialistic US Empire aggression launched by the war criminal invaders and occupiers Bush and Cheney. Following his globalist marching orders, Obama seamlessly maintained the Empire’s role as world policeman and murderous bully around the globe. He prolonged the war in Iraq for another three years in time to claim credit for ending the Iraq War during his reelection campaign. In the other decade-long war he ensured the fighting in Afghanistan would continue unabated for another half dozen years. Then with the help of Israel and Saudi Arabia, he created ISIS, which conveniently provided the fine print disclaimer ensuring the US-NATO military presence in both war ravaged nations would be on an as needed, permanent basis.

In the meantime hidden from public view, Obama guaranteed the proliferation of new, sneakier kind of lower intensity, out of sight, out of mind wars around the world fought by none other than the killer elite Special Forces. Now Americans cannot even tell you who the US is at war with because it’s all a deep state secret. Did I mention Obama’s the most secretive prez in history? Investigative reporter and author Nick Turse has determined the exponential growth of US Special Operations at last count over a year ago is deployed in more than 134 nationsaround the globe with the highest concentration throughout most of Africa and much of Central and East Asia. That’s most nations on earth along with a thousand US military posts around the world.

Expanding the presence of US proxy wars, Obama refined a new and improved formula for churning out the most barbaric, savage, seemingly unstoppable monster enemy of them all – the Islamic State (IS). Pretending IS jihadists are the most evil enemy since Russian Communists, complicit in showcasing their staged youtube beheadings to horrify the world for effect, Obama secretly engineered their expanding global dominance in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and possibly just eight miles from the US border near El Paso in Mexico where reports from Judicial Watch recently claimed a high ranking Mexican police and a military officer stated ISIS is currently undergoing joint training operations with the drug cartel ostensibly to potentially terrorize Americans on US soil during Jade Helm. Of course the US government vehemently denies the presence of Islamic State in Mexico yet speculation still lingers based on US FBI and DHS meetings with Mexican authorities. In any event, the bottom line if the US really wanted to destroy ISIS, as the most lethal killing force on earth, it could eliminate Islamic State forces within a month.

Apparently it was two homegrown ISIS fighters from Arizona that showed up in Dallas bent on a shooting spree at a cartoon contest lampooning Islam earlier this month in what seemed a staged event, the same state deemed “hostile” by the Jade Helm game plan. Then came the bizarre mass biker gang shootout killing 9 in Waco, Texas a week ago. Evidence is coming to light that hidden ISIS recruiters are presently embedded in US, UK and Canada college campuses around those Western nations attempting to entice non-Muslims to join their cause. Based on a recent UN report almost two months ago, more than 25,000 new recruits did join from most countries in the world just since June last year. Whether ISIS is really here in North America amongst us or not, Washington’s been hyping the eminent dangers posed by right wing domestic terrorists lurking to kill government authorities like police, almost as if to prep us for an upcoming false flag that could occur during Jade Helm.

As the US-created hired gun, after training, arming and financing Obama’s secret ally that holds a calling card reading “Terrorism-R-Us-Will-Travel,” Obama and his globalist puppet masters have been increasingly outed with incontrovertible evidence of newly declassified documents that the so called ISIS enemy is actually a mere extension and creation of the US, its Western allies and their oligarch masters. It was just released that the Pentagon had devised a plan back in August 2012 for the rise of ISIS (that we never even knew existed then) to later take over two key Iraqi cities Mosul and Ramadi. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces simply cut and ran without a fight from both cities?

The latest disturbing revelations surfacing are disclosures from whistleblowers inside the military high command and a recently retired Homeland Security officer. One recently purged lieutenant general among the 270 high ranking military officers Obama has forced out of the service has just revealed in an email that this summer’s Jade Helm will in fact bring not only dissident extraction but the start of “a ground war, city by city, street by street” to America. The anonymous retired three star general went on to write:

Additionally what is coming will be unlike any civil war in history, it will be very personal, the government will call the Patriots forces terrorists and traitors, they will arrest, intern, torture and murder suspected terrorists families, this will result in bloody reprisals which will start a vicious cycle lasting for years.

Lending credibility to his dire prediction was the general’s assignment in 2012 to be part of a Pentagon study assessing the rank and file personnel in all the US armed forces on whether they would be willing or not to fire upon and kill US citizens in a civil war scenario. He revealed that 80% of the National Guard would side with the American people, 90% of the Marines also, 60% of the Army would, the Navy would remain on active patrol in defense to interdict any possible foreign intervention and only the Air Force will side with Obama’s government at 75%. So from his email he believes the majority of US military would fight right alongside Americans against the government oppressors. It was alluded that a number of veterans up and down the ranks would also be armed as patriots actively resisting the government attack on its own citizens, which would far outnumber the treasonous government forces. But the bottom line according to this high ranking flag officer, an all-out civil war is fast approaching where many US citizens are likely to die and be imprisoned.

Another anonymous career insider from Homeland Security just admitted:

Preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against US citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama.

The whistleblower described the atmosphere inside the DHS mega-bureaucracy as forebodingly paranoid where no one trusts anyone and workers are leaving in droves. Afraid of information leaks, conditions have become so oppressive to create an ultra-hostile, toxic work environment. The DHS retiree maintains that the upcoming crisis will be “rooted in an economic collapse.” He said a key precursor just before the crash to look for will be falling gold and silver prices. The orchestrators behind it are the Wall Street bankers who of course like with every fixed crash in the past will be busily buying up all the precious metals for untold illegal profiteering. The insider maintains that America’s already sliding into crash mode though most people don’t realize it yet, adding:

The ‘big bang’ comes at the end, when people wake up one morning and can’t log in to their bank accounts, can’t use their ATM cards, and find out that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated.

He states that the above scenario of a cyberattack on the US banking system is but one possible plan he was privy to. Though the whistleblower admitted that DHS, the NSA and IRS are all militant, totalitarian arms of the White House, he doubly emphasized that it’s not Obama pulling all the strings:

[Obama] is a creation of the globalists who have no allegiance to any political party. He is the product of decades of planning, made for this very time in our history. He was selected to oversee the events I just disclosed. Who has that ability? He’s a product of our own intelligence agencies working with the globalists. He should be exhibit ‘A’ to illustrate the need to enforce the Logan Act.

Unlike the whistleblowing general, the former Homeland Security employee said he did not know the exact timing of when he foresees the plan being executed with high probability of two near simultaneous false flags triggering martial law and the violence directed against US citizens. But the general did, feeling certain that Jade Helm would go live in response to government induced crises. Because we live in an interconnected global economy, the disaster that will soon afflict the US will reverberate with ripple effects around the globe. And though many Americans will refuse to believe any such malevolent harm can possibly come to the United States that relative to most of the world has had it so good for so long, the globalists responsible are heartless evildoers who have no compassion or guilt for the atrocities and suffering they directly inflict on humankind. Bringing down America puts them one huge step closer to one world government. It will be up to us patriots like the revolutionaries of our War of Independence to fight for our liberty and life for a rebirth of a new nation fashioned after what originally was our Founding Fathers’ lasting legacy.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com/He is also a regular contributor to Global Research and a syndicated columnist at Veterans Today.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Gun Control Fashionable Prohibition for Modern Lawmakers


Ryan McMaken

With the latest school shooting, all humane people are expected to jump up and do something to stop the next shooting. The most popular response among media pundits and national policymakers right now is an expansion of the various prohibitions now in place against guns.

For anyone familiar with the history of prohibitions on inanimate objects, however, these appeals to prohibition as a “common sense” solution are rather less convincing.

Americans and others have tried a wide variety of similar prohibitions before, and with mixed results at best. Nowadays, prohibitions on drugs are in decline as states continue to unravel prohibitions of the past and make the nature of prohibition less drastic and less punitive. And, of course, the prohibition of alcohol has been dead for decades.

The prohibitions of old have been deemed failures. But fortunately for prohibitionists, there’s a fashionable form of modern prohibition that won’t go away.

Why Not Ban Alcohol?

Now, I know what some of you are saying: “Hey, McMaken, you can’t compare alcohol prohibition to gun prohibition because alcohol mostly only hurts the drinker, while guns have many harmful side effects for the public at large.”

But the fact that anyone could think this shows just how well the anti-alcohol-prohibition rhetoric has worked. Since the repeal of prohibition in the 1930s, alcohol has taken on an image of fun and relaxation. Sure, some people use it irresponsibly, we are told, but for the most part, people should be allowed the freedom to use it. For those high risk behaviors linked to alcohol, such as drunk driving, we’ll regulate that, but the ownership of alcohol itself, of course, should be open to all adults.

And yet, in the face of this laissez-faire attitude toward drinking, we could offer a host of illustrations of how alcohol is in fact a public safety menace.

Indeed, prior to the 1920s, during the heyday of the temperance movement, alcohol’s image was as anything but a mere benign luxury among a sizable portion of the population.

While many people today assume that the prohibitionists argued along puritanical lines, and emphasized the dangers of moral ruin, the arguments against alcohol were really far more complex than that.

The prohibitionists argued — quite plausibly, mind you — that any number of social ills could be addressed through alcohol prohibition. Chief among these was the fact that many families, including children, were often rendered destitute by the drinking of the male head of the household who was unable to hold down a job due to his addiction. Moreover, cases of child abuse and spousal abuse were clearly connected to alcohol consumption, as were household accidents and accidents on the job.

When breadwinners were killed or injured on the job, or if a drunk spent half his income at a bar on payday, families often ended up on the local dole. Or worse.

And there was a connection to non-domestic violence too. Public drunkenness, bar fights, and the deadly and irresponsible use of guns were connected to drinking as well.

Ironically, back then though, it wasn’t the guns that were seen as the problem (although gun control advocates did exist). For many, the problem was that drunks were irresponsibly using guns and that the common-sense solution was to prevent them from getting drunk.

Guns are Less Deadly than Alcohol

Nowadays, 88,000 deaths per year are attributed to alcohol abuse, and thirty people per day in the United States die in alcohol-related auto accidents. Heavy drinkers are more prone to violence, suicide, and risky sexual behavior.

In fact, if we compare these statistics, we find that alcohol abuse is significantly more deadly and problematic than misuse of guns. There were 36,000 gun-related deaths (including suicides and accidents) in the US in 2013, and as a percentage of all causes of death, alcohol-related deaths are more than twice as common as gun deaths.

What’s more, one-third of gun deaths are alcohol related. Thus, according to prohibitionist logic, we could eliminate one-third of gun-related deaths overnight by prohibiting alcohol consumption. So why aren’t we doing it? If it could save one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?

Most have concluded that saving one life is not, in fact, worth it. In practice, alcohol-related deaths (including those inflicted against third-party victims) are treated very differently than gun-related deaths.

For example, it is clear that alcohol is a central component in the more than 10,000 drunk-driving deaths that occur each year. So, is the response to restrict certain types of alcohol or populations that can buy it? Are background checks instituted to prevent sales to incorrigible drunk drivers? No, the response is to ban how alcohol is used in certain cases.

On the other hand, in response to the 11,000 gun-related murders per year, the prescribed response is to restrict the guns themselves. But, if we were to apply the same logic behind drunk driving bans to gun violence, the only legislation we would be considering would be something along the lines of special penalties for carrying firearms when mentally impaired, on psychotropic drugs, when sight impaired, or in crowded areas where accidents are more likely to affect bystanders. The mere purchase or ownership of guns would not be restricted, just as the purchase or ownership of alcohol is not restricted in response to drunk driving.

Indeed, if we add to drunk driving all the cases of spousal abuse and child abuse and public cases of assault, bar fights, and more, it becomes clear that alcohol is in fact far more damaging to the social fabric than guns have ever been. Once we factor in the harm that alcohol does to the user himself, in terms of health problems, riskier sex, and suicides, the numbers look even worse for alcohol.

Does Prohibition Work?

Now, you might be thinking, “yes, but if gun prohibition works, shouldn’t we try it?” Unfortunately, there are few reasons to believe that it would work, or that the cure would not be worse than the disease.

Mark Thornton illustrated years ago that alcohol prohibition led to more alcohol consumption, and more consumption of harder distilled drinks versus more mild beer and wine beverages. In addition to the complete failure to end the behavior it targeted, Americans also became acquainted with numerous unpleasant side effects of prohibition including more organized crime and more government harassment of peaceful citizens.

Comparing the States

As far as gun prohibition goes, thanks to a diversity of gun laws among the American states, we can compare between gun ownership levels in the states and homicide rates.

And what we find is that there is no correlation between the level of restrictiveness in gun laws and the murder rate. Most recently, Eugene Volokh ran the numbers looking at homicide rates and the so-called Brady Score assigned to states by gun-control advocates. Volokh even provides the data so you can analyze it yourself. (Volokh explains why homicides and not “gun deaths” is the important metric here.)

We can also see that this is quite plausible by simply eyeballing the data if we look at gun restrictions by state and homicide rates. Gun-control advocates like to point to southern states that have both permissive gun laws and high murder rates, such as Alabama and Mississippi. But, even a cursory analysis beyond this cherry-picking shows that there are numerous states with permissive gun laws (such as Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and others) where the murder rate is very low. And states with more restrictive laws, such as Illinois, New York, and California have higher murder rates than numerous states where it is easy to buy a gun.

So, while gun-control advocates press for “common-sense” restrictions, real common sense suggests that gun restrictions cannot explain the prevalence of murder in a state. This means that gun-control advocates are looking at the wrong social statistics to explain the violence.

Reasons Why They Want to Ban Guns and Not Alcohol

But none of this matters when gun violence is being exploited to drive for more state power and more regulation of private citizens. Many gun-control advocates really do believe that government regulation and management can solve every social ill. They ignore the realities behind failed experiments such as alcohol prohibition or the war on drugs, and instead move on to the latest sexy prohibitionist drive because they sense an opportunity to control one more aspect of daily life.

Most everyone accepts that prohibition creates unintended consequences that can be negative, and with alcohol prohibition, these consequences included organized crime and the criminalization of peaceful citizens. Gun-control advocates assert, however, that whatever the downsides of gun control may be, they are minimal compared to the many advantages.

As Murray Rothbard pointed out in For a New Liberty, whether or not you come face to face with those down sides ban depend a lot on your wealth and influence within society. For example, white, middle class people who live in safe suburbs, have influence over local police forces, and can even resort to private security (including alarm systems) see little down side to gun control. After all, they have little reason to fear police or common criminals when they can exercise their well-established political influence at the local level or purchase a home security system with the expectation that police will arrive quickly in case of emergency.

Powerless minorities, on the other hand, face much larger downsides to gun control. For them, police are an unreliable deterrent to local crime, and are little use in cases of social unrest. Many may remember how police in Ferguson, Missouri protected government buildings, but left the rest of the town on its own during the riots there. Local citizens paid for police protection, but got none. And then, of course, there are countless cases of the “proper” authorities using their legal guns against powerless populations, with no resource left to them other than private firearms. Just one example would be the Texas Ranger rampages that followed the so-called Plan de San Diego when the Rangers swept through southern Texas lynching Mexican-Americans who were deemed traitors.

Consequently, some principled leftists, most of whom are radicals, do not subscribe to the dominant gun-control position of the left. But certainly the mainline left, dominated by university intellectuals, government employees, and politicos with nice houses in safe neighborhoods, see few problems associated with centralizing coercive power in the hands of “official” law enforcement.

The downsides of restricting alcohol, however, are plentiful for those who spend many hours at cocktail parties and send their children to booze-soaked elite universities to be paired up with the appropriate social class.

So, until this changes, we ought not expect much of a change in the double standard applied to alcohol and guns in terms of violence, health, and safety. The people who make the laws are quite happy having plenty of booze around. But they can afford to pay someone else to handle the guns for them.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM






Syrian Crisis What Will Happen Next?


10-8-2015 2-27-07 PM

By Brandon Smith

The Syrian crisis and the confluence of clashing interests there was entirely predictable. In fact, I wrote an article on my former website in 2010 outlining the potential for Syria as a high value catalyst for global conflict titled “Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War?”

In it, I summarized the dubious history of wars initiated over the past century, including the nature of false flags and false paradigms created by globalists designed to divide nations and peoples and turn them against each other. This strategy of engineered war (along with engineered economic collapse) has been used time and time again by the elites to artificially generate chaos and then consolidate and centralize power while the masses are blinded by confusion.

Even back then, the problem with Syria seemed obvious:

We have a nuclear armed Israel itching to attack Iran. We have Iran engaged in a defense pact with Syria against Israel. We have Syria with Russian navy bases and weapons on its soil, and we have the U.S. rampaging through the Middle East encroaching on the borders of Pakistan and Yemen, essentially pissing off everyone. What we have is a Globalist made recipe for disaster, using the same ingredients they have used for the last several major wars…

Only a year after I published the piece the civil uprising in Syria began, starting with the “Daraa protest movement”, aided by covert intelligence agencies including the CIA.

In 2012, I decided to reexamine my original theory on Syria as a global catalyst in my article “Syria And Iran Dominoes Lead To World War.”

In that article, I felt it was necessary to summarize trends in the region, where they might lead, and how globalists might exploit each scenario to achieve a false conflict between East and West. I predicted that the entire Syrian insurgency was conjured out of the ether by NATO interests, due to the suspicious nature of the Council On Foreign Relations and their public statements suddenly SUPPORTING Al-Qaida in Syria. U.S. involvement in the funding and training of the organization we now know as ISIS (or al-Qaida 2.0) has been proven.

I predicted that U.S. ground troops would enter Syria. This has happened, though the U.S. government maintains that their role and numbers will be “limited.”

I suggested that once U.S. troops were deployed in any capacity in the region, Iran would join forces with the Syrian government under their already existing mutual defense pact. Today, Iranian troops are entering Syria en masse for combat operations.

I also predicted that U.S. involvement in Syria would eventually elicit a military response from Russia and a financial response from China. Though China has not yet used the conflict as an excuse to accelerate the dumping of U.S. treasuries, Russia is now fully committed to airstrikes and is preparing a ground invasion, possibly exceeding 150,000 troops.

Some developments I suggested in my previous articles have not yet surfaced, though I believe there is more than enough momentum for them to be triggered. For instance, I believe Israel is still the ultimate wild card in the Syrian crisis. A military response from Israel is more than possible, particularly against Iran in retaliation for flooding into the region. Further U.S. involvement, including the greater commitment of major naval assets, is likely. And if the U.S. or Israel escalate, I believe Iran will shut down the Strait of Hormuz, perhaps even with the aid of Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has hinted that Israeli activity in Syrian airspace will be obstructed, and reports of some “near misses” between Russian and Israeli fighters have surfaced.

Currently, U.S. “relations” with Russia are at lows not seen since the Cold War. In the meantime, the globalists have created a perfect storm of conflicting interests that could very well lead to outright world war. That said, there are different brands of warfare. And, as I pointed out five years ago, the elites do not necessarily need the threat of nuclear war to open the door to collapse.

Economic warfare would be just as devastating to many parts of the globe and the U.S. in particular, causing massive population reduction through starvation in the span of a few months while leaving large areas of infrastructure intact. Economic warfare is also a perfect distraction of the public eye away from the crimes of international financiers. Our fiscal structure is already in the middle of an implosion set in motion by deliberately destructive central banking policies. But in the midst of economic warfare, such monetary atrocities can simply be blamed on “the treachery of the East.”  The Syrian debacle makes an economic battle scenario between East and West “believable” for many people around the world.

Still, wider regional warfare of the shooting variety is certainly guaranteed in the near future.

Saudi Arabia has denounced Russian and Iranian involvement in Syria and has increased support to “moderate rebels.” Of course, as we have seen repeatedly in the past couple of years, there are in fact NO moderates in Syria as rebel groups continue to obtain Western money and weapons and then join the ranks of ISIS.

The Saudis have made it clear that they will never accept a situation in which the Assad regime continues to hold power in Syria. They have threatened a military response in the event that Assad gains superiority over the insurgency. Keep in mind that the Saudis have already committed forces to Yemen.

Tensions are also increasing between Saudi Arabia and Iran over Syrian involvement, despite recent Saudi support for the U.S./Iran nuclear deal. The European Council On Foreign Relations has warned that there are now no “mediators for de-escalation” in the region. Of course, this is exactly the way they prefer it.

Turkey is also now a factor, with Turkish officials claiming airspace violations by Russia, and Turkish forces operating in at least a limited capacity in Syria and Iraq.  Syria is a gasoline soaked mess and there are too many potential sparks to keep track of.  The globalists have conjured an environment in which a disastrous domino effect is almost guaranteed.

Another rather unexpected consequence of the Syrian crisis is the now active effort by the elites to initiate a Cloward-Piven strategy using so-called Syrian “refugees” to destabilize the EU and perhaps even the U.S.  Already, the suggested immigration count for such refugees, many of whom are not even from Syria, has risen from 10,000 bound for the U.S. to 100,000.  I believe as the crisis continues to grow this number will be increased to 1 million refugees or more bound for the U.S.  Expect many extremist elements to be shipped into our borders along with them.

It is absolutely imperative to remember regardless of what happens next, almost every element of this crisis has been staged. War and economic despair are the ultimate expedient world-changing tools. They wipe the slate nearly clean, as it were, and mold public perception through fear. That which you thought impossible today becomes rather reasonable tomorrow after crisis takes hold; and this includes the final deconstruction of constitutional values, the militarization of our society, the loss of financial prosperity, the extreme degradation of living standards and the ultimate centralization of everything.

It is also important to realize that there are no sides in this conflict. The East/West paradigm is a sham of epic proportions and always has been. False sides are meant to distract and bewilder the public. They are designed to create counterfeit cross-sections of blame. They are an anathema to truth.

For further and deeper analysis on possible future developments on a global scale please read my articles “The Economic End Game Explained” and “Has America Been Set Up As History’s Ultimate Bumbling Villain?”

The question today is merely one of timing. How long before a negative trigger is introduced? How long before Israeli planes come into contact with Russian or Iranian fighters? How long before U.S. troops come into contact with Russian troops? How long before Israel or Saudi Arabia strike Iran? And if the U.S. backs out completely, how long before the entire dynamic of the Middle East is flipped and America loses petro-status for the dollar? With the speed of events forming a fiscal-political riptide, it is hard to imagine we will be waiting very long to find out.

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Breaking White House Announces Gun Control Executive Orders


10-6-2015 4-44-27 PM

By Joe Otto

This isn’t a drill. The White House just announced that President Obama is preparing new gun control executive orders in response to the Oregon Umpqua community college shooting.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton said during a town hall event that if Congress won’t pass her gun agenda, she will implement it by executive order. Yes, she said she is willing to implement a universal registration program and ban semi-automatic weapons by executive order.

We’ll deal with that witch if and when we need to. But right now, we have a much more serious problem.

It is no coincidence that these executive orders were announced just days after Obama hinted that gun bans and confiscations were the only way to stop mass shootings. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what Obama has in store.

Please, FaxBlast Congress and demand that they stop Obamas radical new gun control executive orders before it is too late!

Our last article created quite a stir. People accused us of lying in saying that Obama wanted gun bans and confiscations. But that is exactly what he is calling for.

He brought up the United Kingdom and Australia as model examples of how gun control can stop mass shootings. Well, guess what? Both countries ended up banning semi-automatic firearms and then having police confiscate the guns. Fact.

This isn’t the first time Obama has evoked Australia as a gun control model. He made the same policy recommendation on a radio show earlier this summer.

We know that this is Obama’s goal. In his eyes, the only way to combat gun violence is to take a large number of guns away from a large number of people. Just like they did in Australia and the United Kingdom. In 1996, Australian police confiscated 650,000 firearms, or roughly 20% of the country’s civilian arsenal at the time. In 1997, Great Britain confiscated 162,000 pistols from licensed gun owners.

Do you know what that means for the United States? If Obama copied Australia and you own five guns, say goodbye to one or more of them and don’t even think of getting your money back. Frankly, Obama’s solution would be to confiscate much more than 20% of the country’s guns.

And now, we have White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest announcing that the push to implement new gun control measures by executive order is on going. This comes on the heels of an announcement that Obama’s new Attorney General Loretta Lynch is also planning to implement new gun control regulations. All this is happening behind the scenes.

This President works around the clock to infringe on your Second Amendment rights. The wheel of gun control never stops turning. Aside from death and taxes, new gun control is the only other constant in Obama’s America.

Don’t let Obama implement any more unconstitutional gun control executive orders! Demand that Congress halt this tyrant in his tracks!

I know that there are tons of things going on that grab your attention on a given day. Especially with politics, there are dozens of battles being fought at any given time.

I know that. But this is literally a matter of life and death.

If Obama gets his way and is allowed to implement his gun control executive order, there is no doubt that law-abiding Americans will be disarmed.

Obama’s plan is completely unconstitutional but we cannot afford to just wait for the courts to rule on this. Congress must intervene and put a stop to this and the only way that happens is if you demand it.

The President is counting on the majority of Americans not paying attention. That is the only way to sneak his gun control through. But now that you know, you have a responsibility and obligation to do something about it!

Please, FaxBlast Congress and demand that they stop Obama’s radical new gun control executive orders before it is too late!


There is nothing worse than having to write these articles. The day after a mass shooting, the last thing we want to do is get dragged into the fight for our gun rights.

Today should be a time to heal and a time to learn what exactly happened. But instead, Obama is more interested in calling for even more gun control.

You see, the Oregon shooter got all of his guns legally from gun stores, meaning that background checks were performed. And even though he had an AR-15 on him, he only fired his pistol during the shooting. None of the Democrats’ gun control proposals would have stopped this.

It never ceases to amaze me how liberal politicians can come up gun control proposals before we even learn how the scumbag shooter got his gun. We didn’t even know the suspect’s name and Barack Obama was already in front of a microphone saying that this is why we need universal background checks.

I guess he forgot that Oregon has mandatory background checks for all gun purchases…

In his speech, Obama said that there are ways to stop these shootings and he turned to the United Kingdom and Australia as examples of what we should do. Both those countries confiscated their citizens’ firearms.

Yes. Obama just said he wants to confiscate the nation’s firearms.

Obama wants to confiscate your firearms! Tell Congress to STOP all of Obama’s anti-gun agenda!

Here’s Obama’s statement from earlier in the week:

“We know other countries in response to one mass shooting have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours, Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

Yes, we know what they did. They used police to confiscate the guns. The Australians reduced gun crime by seizing 1 million legally owned firearms and destroying them. For years, Democrats have been saying that they have no interest in taking away anyone’s guns. Surprise! That’s what they’ve wanted all along!

But what if I told you Obama was already hard at work implementing a confiscation program?

Here’s some of the programs that the Obama administration has tried to implement in the last year…

– The VA has been caught red-handed trying to confiscate veterans’ firearms without cause or due process.

– The Social Security Administration copied the VA’s program and began implementing a program to disarm elderly Americans.

– The ATF tried to ban a type of ammunition used in AR-15 rifles, the most popular gun in America.

– Obama administration officials have teamed up the United Nations to implement the UN Arms Trade Treaty on US soil.

None of these stories really made it into any of the major newspapers or news shows. But now, the goal is unavoidable.

The Obama administration is coming for your guns and he is calling on Congress to keep confiscation on the table!

Obama wants to confiscate your firearms! Tell Congress to STOP all of Obama’s anti-gun agenda!

Listen, we don’t get to pick our battles with this. The price of liberty and maintaining the Second Amendment is eternal vigilance.

When Obama was interviewed earlier this year, he said that the biggest regret of his Presidency was not being able to disarm the American people.

YOU helped make that happen! That’s because you fought tooth and nail against every gun control measure that came down the pike.

Well, I am asking you to answer this call once again to defend the Second Amendment!

Obama wants to confiscate your firearms! Tell Congress to STOP all of Obama’s anti-gun agenda!



Joe Otto

Conservative Daily

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Deal Reached, Tell Congress To Vote NAY!


The John Birch Society News-letter

On Monday, October 5, 2015, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman announced that the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations have finally reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). “We, the trade ministers of Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam are pleased to announce that we have successfully concluded the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation,” said U.S. Trade Representative Froman at the Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministerial Press Conference, held in Atlanta, Georgia.

With a consensus now reached among the 12 participatory TPP nations, a final official text of the TPP is soon expected to be drafted prior to reaching lawmakers. According to Congressional Quarterly (CQ), “Officials still have to draft and review what they have agreed in principle.”

Although CQ also states that “Congress is likely to vote on the agreement in early 2016,” Congressional lawmakers could in fact vote on the agreement as early as this year (2015) pending how quickly the final TPP text is drafted and subsequently transmitted to Congress. The New York Times estimates that the “full 30-chapter text will not be available for perhaps a month.”

Congress’ narrow passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or “fast track” earlier this year, ensures an expedited up-or-down vote without debate or amendment for the final TPP agreement.

As The New American magazine noted in an online article, posted on March 31, 2015, about WikiLeaks unauthorized release of key chapters of the TPP agreement, one of the most obviously objectionable portions of the TPP texts is the outrageous assertion that the documents remain secret even after they are finally passed! The New American reported:
Not only are the negotiations being conducted in secrecy, and not only are the TPP text documents being withheld from the public and the public’s elected representatives, but even more outrageous is the effort by the TPP negotiators to keep the agreement (or at least certain portions of the agreement and the negotiating process) secret for four years after it goes into effect!
Chapter 2 of the TPP text begins the following classification notice:
Derived from: Classification Guidance
dated March 4, 2010
Reason: 1.4(b)
Declassify on: Four years from entry into
force of the TPP agreement or,
if no agreement enters into
force, four years from the close
of the negotiations.

This document must be protected from
unauthorized disclosure, but may be mailed or
transmitted over unclassified e-mail or fax,
discussed over unsecured phone lines, and
stored on unclassified computer systems. It
must be stored in a locked or secured building,
room, or container.

Despite Froman’s announcement of a final TPP accord reached, its text is likely to remain classified from the American public for several years even after they have been passed by Congress. Although the full contents of what has been agreed to may not become known for several years, we already do know some of the provisions contained in the insidious anti-sovereignty TPP agreement thanks to the courageousness of certain statesmen who have read the agreement.

After visiting the secret reading room where a draft copy of the TPP is housed, in Congress, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alab.) wrote an open letter to President Obama, inquiring and warning about how the TPP “creates a new transnational governance structure known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission.” Of the secretive proposed TPP Commission, Sen. Sessions further elaborated and likening it the European Union (EU), “The details of this new governance commission are extremely broad and have the hallmarks of a nascent European Union, with many similarities.”

The governing executive body of the EU is the European Commission (EC). And like the TPP, the EU also began as an ostensibly simple trade agreement known as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952, established by the Treaty of Paris the previous year.

Considering the rapid growth and transformation of the ECSC into the supranational entity that the EU is today, we dare not take Senator Sessions’ concerns lightly. Henceforth, it is imperative that we put a stop to it by contacting our congressional lawmakers and urge them to oppose final passage of the TPP.

Please phone your representative (202-225-3121) and senators (202-224-3121) in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which would abrogate U.S. national sovereignty and independence to a supranational EU-style Trans-Pacific Union.

Click here to send an editable pre-written email to your representative and senators and urge them to oppose and vote NAY on passage of the final TPP agreement.


From Your Friends at The John Birch Society


Only an atom bomb could do more damage to America. So get your complacent ass on the phone!


2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM